They're Coming...For Your Guns!!!

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

All I can say as a European is that I got used to U.S. school shootings in the news. It is very sad to witness these events on TV, but they seem to happen on a regular basis. So, I hope that the ones in charge draw the right conclusions. By the way, the second word of the term 'running amok' refers to the Malay culture area. It describes someone who starts killing people in blind rage until he is killed by someone else. A society which grants relatively easy access to firearms has to reflect on why things could happen the way they did in Connecticut.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just another interesting chart:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

Two more years to go until the U.S. reach a break-even point regarding gun deaths vs. traffic fatalities.

[reaper239]

All I can say as a European is that I got used to U.S. school shootings in the news. It is very sad to witness these events on TV, but they seem to happen on a regular basis. So, I hope that the ones in charge draw the right conclusions. By the way, the second word of the term 'running amok' refers to the Malay culture area. It describes someone who starts killing people in blind rage until he is killed by someone else. A society which grants relatively easy access to firearms has to reflect on why things could happen the way they did in Connecticut.

just not the wrong conclusion, after all, europe, per capita, has about the same rate of multiple victim murders as the US, and in fact the multiple victim murders tend to be worse. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...united-states/
for some reason the media tends to blast US massacres everywhere, but when a massacre happens in europe it gets like no coverage. at least here.

[Condor]

All I can say as a European is that I got used to U.S. school shootings in the news. It is very sad to witness these events on TV, but they seem to happen on a regular basis. So, I hope that the ones in charge draw the right conclusions. By the way, the second word of the term 'running amok' refers to the Malay culture area. It describes someone who starts killing people in blind rage until he is killed by someone else. A society which grants relatively easy access to firearms has to reflect on why things could happen the way they did in Connecticut.

Obviously these are tragic events, but why let one nut job cause stricter laws that only punish the millions of law-abiding gun owners? The majority of these criminals get their firearms illegally, such as the guy in Connecticut who stole the guns from his mom. These massacres usually happen in "gun-free" areas where concealed or open carry is forbidden such as schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls.

Just another interesting chart:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

Two more years to go until the U.S. reach a break-even point regarding gun deaths vs. traffic fatalities.

That link has a very bad word in it, "bloomberg", so without even clicking I'm sure that whatever is said on the site is a HUGE load of bovine fecal matter. Michael Bloomberg is one of the biggest anti-gun activists in the country. He's a rich a-hole, that pretty much bought the mayors office in NY and has such a holier-than-thou attitude that he thinks he knows whats best for everyone else. He's already gotten legislation passed that bans large sodas in NYC, that's going too far when you try to tell people what they can/can't eat or drink. As far as I'm concerned, that guy just needs to STFU.

just not the wrong conclusion, after all, europe, per capita, has about the same rate of multiple victim murders as the US, and in fact the multiple victim murders tend to be worse. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...united-states/
for some reason the media tends to blast US massacres everywhere, but when a massacre happens in europe it gets like no coverage. at least here.

It's media ratings. I blame the media for these idiots, they see one sensationalized story and in their twisted minds think "I can be famous like them". Then they do something stupid.

[Wicked Sid]

just not the wrong conclusion, after all, europe, per capita, has about the same rate of multiple victim murders as the US, and in fact the multiple victim murders tend to be worse. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...united-states/

Found in the comments of the linked article. The article you posted had no extremely reliable reference for Britain's statistics and I like being nit-picky with disproving things and such.

[LiamKerrington]

Actually I am not sure what to think about it all in all.

Just some weird throw-ins ...

a) Wherever the US and/ or combined international military forces play world police, rules are established that don't allow people of the occupied nations to own their own guns and that they have to give 'their' guns away. But I don't recollect that the human rights catalogue constitutes the ownership of guns an "Americans-Only"-right. So why would some/ so many Americans insist on owning guns, while on the contrary the USA neglect this right for people in other countries? (And, please, don't waste my time with this terrorists bogus; a farmer in Afghanistan or Iraq may own his guns against wild animals or against terrorists himself!)

b) A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

c) I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

d) People point towards Germans and say: You don't own weapons in private, thus you are much more vulnerable to any fighting force from the outside; that's probably true! But it is jus as wrong as well, because aa) NATO, bb) during nearly 70 years of existence there was none to occupy 'us' besides the WWII-winner-nations, and cc) if someone attempts to occupy Germany, he first of all has to get through plenty of other European countries - and if he does not do this, he would use weapon systems in which face "our" personal and private guns (if we had any) would be meaningless (i.e. nuclear bombs, bio- or chemical weapons). The funny thing here is: Very likely they would deploy weapons and weapon systems produced by us Germans. Funny, ey, since we are No 3 trader and seller of guns and weapon-systems in the world.

