Gun Control

[Guest xprowlerx]

Well I personally have no interest or intention to remove or compromise anybody’s rights. I respect everyone’s opinion and I truly believe I m not preaching that US should have Nazi or socialist or communist or whatever politically coloured laws.

In most countries in the so called ‘’Western’’ world including mine controlling by law what and how much lethal force someone can have access to is not taken as lack of freedom but as another basic rule that makes the society we live. Just like individual property laws, taxes, mandatory military service etc etc. My country (Cyprus) was also buil upon the aftermath of our rebelion against the british rule in 1955-1960 and invated by turkey in 1974. I have a g3a3 in my locker in my country as every army reserve in case my country is under attack, but the moment I assemble that and walk out of my house during peace time I will get arrested…and nor me or any1 feel that this is wrong or a Nazi style law that makes me more oppressed.

 

As you can not add or subtract oranges and apples , you cannot compare imo US with latin American countries like Colombia who is still fighting an undeclared civil war with guerrilla groups, or Mexico where the drug cartels have more power than the government, or Taiwan or south Africa where the gun smugglers have as a primary business field. Having a list with figures of gun crime and % Households With Guns showing n/a (non applicable as in no information ), is meaningless…no information = no conclusions from that).. if you don’t have the figure of how much guns are actually in that country in the hands of civilians (legal or illegal). So that list can actually serve both side’s arguments.

 

The best way is to compare US states with and without gun control laws and look at the total gun related gun crime per unit of population. I might be wrong, everything might be a conspiracy but my only means of finding an answer on that was to look online or read news…and the only thing I could find was what I said before…uncontrolled gun policy results to more gun related crime.

 

I believe and agree with you that hundreds of such incidents could and have been prevented by armed civilians and I never said guns cannot help. What I m saying is that guns are causing more deaths than the deaths that can be prevented . 68 mass shootings since 1982 plus millions of ‘’smaller’’ size gun crimes in US. Which other ‘’western’’ society experienced similar levels of this kind of crimes?. And again...guns can stop such an incident but such incident should better be prevented before it happens by removing the ‘’tools’’ from the random lunatic who wants to commit it.

 

If I am wrong by saying the odds for somebody to survive when a mental guys walks in a school or cinema with a knife, are higher as opposed to a lunatic armed with an assault rifle, two pistols and a shotgun then I rest my case.

If US people want to have some guns for self defence is something that is up to them…what I m suggesting is that there must be a limit within reason…but still I have not read or heard any reasonable argument why would somebody with good intensions would need thousands of bullets and assault rifles.

 

This is my last post on this thread, as this discussion is sad enough just by thinking all these victims.

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

The problem also arises in analyzing global statistics is that there's almost certainly a reporting bias. Countries such as Colombia, have very poor reporting rates vs places such as the UK which has a very high reporting rate(where crimes are recorded/reported by civilians). The data you quoted is also quite out of date, in that almost certainly laws have significantly changed in that time period. Its also to note that there is almost certainly under-reporting in many instances in order for governments to claim reductions in crime rates.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

 

To properly look at that statistic you'd need to analyse the trend over several decades and account for legislative, economic, population and ethical changes. Now an accurate analysis is nearly impossible, but here's a link to a paper, regarding a similar data set to the one you quoted with a different perspective.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1

 

The reason for thousands of rounds, to protect my self from being oppressed by anyone. As it does happen in other countries, and please do not tell me it does not when you have cctv on every corner, when people are being forced into slavery in africa, killed outright in syria. So many gun control countries. The argument of third world is wrong, people are people, get that through all

 

But the problem is that people are living in poverty, thus they are driven to commit crimes for basic necessities. Even child soldiers, in order to feed themselves are driven to war. Gun control doesn't really apply to developing countries because its mainly an ethic for developed countries. Most developing countries don't have the resources to run a non-corrupt police force or a basic healthcare system let alone enforce gun control. Less than 12.2% of Americans live in poverty. CCTV has substantially increased the rate of correct convictions and mainly exists to deter crime, rather than stop it all together, although objectively speaking the success of CCTV has been modest at best in terms of raw crime reduction numbers.

