Gun laws.

[The_Major]

Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

I entirely agree with you about educating kids about firearms. A lot of kids around here are constantly getting arrested and done with ASBO's and some even end up in juvie. A lot of them now are carrying knives which worried me even more. They just don't have the slightest clue at all. And it's idiots like them that make me and other responsible weapon owners look bad. It also seems to give those who are against something to preach to you about.

Although I may not nor have I ever belonged to any military outfit, I'm more than capable of using guns as I too have grown up around them. I also have a Shotgun Licence and I'm applying for a Firearms certificate pretty soon. Plus they're a part of my job also, my father is a Gamekeeper and I'm his assistant somewhat.

But it is very difficult for anyone here in the UK to get a licence due to a mass of restrictions which sprung up after the handgun ban. We get frequent checks from the local Firearms Officer who is a very nice man I must say, who helps us with all the processes included with owning, buying, selling and storage of our guns.

And before I stop, I have to say I'm a girl. And damn proud that I'm a good shot! ^_^

 

[werepossum]

Get better public healthcare and education, going with a Swedish or Norwegian approach. Free education, and free healthcare if you need it (if you break your leg you're going to need help no matter what kind of health insurance program you've selected, and if you can pay then great, if not, you still need help, and you get it). With free education comes oppurtunity, oppurtunity for something better. Something other than selling drugs and shooting rival gangs.

I'd also stop waging wars all around the word until I had my own country under control. Not before citizens of my own country can feel safe and sound, can walk the streets without fearing for their lives can I offer safety to other countries, especially not in a violent way. There's a good quote in the bible, one of few good ones in that book, (and one that many of the people reading it could really take more to heart) "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?". I find it pretty appropriate in regard to Americas war on terror, everyone in the country is afraid, and not very safe. How can you offer safety to the rest of the world then? And yes, not it actually turned much from gun laws and into America, but still.

So how is it that when France and Great Britain needed help regaining and maintaining their freedom from Nazi Germany they turned to evil, Bible-thumping, homicidal America where everyone is afraid (not to mention Russia!) and not to enlightened Sweden with its sane, well-educated people and its effective gun laws? How is it that enlightened Sweden helped Nazi Germany with steel and other raw materials, and gave them transport to invade Norway, whereas the poor terrified and victimized Americans fought them tooth and nail? Could it be that (gasp) freedom, even with all its warts, might in the end be worth more than prosperity?

If you think your country is the greatest in the world, fine. If you think its laws and customs should be enforced worldwide, fine. If you think our Constitution is outdated and should be thrown out, fine. If you think the Bible is a useless musty old book, fine. You have the right to be an ignorant asshole if that's your desire. After all, American and British and Canadian and Australian and Indian and French and Polish soldiers fought and died to keep that right for you. Maybe they should have stopped by and told you they were fighting for freedom and liberty and not for free health care; I suppose they thought it was understood.

Maybe when the terrorists show up at Sweden's door, they'll settle for a ride into Norway. Personally I think a country should do something more when confronted by evil than roll over and show its belly, but hey, maybe that's just me.

 

[Robertbobby91]

more guns. Teh end.

The domino theory didn't work for communism and it doesn't work for shoot-everyone-omg.

If everyone had a gun, you don't shoot, because you know what would happen.

It's the Tesla way of life.

 

[Silver]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

I must ask if I'm the only one that sees the difference here. I can't be. To me there is a huge difference between arming yourself with a non-lethal weapon (that yes, can prove deadly under the wrong circumstances) and confront criminals in your own home than to arm yourself with a lethal weapon (try to shoot someone with a bloody shotgun and make them survive if you're using live ammo) and walk out the door to confront criminals that were inside your neighbour's house after a police officer has told you repetitively to not to that. If no one agrees with me that the situation is completely different I will shut up about it (and probably be really fucking scared).