e) Personally I wouldn't mind anyone running around with a gun Wild-West-style in his/her girdled holster. But assault rifles, double-barrelled/ 12"/ pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns, submachine guns, military style weapons? What the big EFF for?

f) About e): And now, if EVERYONE has his gun always available on his hip, what does this say about safety? Nothing. Nothing at all. People shoot into their faces even when the opponent is armed as well; but people shoot unarmed people as well (just remember that drugged guy in New York who was downed in a rain of bullets by NYPD, because he held a knife in a hand and did not even threaten anyone ...). Therefore: Guns or ownership are not really "the" solution, but remain part of "the" problem - and that as much, as any violent act or violence remains part of the problem.

g) And finally supporting something based on the argument, things would be written in the Constitution, ... Well. There is a difference between having a right and having a legal right. Two totally different things ... Kelly would tell you ... Besides: AFAIK In some Regions in the US ownership or usage of guns are highly restricted no matter what the US-Constitution says, right?

Well, what I want to state here, is basically this: The complete discussion is totally bogus. Everyone agrees that using weapons against humans is not OK (, at least if there is no justifiable moral cause behind it,) and that most probably the major, but not only source of this thus is misbehaviour while possessing weapons. And yet all of you disagree on how treatment of guns everywhere around should look like and you diverge like crazy on allowances of guns. Just look at my short list above; I think this could be extended with many, many more opinions and examples, which - again - is a reason for me to be split in my opinion.

I agree: Changing rules won't solve the problem. But I also accept the idea that changing the rules might change the problem for the better, and yet very likely not the bost possible outcome; and yet I wouldn't bet on it, although pulling a trigger and killing a person is much more easily done that beating someone to death.

And about all those statistics: I prefer lying to myself by looking into a mirror and stating something based on the empirical observations I made myself. I don't like statistics, 'cause they actually don't say anything and only receive their value by interpretation.

Regardless of that: Enjoy your Christmas and Holidays. I like you all, no matter if you posses guns, love guns, hate guns, sleep with guns, name your guns, paint your guns, use your guns as vases or sex-toys, or whatever. But I would regret it a lot, if the one or the other would use his or her gun against people without a proper, moral-wise solid reason.

All the best!
Liam

[Condor]

Actually I am not sure what to think about it all in all.

Just some weird throw-ins ...

a) Wherever the US and/ or combined international military forces play world police, rules are established that don't allow people of the occupied nations to own their own guns and that they have to give 'their' guns away. But I don't recollect that the human rights catalogue constitutes the ownership of guns an "Americans-Only"-right. So why would some/ so many Americans insist on owning guns, while on the contrary the USA neglect this right for people in other countries? (And, please, don't waste my time with this terrorists bogus; a farmer in Afghanistan or Iraq may own his guns against wild animals or against terrorists himself!)

b) A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

c) I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

d) People point towards Germans and say: You don't own weapons in private, thus you are much more vulnerable to any fighting force from the outside; that's probably true! But it is jus as wrong as well, because aa) NATO, bb) during nearly 70 years of existence there was none to occupy 'us' besides the WWII-winner-nations, and cc) if someone attempts to occupy Germany, he first of all has to get through plenty of other European countries - and if he does not do this, he would use weapon systems in which face "our" personal and private guns (if we had any) would be meaningless (i.e. nuclear bombs, bio- or chemical weapons). The funny thing here is: Very likely they would deploy weapons and weapon systems produced by us Germans. Funny, ey, since we are No 3 trader and seller of guns and weapon-systems in the world.

e) Personally I wouldn't mind anyone running around with a gun Wild-West-style in his/her girdled holster. But assault rifles, double-barrelled/ 12"/ pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns, submachine guns, military style weapons? What the big EFF for?

f) About e): And now, if EVERYONE has his gun always available on his hip, what does this say about safety? Nothing. Nothing at all. People shoot into their faces even when the opponent is armed as well; but people shoot unarmed people as well (just remember that drugged guy in New York who was downed in a rain of bullets by NYPD, because he held a knife in a hand and did not even threaten anyone ...). Therefore: Guns or ownership are not really "the" solution, but remain part of "the" problem - and that as much, as any violent act or violence remains part of the problem.

g) And finally supporting something based on the argument, things would be written in the Constitution, ... Well. There is a difference between having a right and having a legal right. Two totally different things ... Kelly would tell you ... Besides: AFAIK In some Regions in the US ownership or usage of guns are highly restricted no matter what the US-Constitution says, right?

