Talk About GTA

[Klumpen]

I am really happy about every contact with Americans, for I learn to like my home a bit more every time.

In this case, because it is way more difficult to get a gun here, even for those muggers, so I do not need to have one (hate these anyway).

Also what is with all those gun company's you folk have ?

I do not have any influence on the arms lobby here and as long as so many people are still electing the old conservative parties (especcially CDU, which is partially financed by them),

they will be building and selling, but most of the stuff produced here (Heckler&Koch guns, Leopard 2 tanks, atomic submarines etc...) is sold to everywhere in the world (nobody here is proud of that)

and only very seldom on these streets. It may be absurd, but it is rather likely, that you get shot with an H&K anywhere than here, police and army excluded.

 

[thatgui]

 Anyhow although I disagree with your opinion my question was asking WHY you see them as inappropiate for civilians to own . You don't HAVE to answer , but if you do so that is what I intended to ask .

Simply because there is no evidence that owning one of these will add to your safety. In the contrary, it can even reduce your chance to get out of a situation unharmed as pulling out a weapon in an already stressed situation surely won't calm anyone down.

So why exactly do you need a gun in the first place ? For that hilarious scenarios where you have to hunt to get something to eat or you have to fight "the goverment that turned against its own people" ?

Or just for sports, if so get yourself some darts.

Actually I do hunt ( and unlike most so called hunters eat what I kill ) , and I'm certain that if someone broke into my house with a crowbar and each member of my family ( excluding the cat ) picked up a rifle , shotgun , or my preference for home defense a single action revolver chambered in 44 magnum ( single over double due to easier trigger pull ) I am positive lowlife with a crowbar would back out . A couple of years ago me and my family were gone ( day trip to the beach for clam digging if memory serves ) . When we got back our neighbor lady notified us there had been a creeper ( not minecraft kind as this happened several years before minecraft came to be ) sneaking around our property , who after observing the man to not be from around these parts , chased him off . DARTS ? WTF ? You know how dangerous those things are ?! You could put your ( or somebody else's ) eye out  !!! And if you have to use them as a weapon they are so offensively short range !! only kiddng about darts . But here is my issue about giving up guns  : me a ( for the most part ) law abiding citizen gives up my right to own guns . A criminal who should have had that right revoked long ago and probably has , can walk into a seedy tavern ( you know the type ) ask if anyone knows of any arms dealers ( place usual criminal tests to make sure guy isn't undercover here ) sends them on their way . :unsure: If that tactic doesn't work how do the Mexican drug cartels gt better equiped than thier army ?

Well, one scenario could be that this someone which would break into your house would make a wrong move, and someone in your family would fire at him. Which could be a tragedy in two ways: one life lost for some household goods and a possible police investigation, maybe even jail for one of your families member.

But taking your example on to a more "general" level: With most of the (U.S) american population (including creepers) beeing quite well informed about the amount of guns in an average house, I ask myself two questions:

With that knowledge, shouldn't the U.S have quite a low burglar rate (who wants to risk his life for a small amount of money) ?

Isn't this a classic "arms race" situation (I wan't to break into someones home, there is a high probability that there is a gun in their home, so I take mine too, in case something goes wrong) ?

But I'm wondering were this intense fear from beeing harmed through criminals comes from ? It is much more likely that you will get killed through a household accident, traffic accident, food poisening, some traffic accident, fire, .... But I don't hear anything about people taking special precautions against such threats.

As for your last example (seedy taverns, mexican cartells, etc): Following this logic I would conclude that you are also in favour of making drug sales legal => sellings drugs is currently illegal, but you can walk into a seedy tavern and ask if someone knows a drug dealer ....

 

[SNESFAN]

Not everyone in america is a gun toting individual. The right is there, but lots of people feel its a requirement. I don't own a gun, neither do lots of people I know, but on the other hand lots of people I know do partake in that freedom.

I find having the knowledge out there that your potential victim will be armed as well makes the criminal think twice before trying to make a quick buck. Its a deterrent nothing more. I do see the irony in the if you had no guns you would need no guns.

At this point if you made guns illegal you would just be removing them from law abiding citizens... And that would be a very bad situation.

The whole concept behind our right to bare arms is to defend ourselves from a governing or potential governing force we as citizens didn't agree with. Now I find that to no longer be applicable to today's society as we have became a real union and democracy and we would really only be fighting ourselves.

But if our government failed to defend us from an opposing invading country I will be glad to know I could actually defend the country as a citizen if needed.

Far fetched but there are several reasons we should kinda leave things the way they are even though I don't exactly agree with the concept of owning firearms.

