Printable View
OK. Well, I admit, it is kind of a hard line comment and I don't even really agree with it myself. I was really trying to make a point and I'm not doing a very good job tonight for some reason.
But I think you just made it for me. Guns aren't the answer. That's really my point - not where people choose to work. Thanks for the back up :)
After 9/11 we had no privacy in Germany. long lines waiting to get searched going on post. Basically it was annoying, but if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. I mean, I understand some things you have might be personal and embarassing in nature, but still legal. But a little embarassment when a cop finds a dildo in your pocket is not nearly the sacrifice a person makes losing their life to someone.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
I for one, would support such a move, i've no problem being searched. Of course, I don't carry a gun, a knife or drugs in my pockets...:rolleyes:
:confused: I thought you were a seppo? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
After 9/11 we had no privacy in Germany.
I am. I was stationed in Germany from 98 until this January.
Ahhh.... I see....
But you're right - a little inconvenience is worth it I reckon. :)
I cannot vouch for the truth of the stories, but I have heard it said that in certain states (Colorado & Texas, for example), mugging is an almost nonexistent crime.
In those states, a large percentage of the population carry guns. A criminal who makes a living by mugging requires two or more victims per week, since he can only average $50 to $100 per victim. This means 100 or more muggings per year. In less than a year he runs into an armed victim and that is the end of his career.
According to the stories I heard when traveling in those states, other violent crimes occur at about the same per capita frequency as in other states, but street muggings are way below the national average.
True? I do not know. Plausible? Pehaps.
BTW: A major problem with our gun laws is lack of enforcement. Not too long ago, a Chicago investigative reporter discovered an individual buying guns and importing them into Chicago for sale at huge profits to criminals. The reporter had no trouble getting the data for his story, but the law enforcement people never tried to interfere with this type of activity.
It has bothered me for a long time that inability to deal with criminals and pranksters causes encroachment on my rights.
When I was a teenager, I and all my friends had firecrackers. The first 3-4 cars I owned had a spot light, which was a handy accessory. I also had a WW2 carbine and a German Luger. I used to have a Bowie Knife in a sheath, which I used for whittling and as a tool. I never took a gun to school, but nobody objected to the Bowie knife.
Due to stupid people who injured themselves and others, fireworks are no longer legal without a permit and scads of red tape. Due to irresponsible teens, spot lights are no longer legal. It was easier to pass a law against them than to bother catching the teens who pointed then at oncoming cars and into picture windows. As an adult, I would probably be in trouble carrying a Bowie knife, and no way could a student take one to school. I do not own a gun anymore, because the red tape is too much of a hassle to bother with.
Another pleasure I miss is feeding bears in Yellow Stone Park. There was a time when animals were allowed near the areas frequented by tourists. Mainly due to idiots who got injured, the animals are now kept far from most tourists.
They keep passing laws to make the world safer, but it just is not as much fun as it used to be. I wish they would allow fools to suffer for their folly, and do a better job of enforcement to stop activities harmful to others. Instead we get more and more laws cutting down on the activities allowed to responsible people.
I guess I haven't really been clear. If the vast majority of people were level headed and rational then just about everything should be legal because there would be no need for laws. All we would need are warnings to protect people from unforeseen dangers.
Unfortunately, the average person isn't all that bright.
Here are a few things to think about:
* I don't remember who said it, but it makes a lot of sense. "By definition, half the population is dumber than average." Scarey, huh?
* We pay whiney athletes millions of dollars, but a teacher gets $30,000/year. Some make a more, but it's not much.
* Alcohol in involved in a large number of crimes and fatalities, is a mind-altering substance, yet is legal. People continually get killed by other people who are under the influence of alcohol.
We do not live in a rational world.
guv, what the hell do you need to carry guns and knives around for any way? Surely the life of an innocent person is more valuable than your hunting trips? :rolleyes:
I'm all for giving people access to nuclear weapons as long as they promise not to destroy small cities. :rolleyes:
We have gun control laws over here. No-one is allowed to have guns without a government dispensed license.
You have to take several tests (including one at the firing range).
It's similar to getting your drivers license.
The number of people dying from gunshots is almost zero (on a population of over 10 million people)
The only accidents that occur are organised crimes gangs, the rest of us can't even get to a gun and certainly not schoolgoers.
If a store gets robbed police is alerted and they commence the chase. No-one in his right mind is going to fight the robber armed with a gun or knive.
As someone here said: common sense is the keyword.
Oh good- wouldn't want the crazies missing their target now, would we? :rolleyes: :pQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
You have to take several tests (including one at the firing range).
Well, you have to remember. In Belgium, if they shoot at you and miss, they'll hit some other country. :)
very droll :p
The point is that you can't buy or own guns that easily in Belgium.
Virtually no-one has a gun in the house and those who have, have a permit.
With gun fatalities of less than 5 a year on a population of 10 million I think we are doing a pretty good job, dontcha think ?
