not exactly the answer i expected...

WELCOME TO AMERICA!!
would you like a rifle or a shotgun?

 

You guys crack me up!

 

Welcome to America! A pistol and a shotgun please. And another couple for my friends here.

In Texas I suspect we have more guns than there are people.

 

Welcome to America! A pistol and a shotgun please. And another couple for my friends here..

During WWII, the Japanese figured out that they could not successfully conduct land warfare in the USA, as nearly half of the US population was armed at the time. Since WWII, more and more people have settled in urban areas; shooting ranges have been encroached upon and many have been closed down over the years. Some states have very restrictive laws on firearms. Many are quite lenenient.

Anyway, firearms laws are not about controlling firearms; they are about controlling people.

 

But Sarge we have like the most lax gun laws in the country.

 

I have a .44 magnum, several .30-06's, an AR-15, several other rifles, shotguns and handguns, and about 20,000 rounds of ammo.

Don't **** me off.

I have a very long fuse. It's not pleasant when I get to the end of it; I don't like to go there at all.

I don't share the view that guns are the answer to everything. In the end, we all have to face declining powers, illness and pain to a greater or lesser extent. Up to a point, being able to use a firearm may equalise the strength of a physically weaker individual against a fitter opponent, but that's as far as it goes. Even that advantage fails in the face of some conditions such as blindness, paralysis, or dementia.

For instance, what use would a gun be in helping get out of bed (to threaten the nurse?), or to walk, eat, eliminate, or to... you-know-what! A gun could of course be employed as the ultimate form of pain relief, but depending on the weapon used, that might inflict rather a horrible mess on whoever had to deal with it. That seems a selfish thing to do.

I think that in facing illness, inner strength is a lot more important than ironmongery. There is another thing that is helpful too, but sadly that cannot be discussed here.

 

Something I read on this site,

When seconds count, police are but minutes away.

Right to bear arms is not about personal pain relieve, people find other ways to do that every day.

It is about personal responsibility, I am responsible for protecting me and my family instead of hoping someone else can do it for me.

This is about as off topic as it can get though. And here I am, joining in.

 

It is about personal responsibility, I am responsible for protecting me and my family instead of hoping someone else can do it for me.

It's almost funny how natural that phrase comes out of you people State-side. On the other hand, it sounds quite unreasonable in my ears and I bet in every pair of ears living in the big urban centres in Europe.

 

Perhaps, but putting your personal safety in the hands of other people is a good way to loose everything, including liberty.

There was a time in the USA, about 150 years ago, there were no local law enforcement. If you needed the law they were several days away, and likely too busy with their own concerns to be of much help. It left it's mark.

In many places this is still the case, though help is hours away. The USA is huge, we are not one tightly packed bunch.

There are states, such as Massachusetts, where you are expected to flee your home if an intruder breaks in. At least I have been told this is the case, I could be wrong. This mode of thought is foreign to the middle and southern United States, and it is my impression the Castle Laws are a direct response to that way of thinking. Any state where I am expected to run from where I should feel most secure is not where I want to live.

About the Massachusetts laws, the specific story I heard was a prosecutor tried to convict an apartment dweller for not jumping out of a 3rd floor window when a burglar entered his home. Instead he fought and killed the intruder. The judge threw the case out, but it should never have been brought up before a court. The right to self defense is as fundimental as it gets, but many police and DA feel it is their province only.

Dagnabit, I'm still going off topic. I may split this thread. I can not help myself.

 

Guns? Protection? Safety?
America must be a jungle of wild animals.

 

Yep, that's me and Wook alright!

 

But Sarge we have like the most lax gun laws in the country.

Not really if you look at them.

The problem isn't firearms. The problem is criminals.

The anti-gunner types love to quote how many people were killed by guns, but never state that the perpetrator was already banned from buying guns due to prior crimes (yes, even from a gun show). There needs to be harsher punishments for murder. Guns are banned in the UK, so the number of knife murders went up. Now the UK has to turn in all their pointed knives. They aren't addressing the root issue.

@Wookie:
Glad you are feeling better and things are looking up! I apologize for that tiny hijack there. Get well soon, we need you!

 

Guns? Protection? Safety?
America must be a jungle of wild animals.

I've got mountain lions in my back yard! Is that wild enough for you?

 

Perhaps, but putting your personal safety in the hands of other people is a good way to loose everything, including liberty.

I live in big city in Europe, but I agree 100% with the above statement.

Alberto

 

oh did I miss my chance to jump into the gun debate?
I have something to say. I've never met a brit who is pro-gun. I've speculated on that in the past and have a whole flurry of ideas why, but none that really explain it. The way I see it, criminals are going to find guns. There is such a thing as a black market, whether you wish it so or not, and they will get the guns regardless of legality. By criminalizing gun ownership, all you do is take the guns out of the hands of the honest law-abiding citizens and make them even bigger targets for criminals. You (Europeans, and georacer) may say that making guns illegal makes it harder for a petty criminal to get their hands on a gun and lessens the chance of the violent crime ever taking place, but in the absence of a apple-to-apples comparison, that's purely speculation. You can't compare your stats (without guns) to our stats (with guns); there are totally different demographics involved. The only apples-to-apples comparison I can think of is Australia's gun ban. They had guns and now they "don't"; same people, same demographics, 2 data points, so how are their numbers looking?

[1996]...the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard ... seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates

So if a country has nothing to gain from disarming it's citizens, then it has nothing to lose by allowing them to arm themselves; What the nation stands to lose by disarming is that the nation can no longer defend itself on it's own soil without relying wholly on the military if **** hits the fan. As Wookie mentioned in post #4, that's why we weren't hit at home in WWII:

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

I hope the sense of ascension over the barbarism of gun ownership is enough to comfort you with the giant target painted on your back... But of course it is, because I know you won't acknowledge that the target exists.

 

Hi Strantor. Here in South Australia there is an on going problem with Bikie groups & there has been several shootouts. & yes the criminal element is well armed. I dont feel any safer being disarmed, Ithink it has more to do with controll of the masses.

 

I don't know the what ifs. As you said, there can't be a direct comparison.

I just like to think that the absence of metal detectors in public schools has something to do with the general absence of guns.

I 'll move the conversation to its own thread soon.

 

There is clearly a big cultural difference when it comes to guns.

It does seem that Europeans are generally against the unlicenced holding of guns, whilst generally Americans are all for it.

Perhaps the only way to settle this is to accept that neither side is going to budge. It is too embedded in the ways we've been brought up and live.

Agree to disagree on this one?

There are no right answers!

 

The biggest gun I've ever used in my life was a child's (14 year old's) .22 rifle, and that was years ago! I have never needed anything bigger. Here in Vermont, the most trouble I've had was with my neighbor's dogs coming into my yard and terrorizing my cats (actually lost a couple to neighborhood dogs a few years back). For them, paintballs do the trick. Anyway, in the past I've shot a pellet pistol, airsoft, paintball, .22, and a pellet rifle with homemade exploding pellets. Other than that I don't use guns. I have just never had the need. I am not saying I'm against them. Just that I haven't ever had an actual need for one. Perhaps as I get older and get less nimble, I might purchase a small handgun. Not really sure, though.

Der Strom

 

There is clearly a big cultural difference when it comes to guns.

It does seem that Europeans are generally against the unlicenced holding of guns, whilst generally Americans are all for it.

Perhaps the only way to settle this is to accept that neither side is going to budge. It is too embedded in the ways we've been brought up and live.

Agree to disagree on this one?

There are no right answers!

I didn't realize there was ever an argument!