You say a law cannot grant someone right to live if you're not allowed to defend yourself. I have no problem with defending oneself for a legitimate reason. Running out the door to confront two criminals is in my eyes pushing it way beyond that. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a gun and you defend yourself, accidently killing that person in the process, if you're taken hostage and threatened to your life, sure. If someone pulls a gun on you inside your own house, yes. But when you put yourself at risk by getting involved in something that isn't your business (a police officer telling you to not getting involved several times makes it bloody well not your business) that's fucking pushing things. If I walked up and punched a person with a gun in the face I would fear for my life. Killing that person then still isn't right, even thought I'm technically defending myself (if my intent was to just punch that person and then walk away). Sure, I'm still in for assault, but the murder is okay, or what?

I also think you misunderstood my take on liberty but that's not for this thread. It wouldn't give the government any obscene amounts of power.


T.H.O.R., Scandinavia is in Europe


Werepossum, you misunderstand. I don't think Sweden is a great country, I'm by no means a patriot. I think it's an awful country, that has commited horrendous acts of inhumanity. I don't however think that what Sweden did in the second world war was wrong. Especially not since Sweden was the country to take in most of the refugees that sought a safe place to live. Swedens military at that time would have been able to hold out for about 1 hour. BUT in doing so they would have endangered many, hundreds of civilian's lives. They would also have endangered the welfare of the country, the living standards of the people living here. Sacrificing hundreds of soldiers, civilians, and resources in a futile fight is not something I condone, not when it can be avoided. If I would have been in charge I would have done the same. DESPITE this, if I had the choice of a location in the world to live today it would most likely be Sweden, because even thought it's not perfect, it's not what I would want, it is better than many of the alternatives.

This doesn't mean I think what the Nazis did was right, I think they should be opposed as much as possible, but only when that isn't a futile sacrifice of life. A token resistance that only costs the lives of the ones they oppose is not something I condone. You might think that dying for one's country and sending people to die for one's country is okay, even if nothing happens and the country get's overrun anyway. I don't believe in fighting if you don't have a chance to win, or if not win, then at least help the situation for the better. Fighting just for the sake of it, and sacrificing a lot of lives for no result doesn't go well in my book.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

 

[T.H.O.R]

T.H.O.R., Scandinavia is in Europe

Sorry I misunderstood the interpretation there. Whenever someone says something about being part of Europe, they generally imply that we use the Euro, and have some sort of governmental tie to Britain. And that's not the case. I'm used to dealing with your typical everyday American Joe that honestly doesn't know the difference between Europe, and Britain.

 

[Robertbobby91]

why would a dangerous person risk it if everyone owned a gun?

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

I'm kinda surprised by many people's train of thought on this issue. Honestly, if I was going to kill someone, really gonna do it, then I would do it, with or out without a gun in my hand. It is just a tool and should not be viewed as anything more or less. To point the finger at guns is childish to say the least. If you fell down on the playground and hurt your knee on the slide, do you blame the slide? Children think like that because they cannot find the emotions or reason to blame themselves for messing up.


^_^

 

[Mathurin]

I must ask if I'm the only one that sees the difference here. I can't be. To me there is a huge difference between arming yourself with a non-lethal weapon (that yes, can prove deadly under the wrong circumstances) and confront criminals in your own home than to arm yourself with a lethal weapon (try to shoot someone with a bloody shotgun and make them survive if you're using live ammo) and walk out the door to confront criminals that were inside your neighbour's house after a police officer has told you repetitively to not to that. If no one agrees with me that the situation is completely different I will shut up about it (and probably be really fucking scared).

I have always said the situations were different, but where you see the atlantic ocean I see the english channels worth of difference.

Horn did not have less-than lethal ammunition available. I am fuzzy on american law in this respect but I think that the US law still considers a shotgun loaded with bean bags to be lethal force, so legally there would be no difference.
Ask the guy that Cheney shot how to survive a shotgun blast, with birdshot at least.


You place a great deal of weight on "other peoples house"


A criminal is engaged in a criminal activity, you have a safe place and have called the police, is exiting that safe place with a weapon in order to confront the criminal a bad thing to do?
Please answer this with some directness.