Sounds like you're doing better than a fine job. I still couldn't resist making the comment though :) Just playing.
Just to hold this thread on-topic:
I just heared on news that the gunman was member of a shooting club and so legal owner of riffles. They also said that he had more than 500 rounds of ammunition. It's the worst school massacre in our country and I can't imagine what had happend when he has not shot himself.
At all:
Owning a gun means using this gun -- maybe against human beings. And I don't think that a gun for protection is an advantage. When you try to protect yourself and aim at the "bad guy" he had surely shot at you because he knows better than you how to use a gun.
Since we have had strict gun control (including gun clubs) in the UK there have been no incidents of this sort in the UK. Serveral with Samuri swords (who are generally disarmed within minutes with little harm to anyone) etc but no guns massacres.Quote:
Originally posted by Guv
I thought we Americans had a monopoly on this sort of craziness.
BTW: Gun control does not stop this sort of nut. It might stop other types of tragedies, but not criminals or crazies.
I thought Germany had strict gun control laws, and not many guns in the hands of private citizens.
The point isn't to protect society from you Guv - its to protect society from the tiny number of marginalized individuals (crazies) that do this sort of thing. I don't believe that we are at a stage where we can distinguish these from normal citizens prior to their crimes.
I see it says
"People wanting to buy a hunting rifle must undergo checks that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a member of a club and obtain a license from the police. "
These are the sort of gun laws that we used to have and still get this sort of problem. Now that our gun laws are stricter and there are no problems.
I speak as a former gun club member who thinks that gun clubs have forfeited their right to use fullbore firearms by their inability to take responsiblity as organizations for their actions (including securing weapons, controling/selecting their members in a way that avoids disaster etc.)
I read some time ago that almost 10 million Germans are allowed to carry weapons. I can hardly believe it! Is this true?Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
I speak as a former gun club member who thinks that gun clubs have forfeited their right to use fullbore firearms by their inability to take responsiblity as organizations for their actions (including securing weapons, controling/selecting their members in a way that avoids disaster etc.)
Germany already has very strict gun laws, and possession of pump guns will still be possible, even after the new law.
They were often used in competitions with clay pigeon shootings.
But even if you would forbid all these sorts of weapons it would be no problem at all for someone who really wants it to get an
AK assault riffle, grenades or even worse weapons because there is a hell of a flood of illegal weapons. I imagine it it harder to smuggle weapons to the uk because it is an island, but in Germany gun trafficking is just impossible to control.
It's like with knives, you can forbid certain types of them but could also simply take a large kitchen knife...
My other opinion is that kicking someone from school who attended it for such a long time just before the final exams because he faked a doctor's certificate is too exaggerated,
the teachers must see the trouble that they cause.
Some of them too often play the mighty rulers. :rolleyes: . Nevertheless it was terrible and there is no excuse for it. I just think that the very demanding pressure of modern society is not taken into account too often. If you want to shoot someone you can get a weapon in not time, there should be done more to solve depressions. Every school must have a teacher that you can talk to if you have problems to avoid ignorance.
I joined the rifle club at work, and had to wait 3 months for the checks to go through before I could even TOUCH something (bear in mind that I've had TA training with considerably more powerful weapons).
At present, I'm back to the .22s so that they can get an idea for my abilities. Am I likely to get a gun and go rampaging round killing people? No. Why? Because:
a) I have no access
b) I have a BRAIN!
sure about that last part mike ? :p
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
Parksie, the problem is that there are a lot of stupid people out there. Every American on this link is allowed to own a gun. That's just scary.
http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
Most of the people I know who own guns are ignorant and intolerant. I know not everyone is like that, but I can say that the most reasonable and intelligent people I know do not own guns.
I'm not saying you're ignorant or intolerant. I'm only talking about people I know personally.
as well as the only calm person you know :p:DQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
Yeah, I see your point about stupid people.
FYI, I don't own much that can particularly hurt you. I've got a diver's knife (I am actually a diver, and knives are bloody useful if you wrap yourself in kelp or monofilament fishing line), and a BB gun which never makes it out of my room; I use it for shooting beer cans from the other side of the room when I can't sleep.
Good thing I'm not a violent man
/hides katana and claymore
:D
I actually love to shoot. I used to have a bb gun and used it for doing pretty much the same thing... shooting cans and such. I enjoyed going to the range when I was in the service. But I don't need to own a gun personally and I don't want to get killed by it when someone sneaks in and finds it while I'm asleep. Maybe I need one of Wally's claymores behind each window and each door :)
Presumably because you have b) you could get around a) if you were a psychoQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
I joined the rifle club at work, and had to wait 3 months for the checks to go through before I could even TOUCH something (bear in mind that I've had TA training with considerably more powerful weapons).
At present, I'm back to the .22s so that they can get an idea for my abilities. Am I likely to get a gun and go rampaging round killing people? No. Why? Because:
a) I have no access
b) I have a BRAIN!
