Gun problem? Add more guns!

[Redeye]

Honestly the uber strict gun laws in DC make even owning a handgun (i'm not sure about long guns) illegal. So even without a black market hopping into a car and going to Virginia or Maryland would still make a legally purchased firearm illegal.
...

I meant that they can be purchased legally out of state and then brought in illegally.
circumvention


Gun control might work better on an island.

[Smiley]

Well, I certainly feel somewhat enlightened.

I understand and appreciate the fears and that there are far more harsh political statuses than the one in my relatively rosy red country.

Kashluk hits it pretty much on the head, but I never expected any country to just change over night.
I know it's utopian, but couldn't it be possible to change for (what I believe is) the better?

Baby steps.

Read the papers, dig through articles on-line. There are countless stories of crime (violent and other) being stopped, prevented or at least minimized by armed citizens.

Imagine how many of those crimes wouldn't have happened, if the perp's didn't have their guns in the first place.

I've stated multiple times, that I am completely aware that some have more than enough control and experience to safely own a gun, be it for protection or hobby. And I've said it loads of times, those are not the people I'm worried about.

[Machiavelli]

Imagine how many of those crimes wouldn't have happened, if the perp's didn't have their guns in the first place.

What you suggest here would be perfectly plausible if we were to take all weapons (guns and otherwise) launch them into the sun and have a sudden Utopian awakening that would make the entire human race swear off violence completely. If we lived in such a world I would not be arguing so stringently in favor of guns. We would truly have no need for them in that case.

The truth is, we live in a world where while most people are sociable, willing to get along with others and not resort to violence as a first option, there are still a good number of people who would kill, rob and rape many just because they can. In this world self protection is not only a necessity but a basic human right. If all people were equal, there would be no need for guns for that purpose. If governments truly cared for the people and not for their own power we wouldn't need guns. If cultures could learn to accept one another and talk out their differences we wouldn't need guns.

Violence, killing, crime and other despicable things predate guns and even civilization. No one ever wants to attribute the higher amount of these things to the greater numbers of people living in this world. It can never be a problem of people, no it has to be their tools. Holding a gun does not make you want to point it at someone and pull the trigger. That requires a personal decision. I don't understand the culture well enough in Denmark to make a statement on how that would be viewed but in America (at least large parts of it) it is viewed as a personal decision (that is still wrong) and having just a little less safety is a price we pay for the freedoms that we hold so dear. I know it's hard for people from other countries to understand and please don't think I'm trying to shove AMERICA!!! down anyones throat. I'm merely highlighting the cultural stance that exists here. Ban all guns in Denmark, England, Germany and any other country that wants to, but baning guns is not what America wants. I know our government is not the most shining example of letting other countries go their own way, but the average American does not believe in forcing other countries to be like us.

Go ahead, disarm all of Europe. America will be more than happy to bail you out again.

P.s. I know that WW2 was mostly fought by the Soviets and that Europe owes more to them than us for getting rid of the Nazis, but we did keep at least part of the continent out of Soviet hands.

[Redeye]

America wants what is marketed to it.

Gun Control will take a while, but the resisters will actually make it happen faster. Even if they don't bluster and fume and foam/etc., our wonderful media will simply twist, frame, and juxtapose information to guide the sheep.

It's a hard sell, but it will be sold eventually.

Ameripeepelz will want it, pay for, stand behind it, and even ask for it by name, like meow mix.

[Kashluk]

America will be more than happy to bail you out again.

That one stinged a bit. Europe is a pretty big place with a population of 2½ times of USA. It's not one nation, but is brought closer to a federal union by EU these days, so it's comparable. WW2 history on the other hand, well... let's just say that to the average American WW2 was all about Normandy. OK, it's exaggerated, but again the point of view is quite limited. I live in a country that fought the soviets, the nazis and technically even the rest of the allies at some point during the war. During WW2 only three capitals in fighting Europe were never occupied by a foreign military force: London, Moscow and Helsinki. Didn't have much need for your "bailing out", nor did we receive much direct help from you, so saying such things out loud just make you sound very arrogant, and worse, ignorant when it comes to world history. For those interested in some less known history, click here, here and here.

Back to gun running, yeehaw!