 

Let me state it like this. You are preaching to remove my rights, not a good way to preach. Nazis? gun control, no murder huh?

 

Nazi's never used gun control to seize power, as evidenced by the same website you quoted statistics from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html. Hitler did "effect total gun control," but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place. Gun control does not mean no murder, it simply means reducing the chance that the murder weapon will be a gun, thus increasing the survival rate

 

Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.

 

The Journal of Trauma (36:4 PG516-524) looked at all injury admissions to a Seattle hospital over a six year period. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22% while that for stab wounds was 4%. Even among patients that survived, gunshot wounds were more serious -- the mean cost of treatment for these patients was more than twice that for stab wounds.

 

The reason for thousands of rounds, to protect my self from being oppressed by anyone

 

There must be some limit on liberties. I will take a extreme example here of a white supremacist, who believes the same as you, and in doing to kills many black people because he feels they "oppress" him and his way of life. Now obviously that's not right. Now I'll take a much less extreme example of a political party, e.g. the Pirate Party who believes that media lobby groups are oppressing their right to freedom of speech and exchange of information, does that give them the right to kill the media groups?, Certainly not, because by them killing the media groups, they in-turn are oppressing the rights of the media groups to claim ownership over their content. Now there's the argument that guns are always a last resort and you'd only use it if someone was threatening your family etc. And that's all and well, but the line has to be drawn in the sand where not everyone is using guns to protect, but also for personal gains. If anything from this thread alone, it can be seen that guns are causing people to live in fear, will more guns really help?

 

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

 

The difference is that the total number of swiss soldiers is only around 200,000(including reserves) whereas the US has 3 million(incl reserves). Thus in order to ensure the countries defence, all young men are trained in the use of firearms. And yes this has been effective in curbing gun violence, and yes if you want to have conscription in your country then by all means i would in turn support this as an alternative to gun control, because at least people are being educated in the use of guns and not just able to purchase them at the local Walmart. Israel has a very low homicide rate because i would go as far as saying 20-50% of homicides are not recorded.

[Guest Roklut]

I am not a firearms owner and I am not happy with the gang violence in Chicago and throughout the country. I myself have had a gun pointed at me a few times (and this is on the largely "safe" north side of Chicago...and I highly doubt these thugs legally owned their pieces.

 

You have to keep in mind the CT shooter did NOT obtain the weapons he used legally. His mother was a legal owner of the weapons, not him. He stole them from her, murdered her, and went on a rampage. Some news articles twist that around and make it seem as if legal gun owners are going around killing people. In fact, CCW have prevented shootings simply because they were in the vicinity of the incident. The police have to get a call before they respond (unless they too are in the area). The Portland mall shooting was one case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BuLgO4wo4xI

 

It also shows how the popular news media does a terrible job in objective reporting, which leads me to believe that they have an agenda...once again! They also did a terrible job at reporting this shooting and changed the details of the story multiple times. The fact that this tragedy is being used by politicians and the like to push previously existing agendas is quite disgusting. I feel like to them this tragedy can be viewed as an opportunity...and that is just sickening.

 

History has shown that outlawing things such as alcohol and drugs only exacerbates crime. Making items in demand illegal allows underground markets to skyrocket as was the case with alcohol and is the case with drugs. The policy makers create a law and the police are incapable of containing all the repercussions.

[Guest Ret.Maj.Xander=US=]

This can fall into some sticky political topics, and although I encourage discussion of this nature as I think its needed for people's perspectives to grow and alter when different viewpoints are discussed with civil discourse. I only ask to please keep the discussion civil.

 

It hasn't crossed any lines yet which is impressive and goes to show the maturity level we have in this group, so thank you for that.

[Guest Roklut]

This can fall into some sticky political topics, and although I encourage discussion of this nature as I think its needed for people's perspectives to grow and alter when different viewpoints are discussed with civil discourse. I only ask to please keep the discussion civil.