 

[Neelix]

As for your last example (seedy taverns, mexican cartells, etc): Following this logic I would conclude that you are also in favour of making drug sales legal => sellings drugs is currently illegal, but you can walk into a seedy tavern and ask if someone knows a drug dealer ....

The principle does apply,  but not quite in the way you suggest.   I believe It should be legal to *buy*  and *possess*  drugs...  (for the most part) Selling them however should be strictly regulated...  ie  only make them legally available from licenced pharmacists or medical professionals.    Put simply, if getting ones fix is cheap, easy and legal, the bottom drops out of the black market...

- Neelix

 

[thatgui]

I find having the knowledge out there that your potential victim will be armed as well makes the criminal think twice before trying to make a quick buck.

Its a deterrent nothing more. I do see the irony in the if you had no guns you would need no guns. At this point if you made guns illegal you would just be removing them from law abiding citizens... And that would be a very bad situation.

But wouldn't that imply that there is a far lower crime rate (regarding theft and related fellonies) in the U.S then in other countries with much stricter laws about gun possesion

The whole concept behind our right to bare arms is to defend ourselves from a governing or potential governing force we as citizens didn't agree with. Now I find that to no longer be applicable to today's society as we have became a real union and democracy and we would really only be fighting ourselves. But if our government failed to defend us from an opposing invading country I will be glad to know I could actually defend the country as a citizen if needed. Far fetched but there are several reasons we should kinda leave things the way they are even though I don't exactly agree with the concept of owning firearms.

Thats one of my points: A certain part of the U.S population refers to that extremly far fetched scenario if its about the right to have arms. But on the other hand if there was a political effort to limit the driving speed in inhabited regions to about 10 mph to avoid traffic accidents, I guess the response in that part of the population would be somewhat negative - altough the probability that they'll fall victim to a traffic accident is maybe 10000 to 100000 times higher than getting engaged in a firefight to defend their home from some invader (foreign or domestic)

As for your last example (seedy taverns, mexican cartells, etc): Following this logic I would conclude that you are also in favour of making drug sales legal => sellings drugs is currently illegal, but you can walk into a seedy tavern and ask if someone knows a drug dealer ....

 The principle does apply,  but not quite in the way you suggest.   I believe It should be legal to *buy*  and *possess*  drugs...  (for the most part) Selling them however should be strictly regulated...  ie  only make them legally available from licenced pharmacists or medical professionals.    Put simply, if getting ones fix is cheap, easy and legal, the bottom drops out of the black market...

- Neelix

Thats your opinion and I have no intention to change that, but thats not my point - I'm not interested in bringing in drug policies into that discussion. I tried to point out that there allways will be a certain group of people who will act against laws. But that does not necessarily mean that this law is useless, as it at least raises the hurdle to aquire drugs/weapons/etc. But maybe it wasn't the best example

 

[Klumpen]

In the end, people decide what they do and not their laws.

Having less guns flying around seems to lower gun related issues tremendously in these (like mine) countries though.

 

[Neelix]

But wouldn't that imply that there is a far lower crime rate (regarding theft and related fellonies) in the U.S then in other countries with much stricter laws about gun possesion

Other countries have different cultures with different values, so it's almost impossible to compare two countries to find a causal relationship between any one factor and a given set of statistics.


That said, I think the telling example is right there in the U.S.


From Reuters:

[Kennesaw, Georgia] had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.


...


"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Thats your opinion and I have no intention to change that, but thats not my point - I'm not interested in bringing in drug policies into that discussion. I tried to point out that there allways will be a certain group of people who will act against laws. But that does not necessarily mean that this law is useless, as it at least raises the hurdle to aquire drugs/weapons/etc. But maybe it wasn't the best example

To those most likely to commit a violent crime, the criminals who would normally source their weapons on the black market anyway, it raises no barriers whatsoever. Black markets only become stronger where there is an official ban on something, you only need to look to the abolition to see an example of that.


It does however raise a barrier for law abiding citizens. This would clearly seem to tip the balance of power in favour of the criminals as far as I can see, and I just can't see how that could possibly be considered a good thing.


- Neelix

 

[SNESFAN]

I don't think its a real deterrent when it comes down to the total number of crimes. Maybe just the reduction of types of crimes, home robberies or muggings maybe? I have no idea of the % of total crimes as related to the total population. But there could be lots of other factors too. Like unemployment rate, poverty levels, local law enforcement levels.

There is probably a similar % amount of actual crime in every country regardless of gun ownership laws. I would go on to believe the only difference is there is more crimes that end in fatalities in america than other countries.

I would just like to think it would make a criminal make a conscious decision when trying and rob someone knowing there is a real chance of them losing their life. I am thinking about it from my point of view though, and I may be more self aware than criminal types, so it may not actually detour them at all.