I believe this reasonably describes both situations, I am trying to discover what exactly about the difference you have a problem with.
If THOR had been forced to kill 2 of the criminals (who were apparently armed, even though the nation has gun control)would you still think his actions were justifiable.
Is a person only allowed to confront criminals on their own property, or in defense of their own property?

You say a law cannot grant someone right to live if you're not allowed to defend yourself. I have no problem with defending oneself for a legitimate reason. Running out the door to confront two criminals is in my eyes pushing it way beyond that. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a gun and you defend yourself, accidently killing that person in the process, if you're taken hostage and threatened to your life, sure. If someone pulls a gun on you inside your own house, yes. But when you put yourself at risk by getting involved in something that isn't your business (a police officer telling you to not getting involved several times makes it bloody well not your business) that's fucking pushing things.

A dispatcher told him, a dispatcher is a police officer in diapers, he was under no obligation to do what the dispatcher told him. He was watching a crime in progress, he confronted 2 criminals.
what should those criminals have done?
They should have run away, if he shoots them then it is a crime
they should have surrendered, if he shoots them it is a crime
Instead they attacked, allowing him to defend his own life, and while defending his life he killed them.

If he had hit one in the chest and he was still alive, yet horn walked over and blasted him again as he lay on the ground, that is illegal.

If a cop had behaved exactly as this person did, then you would think nothing of it
Why hold citizens to a higher standard

If I walked up and punched a person with a gun in the face I would fear for my life. Killing that person then still isn't right, even thought I'm technically defending myself (if my intent was to just punch that person and then walk away). Sure, I'm still in for assault, but the murder is okay, or what?

This is stretching
You created a situation.
Now, if you are in a fistfight and someone pulls a deadly weapon, then yeah, you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Nobody said it wouldnt be a hairy law, thats why we have courts, nothing is ever clear cut in the law.

I also think you misunderstood my take on liberty but that's not for this thread. It wouldn't give the government any obscene amounts of power.

Well, as far as i am concerned, most european government already have obscene power, their citizens have traded personal liberty for wealth, safety, and protection from commerce, they just havent noticed it yet.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

uuuuhhhh

not sure what you are talking about here, but pre-WWII US military sucked, it was undermanned and under supplied, so unless the discussion is about the cold war then you are wrong.

 

[werepossum]

Werepossum, you misunderstand. I don't think Sweden is a great country, I'm by no means a patriot. I think it's an awful country, that has commited horrendous acts of inhumanity. I don't however think that what Sweden did in the second world war was wrong. Especially not since Sweden was the country to take in most of the refugees that sought a safe place to live. Swedens military at that time would have been able to hold out for about 1 hour. BUT in doing so they would have endangered many, hundreds of civilian's lives. They would also have endangered the welfare of the country, the living standards of the people living here. Sacrificing hundreds of soldiers, civilians, and resources in a futile fight is not something I condone, not when it can be avoided. If I would have been in charge I would have done the same. DESPITE this, if I had the choice of a location in the world to live today it would most likely be Sweden, because even thought it's not perfect, it's not what I would want, it is better than many of the alternatives.

This doesn't mean I think what the Nazis did was right, I think they should be opposed as much as possible, but only when that isn't a futile sacrifice of life. A token resistance that only costs the lives of the ones they oppose is not something I condone. You might think that dying for one's country and sending people to die for one's country is okay, even if nothing happens and the country get's overrun anyway. I don't believe in fighting if you don't have a chance to win, or if not win, then at least help the situation for the better. Fighting just for the sake of it, and sacrificing a lot of lives for no result doesn't go well in my book.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

America was ranked seventeenth in Army strength in 1933. We demobilized heavily and rapidly after the Great War, because America was (and somewhat remains) fundamentally isolationist. Until we began to arm again in 1936 - when it became apparent to many that we would have war with Japan and possibly with Germany - the US Army was regularly under 100,000 even though it was legally allowed up to 125,000 enlisted. Not even three full divisions could be stood up and armed. US military expenditures were extraordinarily low, and our arms were sadly out of date. (One reason we were able to arm with the superior M-1 rifle is because we had so few existing modern rifles.) Our machine guns were outdated, our armor was outdated and almost nonexistent, our cavalry was almost entirely horse - only our Navy and Air Corps were even close to being in the same class as Japan or Germany, France or Britain and its empire.