 

It hasn't crossed any lines yet which is impressive and goes to show the maturity level we have in this group, so thank you for that.

 

Agreed, sir.

 

The good thing is that the clan has forums with different sections for other things. If someone was uncomfortable talking about these topics they at least are not forced to hear/see it by being a member of the clan. It might be completely different if the TS server turned into a forum for political debate as it forces people to hear it and disrupts the purpose of TS (meetings and game coms). This was the reason many World of WarCraft guilds have rules against political discussion (even if it is civil) because it can flood the in-game guild chat and to a lesser extent cause drama.

 

I like the way it is here with different platforms for communication. Like you said, as long as it is civil these discussions are healthy for gaining perspective on things by pulling together many different viewpoints. You can go on any forum like ATS (for the conspiracy minded folk) and see the difference between us and them. It is definitely something to be proud of!

[Guest RET.LCDR.2DyESaMuRi=US=]

This is a quote from an unnamed person. If I can find out who, I will add his name.

 

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total

of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

 

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

 

This is a common misconception. Logistically speaking, Japan could never have led a successful invasion of America because it would have been incredibly difficult to construct supply lines between Japan and the coast of America. The main intention of pearl harbour was to eliminate the US carriers to prevent them from launching aerial bombing raids on Japan and thus, eliminating the US as an immediate threat to Japan's war efforts. Any army invading America from Japan would need to be self sufficient, and Japan simply did not have the resources to devote to such an endeavour. The goal was not to eliminate western countries, it was to establish itself as a world power on the scale of Britain however in Asia. In doing so it sought to capture territories in its immediate surrounding. It originally never intended to fight a global war.

 

The quote associated with that statement is the following, a quote from Isoroku Yamamoto, the Japanese Commander-in-chief,

 

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

However there does not exist any evidence for that quote. As justified by http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/. "So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this". I have no doubt that Stalin and Hitler and your other examples tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesn't mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" – "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that there’s any causation involved. On the flip side this rule also applies to saying that gun control will curb homicide rates such as in the example of Australia, simply saying "Australian law reform reduced gun fatalities," if all you know is that deaths dropped after 1996, would be post hoc ergo propter hoc, too. A correct statement would be that it was a contributing factor in the reduction of homicides.

 

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

 

I would go as far as saying an unorganised militia of gun owners wouldn't stand a chance against a well trained Japanese Army. Much like the US army fighting the Taliban, the training for Taliban soldiers is of a far lower and outdated standard(generally speaking), thus the US Army technically speaking in that sense has an advantage if the Taliban were using conventional warfare tactics, however its clear they're not, more or less they use guerilla tactics or Antisymmetric warfare. Back to the example of the US, the only way for civilians defending the country to be effective would be for them to be conscripted at a young age, trained in the military for a period and then updating that training regularly along with issuing weapons to each trained member. This is what Switzerland does. In effect, that is gun control, because their regulating the issue of weapons to only those who are trained. Coupled with this is the psychological testing that the soldiers must undergo, which prevents mentally ill people from gaining easy access to weapons. Once the weapons are obtained, they must be stored in very secure storage, with the firing mechanism removed in many cases. This is written in swiss law http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/1548 and http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/1554. This makes it very difficult for unauthorised people to gain easy access to firearms and thus contributes to eliminating guns as a weapon of choice. This only works when combined with acknowledging and treating mental health conditions, which in the Swiss case is in the form of a compulsory national health insurance scheme. America lacked this until only recently, and without a doubt, needs a healthcare system. Perhaps now is not a good time for it, but down the line it must be implemented or the number of people who can access healthcare will only decline which will contribute to inaccessible healthcare for the economically poor.

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

Not to revive an old thread or anything, but i came across this video. Hopefully it will give some of you a few laughs. Here's hoping i don't drown in my poolless backyard.

 

http://vimeo.com/64420260

[Guest RET.Maj.SKI=US=]

I have a backyard pool and I will not give it up! I do not want any more laws passed regulating my pool either. Whoop-de-do!