But if a gun isn't available one would use a knife or any other type of killing utensil. So I don't think it really matters what it is, gun, knife, whatever, people will use the most efficient tool of what is available.

Even if you somehow were to magically remove guns and sharp objects from society people would be beating each other to death with blunt objects... But in that instance you can't accidentally beat yourself to death like you could accidentally kill yourself with a gun or even a knife.

So the valid argument would be you would reduce the number of accidental killings, and reduce the number of crimes that ended in fatalities (the fatalities, not the crimes)if you removed guns from society.

Your still left with the challenge of how to actually get rid of them though. And not just get them from legal owners.

 

[Klumpen]

It does however raise a barrier for law abiding citizens. This would clearly seem to tip the balance of power in favour of the criminals as far as I can see, and I just can't see how that could possibly be considered a good thing.


- Neelix

You really believe in this dualism: "law abiding citizen vs. criminal scum" ?

I'll tell you a secret: This is bullshit.

It is mostly citizen vs. citizen.

There is no such thing as "THE criminal" as it would be another race on this planet, it does not matter how often CNN/Fox, etc... tells you this to calm you down and feel like a better being per se.

Most of the danger comes from anyone, especcially neighbours with guns.

When someone gets shot, the murderer is often (most of the time?) someone from around the corner.

PS: Actually, this type of thinking seems to maintain your crime rate.

"This scum is not part of our society, we are totally different".

No, they are somebodys renter, brother, son, daughter, sister, nephew, cousin, etc... of your precious law abiding society, which made them this way.

 

[Fzero]

blah blah ... lets bring this back on topic eh?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/716fQuiJlds?feature=oembed

Spoiler

 

[2bit]

You know although I'd prefer to die later rather than earlier and in such a way it won't cause friends and family anguish I know someday I will die :mellow: <_< . And if we are going to be banning guns lets ban tobacco and booze . What not ONE taker ? How about  Mcdonalds ( actually I agree with that , fat people riding "mobilty scooters " are an eyesore ) ?

 

[SNESFAN]

See that's an even more off topic subject, but anything that effects only you should be and remain legal. Illicit drugs, tobacco, alcohol, fattening foods.

People should have the right to be idiots and hurt themselves if that's the way they want to live their short lives. Who is anyone to say they don't have the right to live life however they see fit?

They should be warned if they are too stupid to know those things are actually bad for them, but even if not, nobody should be able to say, "you are not allowed to do that to yourself"

Its when that stupidity leaks over into other peoples lives I have a problem with it. Smoking in indoor public places, drinking and driving etc etc. Those are good laws IMO. Doing those things forces me to be involved with your stupid and life threatening decision.

 

[PowerGod]

Yo Dawg !! I heard you like OTs, so I'm putting an OT in your OT so you can OT while in OT !!  

 

[2bit]

See that's an even more off topic subject, but anything that effects only you should be and remain legal. Illicit drugs, tobacco, alcohol, fattening foods. People should have the right to be idiots and hurt themselves if that's the way they want to live their short lives. Who is anyone to say they don't have the right to live life however they see fit? They should be warned if they are too stupid to know those things are actually bad for them, but even if not, nobody should be able to say, "you are not allowed to do that to yourself" Its when that stupidity leaks over into other peoples lives I have a problem with it. Smoking in indoor public places, drinking and driving etc etc. Those are good laws IMO. Doing those things forces me to be involved with your stupid and life threatening decision.

Right , my point is is that I don't shoot my guns in public . I don't even carry as I don't want to freak anyone out .  Now eventually I may go in and get that concealed carry Permit , but for now I don't need to .

 

[SNESFAN]

I feel safer when I go out and see someone has a gun holstered. But that's just me. I know they went through all the legal bullshit they put you through and I know you haven't been convicted of any violent crimes. So as strange as it may sound, you would be the one person in the room I wouldn't have to worry about shooting me

My objection to guns stops with my own ownership. I have no opinion or right to object to others owning one. Its your choice to have one, the law just dictates how and when you use it, that's the way it should stay.

 

[_wb_]

But wouldn't that imply that there is a far lower crime rate (regarding theft and related fellonies) in the U.S then in other countries with much stricter laws about gun possesion

Other countries have different cultures with different values, so it's almost impossible to compare two countries to find a causal relationship between any one factor and a given set of statistics.


That said, I think the telling example is right there in the U.S.


From Reuters:

>[Kennesaw, Georgia] had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.


...


"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

That's an interesting story, and it is certainly nice that they got a substantial drop in crime, but what happened to the total number of gunshot wound accidents/deaths? I.e. also including the non-criminal cases. Can you find any statistics on that?