I just had this crazy idea, to bring in some more spice into the discussion. One argument stated that even though firearms are originally tools for killing, they have many recreational and practical uses today that have nothing to do with killing law-abiding citizens. Then I thought that, hey, shouldn't all hardcore drugs and narcotics of all sorts be free to purchase from your local grocery store then? Sure they're meant to fuck your brains and cause you undescribable pleasure, but it's the freedom of choice. There would be no violence or crime surrounding these substances since it all would be legal and monitored by state officials, just like prostitution in Netherlands! If someone wants to ruin his life by sticking the needle to his arm too often it's his business and he could do the same by drinking alcohol or eating himself into an obese form. Can you follow my logic..? Is it exactly the same or is it a totally different case?

[Thor Kaufman]

It's not exactly the same because you don't hurt others when taking drugs, only yourself in case of some drugs. Using drugs as a weapon is pretty farfetched although possible but that doesn't really happen often. Doctors probably harm more people through wrong medication.
So yes, taking drugs must be legal.

I think everything should be legal to own, except maybe for extremely harmful weapons, like big bombs.
Hurting other people should still be illegal, of course. That way you lose bullshit laws and have more freedom while still having most of the security if not more.

Take France as an example, you may take drugs as much as you want and even drive while intoxicated (not that this is responsible) yet you only get problems if you crash into something.
I think that's kind of comparable to the gun issue (car as a weapon maybe?) and it's fair enough in my book.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Go ahead, disarm all of Europe. America will be more than happy to bail you out again.

Looking at Iraq right now, looks like we're bailing YOUR ass out instead. I think that you've already got more than you can handle in your arms.

[MadBill]

What? Iraq is just what we do in our spare time o_O

[Smiley]

drugs and narcotics

Even if they do screw up your health?
I guess, but any damage received from drugs would probably exclude you from healthcare, for that damage at least.

I'm guessing one of the other reasons that they aren't legal now, is that all suppliers are not someone a country would like to work with.
There's probably a lot of influential politics in it as well..

But sure, there's no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to fuck yourself over on drugs and narcotics.

[Thor Kaufman]

Ya, and don't let the obese, drinkers, smokers, freeclimbers, swingers, WoW gamers, workers, students, investment bankers etc etc have health insurance, anymore, either.

Opium can actually be grown in most places, same for weed. Coca needs Colombia, I guess but I'm not sure. The big rest is either made chemical or can be homegrown as well.

[VasikkA]

I just had this idea

It's a bit different, because drugs cannot be classified as weapons; i.e. devices meant to kill others. I'm talking about the street shit, not opiate-based warfare agents. The potential danger of narcotics usage is limited to the user. Drug suppliers, or even doctors, can exert authority over a drug addict to some extent, but every person is ultimately responsible for his/her drug usage. It's not in the suppliers' interest to kill their clients either. That's bad business, yo.

[Kashluk]

But do people here think that guns = ok, but narcotics = bad? Since I agree with you guys - you can only harm yourself with that shit, but it's just a freedom of choice. I'm personally all liberal and shit, let the people do what ever they want, but I endorse both the positive and negative aspects of freedom. That includes the freedom of "being free" from fear, bad influence etc. Bleh, this might seem like hollow mind streaming, but I'm just trying to dig out the inner hippocrits out of you guys.

[St. Toxic]

Well, there's certainly the possibility of harming others under the influence of narcotics, but I'd think that legalization of narcotic substances would in fact decrease all manner of criminal activity, without any such occurances having any deeper impact on the statistics.

But I think that legalizing narcotics and guns might be a bad idea, and might in fact result in some major lulz. Overall, it is my understanding that the availability of guns leads to increases in violence and crime, and while there is nothing wrong with legalizing fire-arms, it should be accompanied by a strict dogmatic ruleset, mandatory training in fire-arms handling and low availability of fire-arms.

[VasikkA]

Overall, it is my understanding that the availability of guns leads to increases in violence and crime

Care to elaborate? As a gun owner, would you become more aggressive toward your neighbour(if you have one, lol) knowing that he also is armed?

[St. Toxic]

It is a relatively clean tool for killing, and as such eliminates at least one of the issues which may otherwise discourage the act. Simply put, a readily available firearm does not necessarily inspire violence, but if plot of violence is already present, acquiring a firearm helps in advancing the situation from plot into action.