Tell me again what happened to your headmaster :)Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
I told you that? LOL :DQuote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Tell me again what happened to your headmaster :)
Yeah, I think he left me alone after that ;)
what did you do? ;)Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
I told you that? LOL :D
Yeah, I think he left me alone after that ;)
c'mon -these are the VBFs - we know EVERYTHING about you except the colour of your underwear :DQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
I told you that? LOL :D
[READS NEW PM FROM ALICE] purple? And the lace doesn't do you justice???
. . oops
I shoot for sport.
I shoot targets and game. I have 4 shotguns and 2 rifles. I have a certificate for the shotguns and a license for the rifles. I do not, have not and will never consider my guns as anything other than sporting equipment. They are kept locked in a cabinet that is grossly above the police proscribed security levels. The bolts of the rifles are stored seperately from the actions, all ammunition is stored away from the weapons.
I certainly do not think of my guns as a form of protection.
I have never pointed a gun at anyone, ever, even by accident, not in civvy life.
My main point is that all my shooting friends think and behave like this.
We have not and will never be a threat to anyone, safety is a passion for all of us.
\Quote:
Originally posted by beachbum
I'm all for giving people access to nuclear weapons as long as they promise not to destroy small cities. :rolleyes:
Large ones are okay, as long as they are government approved targets........
Hey BB, how about a BBQ on Friday, few beers, nuke KL that sort of thing
rj
Leave the seppos alone, what's a few school yard shootings, next to the right to bare arms.....
umm... what's that about naked arms?Quote:
Originally posted by Jethro
\
Leave the seppos alone, what's a few school yard shootings, next to the right to bare arms.....
If l spelt things correctly BB would accuse me of being an imposter.....
True... this way I could only accuse you of being IanpBaker :D :D
I have mixed feelings about gun control.
On the one hand, I dismiss claims that guns are necessary to defend one's self from violent crime and that if you make them illegal, all you do is give all the guns to the criminals.
Do people who believe the above not realise that you are just upping the stakes when guns are widely available? Whereas, in Britain, most muggers would not carry a gun, in America, a gun an essential tool of the trade. If a mugger has to worry about a potential victim carrying a gun, he'll just make sure that he has a bigger and better one.
However, on the other hand, I am reluctant to agree with an outright ban. Generally, I am pro-freedom and I don't think that it's a good idea to ban something for the majority because a minority can't handle it. Take drugs for example, I fully believe they should be legalised despite the fact that a minority can't handle them.
If you take this to it's logical extreme, you ban everything because nearly every activity known to man will be abused by the ignorant or crazy minority and you would have to ban cars, cutlery and heavy machinery. You wouldn't be able to do anything and we would have no liberty.
So, I cannot decide whether I agree with an outright ban on gun usage. The key difference with gun usage over every other type of activity (that is potentially dangerous) is that guns are weapons are are designed soley for the purpose of killing and maiming others. However, I have to acknowledge that most people do not use them for their intended purpose and that the is a good case for providing a legitimate outlet for people who want to use guns for sport.
Its been the tradition to take a pragmatic approach here - so where there have been successive massacres (Hungerford, Dunblane etc) a level of control is applied and if that turns out not to be enought then it is made stricter each time until the problem disappears (as it seems to have done in Britain).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I have mixed feelings about gun control.
So, I cannot decide whether I agree with an outright ban on gun usage.
I think farmers would tell you that shotguns are for vermin control and so ARE used for their intended purpose.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The key difference with gun usage over every other type of activity (that is potentially dangerous) is that guns are weapons are are designed soley for the purpose of killing and maiming others.
Kzin
In the case of Dunblaine, the guy had a license for the gun he used and had no trouble getting one despite the fact that he had known psycological problems.Quote:
Its been the tradition to take a pragmatic approach here - so where there have been successive massacres (Hungerford, Dunblaine etc) a level of control is applied and if that turns out not to be enought then it is made stricter each time until the problem disappears (as it seems to have done in Britain).
I think the trouble there was the lack of checks that were made, the controls not being enforced properly and not the fact that guns were legally available attall.
I acknowledge incidents such as these as a tragedy but why single out guns and not, say, cars? How many children die in road accidents every year? If we banned cars we could save more lives so what are we waiting for?
Should we ban metal cutlery as well? Should we only be allowed to buy plastic knives to stop the idiotic morons who stab themselves in the eye every year?
If there are any mass attacks with it and it proves to be impossible for ordinary citizens to disarm someone with it yes. So far that is the case with combat rifles, semi automatic pistols, flamethrowers, pipe bombs but not cricket bats (Prince Philip seemed a bit confused about those too) or metal cutlery.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
Should we ban metal cutlery as well? Should we only be allowed to buy plastic knives to stop the idiotic morons who stab themselves in the eye every year?
Can you see the difference (in terms of history of attacks and the ability of ordinary citizens to resist or disarm).