USA Gun Ban... You Have to at Least Respect Their Opinions.

[Midnight_Carnival]

If by the following you meant "you're not American so shut up",

If you wish to take it that way...
But what I really meant is that I don't see how equating the US (or Peru or Japan or wherever) to Switzerland proves anything. Unless the US becomes populated with Swiss people.

If there's any trace of nationalism in my comment, it's that I don't like comparisons of the entire US to some small European country. Do you like being lumped in with all of Africa? Why can't Africa get it's act together? Why can't it be more like Liechtesnstein.

I would actually have had no problem with the "you're not American so shut up" thing. It's true, similarly, I'm not Swiss. I have already indicated that I don't think there would be a qualatative difference between the American and the Swiss aptitude for violence and irational behavior. What you are saying can be (mis)read as "Americans are more likely to act stupidly and violently, not all of us can be goody-twoshoes Swiss" -quite unpatriotic!

I'm sorry to have offended you by lumping you together with darkest Africa, from now on I'll be more considerate and keep my shoddy little continent off the forums ok? As for "Why can't Africa get it's act together?" -well we're trying, at least quite a few of us are... But you should understant that despite all the technological and social advances colonialism brought, it represented a major social upheaval which is still having repurcussions today. Consider that the borders of African countries were not drawn by their inhabitants, but by someone in Europe, who was taking the natural resources, rather than the people in mind when deciding things. Then there is the sad fact that so many Africans, yes even educated Africans like myself, are apt to try to "redress the past" by discriminating against the decendants of the former colonialsits and by sprouting Afro-fascist twaddle. I'm not against nationalism, but the forms of it I'm seeing around dismay me, eg: Mugabe. Like North America, Africa is comprised of new nations, you were also colonies at some stage. Unlike your continent, the people who settled here didn't try to genocide our native populations, hence we have more problems than you. I hope that answers your questions.

[doofus-01]

I'm sorry to have offended you by lumping you together with darkest Africa, from now on I'll be more considerate and keep my shoddy little continent off the forums ok?

I think we're talking past each other.

My question was not a real one, comparing Africa to Lichtenstein is, of course, absurd. And a vague sweeping question about Africa getting its act together is absurd. And comparing the US to Switzerland is also absurd.

Comparing Oregon or South Carolina to Switzerland is less absurd, though probably going too far in the other direction. An Oregonian and South Carolinian may have more in common than an Oregonian and a Russian do, but there is just not the level of homogeneity across the US that there can be in a much smaller European country like Switzerland. Different parts of the US will have different issues with gun control, gay marriage, water use, or whatever.

If you insist on taking offense at that, there's nothing more I can do. Forum posting is just not my best communication skill.

[Midnight_Carnival]

there is just not the level of homogeneity across the US that there can be in a much smaller European country like Switzerland. Different parts of the US will have different issues with gun control, gay marriage, water use, or whatever.

Ok, I get what you were saying now.
-By the way, I wasn't taking offense, I'm just naturally bitchy.

From the way I see it, you were talking about people as in terms of laws and culture, or you weren't talking about people at all, but countries and political entities, I was talking about them as rational beings, responsible, etc... I still maintain that Americans can be every bit as mature, rational and responsible as Swiss (although I am using a small sample size) and I still think there may be some merit to what I'm saying. Having weapons doesn't mean people will automatically use them stupidly. Anyway, you'd be surprised how much damage you can do with ordainary household appliances.

It does not hurt me if Americans go armed or unarmed, I merely think many of the arguments for gun-control are absurd.

[doofus-01]

:) Ok, I get what you were saying now.
-By the way, I wasn't taking offense, I'm just naturally bitchy.

Cool.

From the way I see it, you were talking about people as in terms of laws and culture,

Correct. It seems appropriate.

I still maintain that Americans can be every bit as mature, rational and responsible as Swiss (although I am using a small sample size)

Not all of us.

Having weapons doesn't mean people will automatically use them stupidly. Anyway, you'd be surprised how much damage you can do with ordainary household appliances.

The fact that you can kill someone with a hand-drill does not mean a gun is just like a hand-drill. Having many people with many weapons in situations where each one can cause a lot of damage pretty much guaranties something bad will happen at some point. Cars are regulated, guns should be too.

It does not hurt me if Americans go armed or unarmed, I merely think many of the arguments for gun-control are absurd.

I'm not an activist on this either (unless posting on Wesnoth Off-Topic counts as activism), so I'm happy to leave it there.

[Limabean]

Does that mean I wish for our police forces to be disarmed? Hell no! I think some degree of gun control is necessary. I think gun training should be a prerequisite to having a gun license. And I think having a gun license should be a prerequisite to owning a gun. We have to have a license to drive cars and operate certain machinery, and the main determinate for deciding whether or not a device needs a license, is that it is likely to kill someone if improperly. Guns are bizarre in this regard, in that they are one of the few devices(in this category) that are likely to kill someone if used properly as well.