Great Britain's empire was only marginally threatened, but it came to the aid of Poland, France, and Belgium and fought Germany and Italy largely by itself because it was the right thing to do. America came late - but we DID come, and took over a million casualties. Great Britain and the Commonwealth (primarily Canada, Australia, India, and Scotland) fought Germany almost to a standstill even when France and Belgium unexpectedly caved. Sweden was small, true - but more than twice the size of Denmark. Denmark fought its heart out, and in my opinion at least is a better country for it. Had Sweden - the source of much of Germany's weapons steel - and Norway and Finland stood with Great Britain, there would probably have been no need for American involvement in Europe at all, and certainly not if France and Belgium had had the guts to fight even knowing they might well lose.

My point is not particularly to condemn Sweden, but rather to point out that the policies you profess - non-violence, disarmament, unwillingness to address evil - are a microcosm of the same policies that led Sweden to its reality of becoming Germany's satellite state. Had Germany won the war, do you doubt Sweden would have been no more than a province of Germany? Similarly, a man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature. An armed society may be more dangerous than a completely disarmed society, if such can exist, but being armed allows a man (or woman) to be on roughly equal terms with a criminal. Put another way, the average man or woman armed with a baseball bat is easy prey to a dozen thugs with baseball bats, but the average man or woman armed with a 12 ga Remington 1100 is probably going to be left alone by a dozen thugs with 12 ga Remington 1100s. Guns are the great equalizer between criminal and victim.

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil. Small countries that will not stand together against evil can be easily gobbled up a bite at a time; small countries that fight (e.g. Denmark - or Israel) may still be gobbled up, but at least cause a bit of discomfort and bleed the aggressor's strength. Poland fought for a month with wooden lances and bolt-action rifles against tanks and machine guns, knowing they were going to lose but giving their lives trying to hold onto freedom. Having lost their freedom for decades at a time, you won't find a country that more appreciates freedom's worth. Freedom is messy and dangerous to all concerned whether it's people or countries, and I still very much prefer it.

 

[T.H.O.R]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Copter400]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

Copter: there is no 'equation', there is cold reality. In the UK, banning handguns caused gun violence to double. Banning handguns in Jamaica led to out of control gun violence. Enacting more restrictive gun laws in Hawaii resulted in a sharp increase in violent crime.

Think about Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Now imagine that with handguns instead of alcohol or drugs.

I would like to see some evidence. In Australia, where we do have strict gun control, you rarely hear about violent shootouts.

 

[werepossum]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree. Good and Evil are in the eyes of G-d. How clearly the beholder distinguishes them is of course dependent on human failings - we have a disturbing tendency to attribute to G-d a desire for us to have our way.

 

[T.H.O.R]

Well you only disagree in theory. Given that you believe that there is a higher power which decides what is good or evil. Thus you follow a group of people that hold a similar ideal of Good and evil, whereas a different group of people with different ideals may or may not feel that something completely different designates what's good, and what's evil.

Thus, in full circle, eye of the beholder. Let's not bring religion into it. I think it's safer to say, that "my group of people believe _____" than "Deity X" and "Deity Z"

 

[Silver]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree. Good and Evil are in the eyes of G-d. How clearly the beholder distinguishes them is of course dependent on human failings - we have a disturbing tendency to attribute to G-d a desire for us to have our way.

Sure. But since no one can know what you're god wants or not, it's still subjective. Some people celebrate when homosexuals kill in Gods name, others kill in Gods name. I hope you don't. But still it shows that even God is subjective.