 

[Fzero]

Statisitics are mostly designed anyway, I wouldn't trust 'em

 

[Neelix]

Klumpen, on 07 Apr 2013 - 23:46, said:


You really believe in this dualism: "law abiding citizen vs. criminal scum" ?


I'll tell you a secret: This is bullshit.


It is mostly citizen vs. citizen.


There is no such thing as "THE criminal" as it would be another race on this planet, it does not matter how often CNN/Fox, etc... tells you this to calm you down and feel like a better being per se.


Most of the danger comes from anyone, especcially neighbours with guns.


When someone gets shot, the murderer is often (most of the time?) someone from around the corner.

I never meant to imply the existence of any such dualism at all. I consider anyone who plans and executes a crime to be a criminal, whether they be a career criminal or your regular joe blow who decides to violently take revenge on his neighbour for insulting his dog.


It's just a logical progression really. If you are planning a crime involving a gun, and you are planning to get away with it, you won't want the weapon to be able to be traced back to you. The only way to avoid that is by breaking the gun laws, and once that decision is made the laws become irrelevant, and if you are really determined to proceed you will find a way.

_wb_, on 08 Apr 2013 - 15:03, said:


That's an interesting story, and it is certainly nice that they got a substantial drop in crime, but what happened to the total number of gunshot wound accidents/deaths? I.e. also including the non-criminal cases. Can you find any statistics on that?

Nothing reliable. I did find one interesting statistic from 2006 here but I have no way of confirming its veracity.

Since the institution of Section 34-1, not one accidental firearms-related death of a child has been reported in Kennesaw.

- Neelix

 

[WizardStan]

And if we are going to be banning guns lets ban tobacco and booze . What not ONE taker ? How about  Mcdonalds ( actually I agree with that , fat people riding "mobilty scooters " are an eyesore ) ?

False dichotomies. A guns primary purpose can lead directly to harm of others: whether you intend to or not, your gun can kill other people. The fat people eating McDonald's are only killing themselves, it requires several degrees of separation before you can establish a link between someone else eating McDonald's doing harm to someone who does not.On the subject of tobacco and booze, they are already heavily regulated. There are designated smoking areas and heavy fines for public smoking and drinking because there's a provable correlation within one degree to harming others.

Think about that: depending on where you are, it is illegal to smoke in a restaurant but you can carry a concealed semi-automatic.

You make a jokes about tobacco and booze regulation but the fact is that tobacco and booze are MORE regulated than firearms in the United States. I reject your hyperbolic argument.

All that being said, there is actually something similar we can use as a model: driving. Cars are very useful when operated properly, and extremely dangerous when not operated properly. Technically speaking, anyone can get into a car and just start mowing people down, but without a license there are enough barriers that this is highly impractical. Similarly, if people were required to pass safety and stability tests in order to get a "gun license" just like we do for driving, I am fully convinced we would see a sharp decline in accidental and intentional shootings. They wouldn't completely disappear, but having confidence that the guy with a gun strapped to his side actually had to pass some rigorous testing and should therefore be proficient with the gun he is carrying (as opposed to "I picked this up yesterday, have never fired a shot, but it makes me feel badass!") would go a long way to making the general public feel safer, know what I mean?

 

[Exophase]

All that being said, there is actually something similar we can use as a model: driving. Cars are very useful when operated properly, and extremely dangerous when not operated properly. Technically speaking, anyone can get into a car and just start mowing people down, but without a license there are enough barriers that this is highly impractical. Similarly, if people were required to pass safety and stability tests in order to get a "gun license" just like we do for driving, I am fully convinced we would see a sharp decline in accidental and intentional shootings. They wouldn't completely disappear, but having confidence that the guy with a gun strapped to his side actually had to pass some rigorous testing and should therefore be proficient with the gun he is carrying (as opposed to "I picked this up yesterday, have never fired a shot, but it makes me feel badass!") would go a long way to making the general public feel safer, know what I mean?

I like where you're coming from with this but it doesn't feel like it really works.. the only reason that getting a driver's license could be seen as a lot of work is because learning how to drive is (usually) a lot of work. If you already know how to drive getting a license is pretty fast, cheap, and easy. But the equivalent, learning how to physically shoot a gun and memorizing the laws of conduct for gun ownership, is already easy for most and this lack of proficiency isn't really the problem. There's no sort of test that proves that you'll drive responsibly - this is just more of a given because if you're too reckless you're putting yourself and your expensive property in serious risk, and it's difficult to avoid getting caught. You're looking for some kind of psychological evaluation to try to determine if a gun user will use it safely and responsibly and I think that's hard to determine. It'd certainly stop people from getting the license if they had to pay for this much more expensive examination (compared to a driver's examination) but I don't know if that'll be met well..