This strikes me as a sensible moderate viewpoint. I generally stay out of gun-rights debates, but I just want to show my support for that view.

[e7th04sh]

Well, the problem here is that once the administration becomes anti-gun, they can quite easily influence a decrease in gun permits number given annualy. There are stupid people, that will cause harm and learn no lesson from their own or others fate. So sending them one after another to prison for gun misuse & accidents won't solve the problem either. Difficult subject.

But given no good middle option, i am for freedomf to own a gun without permit for people seen as mature by law. There are a few big crimes that state can commit against freedom of people, and one of them is removing their power. It's already happening with military being extremely advanced compared to what self-organising citizen's militia can achieve... So i guess it's a lost case. But generally i believe people should be able to revolt - it is the only possible way to guarantee they will be reckoned with.

History knows only brief periods of stable republics and democracies, so don't just ignore my words.

[Herduk]

There are a few big crimes that state can commit against freedom of people, and one of them is removing their power. It's already happening with military being extremely advanced compared to what self-organising citizen's militia can achieve... So i guess it's a lost case. But generally i believe people should be able to revolt - it is the only possible way to guarantee they will be reckoned with.

You know that the main power people have is their vote and not holding a gun (at least in democracy)?

History knows only brief periods of stable republics and democracies, so don't just ignore my words.

Oh, yeah.. so go on with human sacrifice, we had them sometimes during past 2.000 years.
If we don't learn from past, please God, push autodistruction button!

[Gambit]

Here's another way to look at it. People don't kill people with giant boulders, but they will if you take away their assault rifles.
This is my way of acknowledging there are some people who should not have guns, but you can't take them from everyone to stop those few. It's also really funny.

[styles1005]

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Really, how do you think banning guns is going to stop those who get guns illegally in the first place, such as, I don't know, criminals? I think guns should be controlled (i.e. taking safety courses, background checks), but banning them is not going to stop people from getting their hands on one if they really want to, and if nobody else has a gun, nobody can fight back.

[wayfarer]

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Really, how do you think banning guns is going to stop those who get guns illegally in the first place, such as, I don't know, criminals? I think guns should be controlled (i.e. taking safety courses, background checks), but banning them is not going to stop people from getting their hands on one if they really want to, and if nobody else has a gun, nobody can fight back.

I always thought Self Justice was even banned in the USA. So someone robs you want the right to shoot him down?
Well than say it and don't come around with this self defense joke.

Let's face the facts. Someone who want's to kill you want be stopped by a gun. Hell even a car is more sufficient in killing you than a gun.
If you want to rob your belongings he doesn't want your life. Why? No money in there. If you have a weapon he might even act in self defense. Akward huh? Well but who want's to be killed?
Armament spirales never work out only if someone pulls the trigger.

[Sgt. Groovy]

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

But then again, if citizens are unarmed, what do the criminals need guns for? If everyone is armed and prepared to shoot in self-defense, it means that even petty criminals must also carry and shoot to kill at the first sign of trouble. What follows is an arms race between citizens and criminals.

Here's a world map of murder rate. It's interesting to note that some countries with very strict gun control, like Germany and Japan, also have very low murder rate. But then there is Switzerland, with assault rifles in every home, and also low murder rate. But Mexico and Russia, with strict gun control, have high murder rates, whereas US, with lax gun control, has also high murder rate. There seems to be little correlation in either way with strictness of gun control and violent crime (if murder rate is any indicator of it). Guns, as such, do not cause violent crime, but neither do they solve it.

[wayfarer]

Guns just change the outcome.

[styles1005]

Good point, Sgt. Mind you, I'm also biased - that's what you get when you have a right-wing mother who makes you read pamphlets on the Second Amendment as punishment and can turn a conversation on the differences between cats and dogs into a discussion of politics. So, take what I say with a grain of salt - I try to resist it, but it sorta gets hammered into your brain after a year or so.

Anyway, on-topic, you're right; I guess it's as much culture and upbringing as anything else. (Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, though, FYI.)

[Joram]

I always thought Self Justice was even banned in the USA. So someone robs you want the right to shoot him down?
Well than say it and don't come around with this self defense joke.

It is always self defense if someone breaks into your home. I'm not going to ask him whether he is here to rob me or whether he has worse intentions.

I took a criminal justice class at a community college taught by a former police officer, and he told the story of a person who knocked on a door, shot the husband when he came to answer it, heard the wife running away, followed her upstairs and looked around before finding her in a closet and shooting her three times in the head.

The guy wasn't interested in robbery. He took a few things, but my instructor, who was involved in the case, said that it was obviously just to make it look like a robbery since they were fairly random things and there was no attempt to look for where money or valuables might be kept. The other thing about this case? The people were, so far as anyone was able to find out, perfect strangers operating in completely different social spheres. This guy just walked up to a random house (probably chosen because it was rather large and well-to-do), shot the occupants, and left.