"Great Britain's empire was only marginally threatened, but it came to the aid of Poland, France, and Belgium and fought Germany and Italy largely by itself because it was the right thing to do. America came late - but we DID come, and took over a million casualties. Great Britain and the Commonwealth (primarily Canada, Australia, India, and Scotland) fought Germany almost to a standstill even when France and Belgium unexpectedly caved. Sweden was small, true - but more than twice the size of Denmark. Denmark fought its heart out, and in my opinion at least is a better country for it. Had Sweden - the source of much of Germany's weapons steel - and Norway and Finland stood with Great Britain, there would probably have been no need for American involvement in Europe at all, and certainly not if France and Belgium had had the guts to fight even knowing they might well lose.

My point is not particularly to condemn Sweden, but rather to point out that the policies you profess - non-violence, disarmament, unwillingness to address evil - are a microcosm of the same policies that led Sweden to its reality of becoming Germany's satellite state. Had Germany won the war, do you doubt Sweden would have been no more than a province of Germany? Similarly, a man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature. An armed society may be more dangerous than a completely disarmed society, if such can exist, but being armed allows a man (or woman) to be on roughly equal terms with a criminal. Put another way, the average man or woman armed with a baseball bat is easy prey to a dozen thugs with baseball bats, but the average man or woman armed with a 12 ga Remington 1100 is probably going to be left alone by a dozen thugs with 12 ga Remington 1100s. Guns are the great equalizer between criminal and victim."

No, but as I said, you would have no problem sacrificing others or have others suffer because of your fight against evil. I don't think Swedens maybe 1000 soldiers would have made any difference. The only difference it would have made would be a lot of Swedes killed, many of them not soldiers. A damn lot more of the jewish refugees killed, and Germany having even greater supplies of steel.

Your other example is just as wrong. "A man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature."

That I agree with, however I also think that a man who is willing to put his families lives on the line, who is willing to sacrifice his neighbours and risk their families is just as miserable.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

Copter: there is no 'equation', there is cold reality. In the UK, banning handguns caused gun violence to double. Banning handguns in Jamaica led to out of control gun violence. Enacting more restrictive gun laws in Hawaii resulted in a sharp increase in violent crime.

Think about Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Now imagine that with handguns instead of alcohol or drugs.

I would like to see some evidence. In Australia, where we do have strict gun control, you rarely hear about violent shootouts.

Amazing what a few hundred kilometers of open ocean can do for the nanny state, isn't it? Here in the states we have lots of guns and porous borders. Every city or state that enacts stricter gun laws experiences an increase in violent crime or at least a lower decrease in the rate, where it is going down nationwide. The NRA has good stats if you want to go to their site.

Look at the criminal life.
Advantages: Good money with little effort. Lots of free time.
Disadvantages: Might get shot. Might go to prison.

To an honest citizen, gun banning laws present the choice of being unprotected or possibly going to prison. Since going to prison is not normally a hazard of being an honest citizen, gun banning laws increase the chance of negative consequences either way he acts. The only benefit to the honest citizen is if he is stupid enough to make shooting himself a possibility or if he is violent enough to shoot a loved one but too lazy to knife or club them.

By denying honest citizens the right to be armed, gun banning laws reduce the criminal's chance of being shot whilst not materially increasing his chance of going to prison, since criminal activities will send him to prison just like carrying a gun. He can even opt to carry a knife or club rather than a gun when committing crimes against people he's pretty sure can't physically hurt him, thereby lowering his potential prison time even further.

Gun bans are therefore a win-win for criminals, barring a convenient ocean barrier on all sides.

Booze Zombie - there are valid reasons to shoot someone other than fearing he has a gun. Women for instance are not particularly fond of being raped, neither sex is generally fond of being beaten or robbed, and being strangled, knifed, or set on fire is usually low on the list of preferences as well. Does it not occur to you that someone willing to rob or rape you might not mind killing you too? If that's your logic, you don't need to disarm the rest of society to keep yourself safe. Carry a blackjack and whenever you feel threatened, just piss your pants and knock yourself out. By your logic your assailant won't feel threatened and will have no reason to hurt you. You alone will be safe amid an army of walking dead men! All will marvel at your cleverness! (From upwind of course.)