Well, what I want to state here, is basically this: The complete discussion is totally bogus. Everyone agrees that using weapons against humans is not OK (, at least if there is no justifiable moral cause behind it,) and that most probably the major, but not only source of this thus is misbehaviour while possessing weapons. And yet all of you disagree on how treatment of guns everywhere around should look like and you diverge like crazy on allowances of guns. Just look at my short list above; I think this could be extended with many, many more opinions and examples, which - again - is a reason for me to be split in my opinion.

I agree: Changing rules won't solve the problem. But I also accept the idea that changing the rules might change the problem for the better, and yet very likely not the bost possible outcome; and yet I wouldn't bet on it, although pulling a trigger and killing a person is much more easily done that beating someone to death.

And about all those statistics: I prefer lying to myself by looking into a mirror and stating something based on the empirical observations I made myself. I don't like statistics, 'cause they actually don't say anything and only receive their value by interpretation.

Regardless of that: Enjoy your Christmas and Holidays. I like you all, no matter if you posses guns, love guns, hate guns, sleep with guns, name your guns, paint your guns, use your guns as vases or sex-toys, or whatever. But I would regret it a lot, if the one or the other would use his or her gun against people without a proper, moral-wise solid reason.

All the best!
Liam

a. I wasn't aware of this disarmament in other countries, but if that's the case it's very wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the US is the only country that has any mention of firearms in it's founding principles or Constitution and in many areas firearms are a major part of our culture.

c. Hitler was pro-gun control.

d. Germany does make some fine firearms.

g. Correct, all states abide by Federal law but some states have much stricter laws. For example, Washington DC, California, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (see gun control really works) have some of the strictest regulations in the country.

There's an old expression: "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." I truly believe that. If I'm ever in the situation where a muscle-bound 300lb dude who looks like he could bench press a bus is coming at me with his fists, the only way I'm going to survive that encounter is with a gun.

The biggest thing I remember from the Statistics class I took in college is that you can interpret the data in different ways to get closer to your desired outcome.

[LiamKerrington]

a. I wasn't aware of this disarmament in other countries, but if that's the case it's very wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the US is the only country that has any mention of firearms in it's founding principles or Constitution and in many areas firearms are a major part of our culture....

There's an old expression: "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." I truly believe that. If I'm ever in the situation where a muscle-bound 300lb dude who looks like he could bench press a bus is coming at me with his fists, the only way I'm going to survive that encounter is with a gun.

The biggest thing I remember from the Statistics class I took in college is that you can interpret the data in different ways to get closer to your desired outcome.

I need to admit:

About my point a) I am not 100% sure; it is only a conclusion from what I see in various news and reports; but considering the rules established for Germany after WWII (no private guns a lot in order to prevent Germany becoming an evil motherfucker again) it is a rather safe assumption that at least in some regions my depiction may be wrong ...

@Condor: You are a master in concluding my wall words to two very fine statements - at least the one half of me having no trouble with private gun-ownership. Thank you, 'cause that's the way I have a strong feeling towards.
edit: And yet I feel very uncomfortable holding a gun in my hand - most likely because I am just not used to it.

Happy Holidays everyone!

And P.S.:: And forgive my bad spelling in the wall of words ...

[Cabbage Patch]

Just another interesting chart:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

Two more years to go until the U.S. reach a break-even point regarding gun deaths vs. traffic fatalities.

The headline is mis-leading. The rates of death are converging because traffic deaths are falling dramatically (mostly attributable to people driving less), while gun death rates are up slightly after years of significant decline (down 50% since 1991).

[Cabbage Patch]

I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

A little historical perspective from the end of WW2. When the Allies occupied Germany the civilian population had already been disarmed by their own government. And there were tens of millions of military weapons unaccounted for that needed to be collected. Under those circumstances it was just easier to outlaw all firearms. What happened after the formal occupation was probably driven more by local sentiment than by the wartime Allies.

A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

One of the realities in America is that there are a lot of guns here, and the bad guys always seem to be able to get their hands on them. The only ways to prevent this are 1) take away all firearms from everyone, eliminating the supply, or 2) make the penalties for illegal possession or criminal use so devastating that no one will consider it. Since the same politicians who hate private ownership of guns also oppose harsh criminal sentences and dispise the death penalty we live in a perpetual impasse.