Now, people can use this story as an argument for or against gun control. If he hadn't had a gun, this wouldn't have happened. If the wife had had a gun, she could have survived, the guy would have done it anyway with a baseball bat if no one had a gun, etc. etc. I'm not saying whether it supports one side or the other, and you can make it say whatever you want.

My point is that if someone breaks into your house, you cannot wait to see what he wants. You are placed in a position of danger to your life and the lives of your family. If it's just yourself, then you can play Russian Roulette if you want and assume the guy will leave you alone. But if you have family, then it is simply irresponsible to make that assumption. There are a lot of people in this world who will kill without a second thought, and they would probably do so if they ran into you to protect themselves. No witnesses means they can't be identified. To rely on the goodness of criminals is silly.

So you cannot divorce robbery and self defense. You may not know what the situation is until it is too late to do anything about it.

(On the other hand, if you are walking in a dark alley, and this guy comes up with a mask and a knife and says "give me your wallet", then it is a reasonable guess that he's not intending to kill you since he already had a chance.

But then again, if citizens are unarmed, what do the criminals need guns for? If everyone is armed and prepared to shoot in self-defense, it means that even petty criminals must also carry and shoot to kill at the first sign of trouble. What follows is an arms race between citizens and criminals.

I caution you on this line of reasoning. You appear to be making the logical assumption that "A criminal will still be a criminal regardless of the danger associated with the job". That will no doubt be true with some of them. But if the dangers of robbery increase, won't the number of people going into the field possibly decrease? It's one thing to rob when it's an easy thing to do and the worst that can happen to you is that you'll spend a few years supplied with room and board (and television and ping-pong to). It is quite another when you face the possibility of death. To propose that if everyone had guns then petty criminals would respond by carrying guns and being trigger happy is not necessarily a logical progression.

There seems to be little correlation in either way with strictness of gun control and violent crime (if murder rate is any indicator of it). Guns, as such, do not cause violent crime, but neither do they solve it.

Imo, there are too many factors to draw any conclusion. Mexico, for example, may have strict gun control. But they also have a high desertion rate from the army, and a lot of deserters take their guns with them, providing a gun supply that bypasses their normal regulations. Secondly, some cultures just have different value placed on personal property and human life, so will have more or less murders without taking into account the availability of weapons. There are tons of factors involved in a murder rate, and Gun Control is just one of them. To draw any conclusions based on a 1-to-1 comparison is prone to error, imo. That's not to say your conclusion isn't correct though.

[pauxlo]

I always thought Self Justice was even banned in the USA. So someone robs you want the right to shoot him down?
Well than say it and don't come around with this self defense joke.

It is always self defense if someone breaks into your home. I'm not going to ask him whether he is here to rob me or whether he has worse intentions.

I took a criminal justice class at a community college taught by a former police officer, and he told the story of a person who knocked on a door, shot the husband when he came to answer it, heard the wife running away, followed her upstairs and looked around before finding her in a closet and shooting her three times in the head.

The guy wasn't interested in robbery. He took a few things, but my instructor, who was involved in the case, said that it was obviously just to make it look like a robbery since they were fairly random things and there was no attempt to look for where money or valuables might be kept. The other thing about this case? The people were, so far as anyone was able to find out, perfect strangers operating in completely different social spheres. This guy just walked up to a random house (probably chosen because it was rather large and well-to-do), shot the occupants, and left.

So, someone who simply wants to murder for no reason at all.

Now, people can use this story as an argument for or against gun control. If he hadn't had a gun, this wouldn't have happened. If the wife had had a gun, she could have survived, the guy would have done it anyway with a baseball bat if no one had a gun, etc. etc. I'm not saying whether it supports one side or the other, and you can make it say whatever you want.

Right.

My point is that if someone breaks into your house, you cannot wait to see what he wants. You are placed in a position of danger to your life and the lives of your family. If it's just yourself, then you can play Russian Roulette if you want and assume the guy will leave you alone. But if you have family, then it is simply irresponsible to make that assumption. There are a lot of people in this world who will kill without a second thought, and they would probably do so if they ran into you to protect themselves. No witnesses means they can't be identified. To rely on the goodness of criminals is silly.

If someone in Germany came into my flat by breaking in, I would normally suppose he only wants to steal something (and is assuming no one is there). I would ask him what he wants, and he normally would either run away (then no harm is done apart from a broken door), or try to threaten me with a weapon – and then I would do anything he said, he gets the money and I get to live.

This are the usual German criminals, at least ... they know murder is the most certainly cleared up crime (mostly because of the manpower thrown on it), and the hardest punished one, too.

If I had a weapon, too, I think he could be stressed to kill me before I do ... and when in stress, people get unrational. (And I suppose usual criminals are better at killing me than I am at killing them.)

So, maybe in the US the usual robbers are more dangerous, or simply less scrupulous in regards to killing someone (which may relate on the "right to have a weapon" thing).
It may also relate to the chance to be found after different crimes - does someone has a statistic on that in comparison to the murder rate?