As to police - if they can't stop violent crime now, why would they be able to to stop it if law-abiding citizens are disarmed? The idea of prohibiting something to me for fear someone else will steal it is rather foolish, for if you can't stop him from stealing it from me how can you stop him from obtaining it elsewhere? (Again, absent a convenient ocean barrier on all sides. In that case I suppose you could legitimately put yourself at the mercy of criminals and government in order to get a less well-armed criminal, although it still seems like a poor trade-off to me.)

 

[werepossum]

Sure. But since no one can know what you're god wants or not, it's still subjective. Some people celebrate when homosexuals kill in Gods name, others kill in Gods name. I hope you don't. But still it shows that even God is subjective.

Actually that proves man is subjective in his interpretation of G-d.

No, but as I said, you would have no problem sacrificing others or have others suffer because of your fight against evil. I don't think Swedens maybe 1000 soldiers would have made any difference. The only difference it would have made would be a lot of Swedes killed, many of them not soldiers. A damn lot more of the jewish refugees killed, and Germany having even greater supplies of steel.

Your other example is just as wrong. "A man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature."

That I agree with, however I also think that a man who is willing to put his families lives on the line, who is willing to sacrifice his neighbours and risk their families is just as miserable.

Sweden was no longer a great power, but certainly had more than 1,000 soldiers and could have easily raised more than 60,000 soldiers, enough to do a great deal of damage and delay to Germany. Sweden had itself learned with Finland and Norway that smaller armies on their own territory can have a disproportionate affect and can even prevail. Had it been only Sweden and Germany, then certainly Sweden would have had no chance, but Sweden would not have been fighting alone, and Germany could not have brought anything like its full strength against Sweden. And there's no reason Germany would have had more steel; had Sweden fought, Germany would have been forced to occupy it, tying up large numbers of soldiers, for at best no more steel than Sweden willingly gave. Certainly Denmark and Poland and the Netherlands never became net positives for the German war effort, they were always drains of men and effort for poor yields of materials. There's no reason that Sweden should have been any different. Denmark's 8,000 Jews would have had to flee in another direction, none of which were very hospitable, but they'd have had a lot more warning had Sweden fought than they did.

As to the other, I can't imagine throwing my family on the mercy of the nation that killed twenty million Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, Gypsies, and other persons they considered undesirable, nor on the mercy of criminals, on the grounds that they might be killed if I fight. We don't even have enough common ground to argue, so I think we shall have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

You know all this talk about Sweeden and Germany is really a bit off...
All that matters to me is that my state isn't going to ban firearms till the 2nd coming of Christ, which means that no one is going to be taking my guns.

 

[hughball]

well lets face it no one should really be allowed fire arms until we evolve some form of defence against them.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I'm kinda surprised by many people's train of thought on this issue. Honestly, if I was going to kill someone, really gonna do it, then I would do it, with or out without a gun in my hand. It is just a tool and should not be viewed as anything more or less. To point the finger at guns is childish to say the least. If you fell down on the playground and hurt your knee on the slide, do you blame the slide? Children think like that because they cannot find the emotions or reason to blame themselves for messing up.


^_^

but isn't that subscribing to the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mode of thought?

If guns are just a tool, surely its ok to give them to each and every person, criminals and psychopaths included?

Its all well and good to try and 'see past guns' but is that an example of wisdom or ignorance?

Your right in saying that people are the problem, but if they are the problem should we be outfitting said problem with firearms? thats like leaving oil in the path of a fire because you intend to let it burn its way through anything anyway. Leaving guns in the hands of potential killers is out of apathy or an intention not to try and stop those killings in the first place.

Im guessing your not murderous so apathy is the only logical conclusion.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

well lets face it no one should really be allowed fire arms until we evolve some form of defence against them.

Its called another gun.