The same can be said for crime, as while there are many robberies conducted with blades and axes as a means of threat, a gun may induce a feeling of greater safety in a situation where you are indeed in danger from victims and law enforcement and may have to defend yourself, and as such makes robbery seem like a potentially less dangerous activity.

In as much as anything, it is a showpiece in a natural arms race between insecure humans, where mele weapons triumph over fists, and so guns triumph over mele weapons, and while the wielder of the finest showpiece may feel more secure, it creates insecurity in those around him to the point that they must participate in the race, triggering the same reaction in the minds of other people, adding to the overall feeling of threat. And threats demand some kind of response, and these may be violent, and since you have arms you have edge with which to cut.

[Redeye]

Overall, it is my understanding that the availability of guns leads to increases in violence and crime

Care to elaborate? As a gun owner, would you become more aggressive toward your neighbour(if you have one, lol) knowing that he also is armed?

I'd be more polite to my armed neighbor, or maybe just not care.

A lot of gun violence is crimes of passion. Gun make escalation of lethality almost instantaneous. From yelling to shooting to death. Knife, baseball bat, etc. are more difficult.

Lack of reason/empathy, economic stress, chemicals in food, etc. set up a frame that guns crystallize.

[Machiavelli]

I say go ahead and legalize drugs. If they tax them enough maybe the rest of us won't have to pay as many taxes. That statement was a bit too simple for what the topic is, but I don't care to elaborate my stance on it.

Kashluk, I'm not your "average" American. I know there was more to WW2 than just Normandy. I'm well aware of world history and also that the Finns fought like hell in WW2. I don't attribute ALL of WW2 to the Americans just keeping the Soviets from taking the entire continent and our lend-lease program which helped mainly Britain but the Soviets as well. Most of the combat in Western Europe was fought by either the Americans or by American equipment. Normandy was a huge affair but it's one that pales in comparison to Kursk, Stalingrad, Leningrad and Berlin. The point I was trying to make with my statement however is that Hitler would have been stopped much sooner if the German public still had guns when they found out what he was and even without the German public being armed the resistance movements in occupied countries would have made a bigger impact earlier in the war. American bomber raids over Germany helped shorten the war by a great deal.

As to Europe bailing us out of Iraq? Bullshit. Pure and simple. It's the same situation as Vietnam. American soldiers would already be home if the politicians would quit fucking with it and let the troops do their jobs. Our current problem in Iraq is that we're using soldiers as policemen and that we went in there in the first place.

[cazsim83]

there is nothing wrong with legalizing fire-arms, it should be accompanied by a strict dogmatic ruleset, mandatory training in fire-arms handling and low availability of fire-arms.

How are you going to clean out the gene pool if you *make* people get gun training?

As to Europe bailing us out of Iraq? Bullshit. Pure and simple. It's the same situation as Vietnam. American soldiers would already be home if the politicians would quit fucking with it and let the troops do their jobs. Our current problem in Iraq is that we're using soldiers as policemen and that we went in there in the first place.

qfe

I am wondering if anybody really thinks that outlawing guns will make the world safer. Drugs are illegal, and drug related crimes are still very common. Alcohol here in the States was illegal for a time, and so speakeasys popped up, along with bootlegging, and organized crime (although that was around before, they just benefited big time), etc - history is showing that making something illegal doesn't necessarily help, and in the case of firearms, how will you depose your government, anyway?

[Redeye]

...Hitler would have been stopped much sooner if the German public still had guns when they found out what he was and even without the German public being armed the resistance movements in occupied countries would have made a bigger impact earlier in the war. American bomber raids over Germany helped shorten the war by a great deal.

...

If the German people had guns it would have been sport stuff mostly. The pre-ban gun culture in Germany was not like the American one. There wasn't even really a "gun culture" per se.

Remember, they went into WW1 on orders of the state. 18 years of Weimar/etc. isn't going to change notions of Fatherland/etc.

At most an armed public would have made it easier for partisans to get basic weapons with which to obtain better weapons. The harassment/sabotage factor would perhaps have been a bit higher.

Are you presuming something like a John Brown's Raid on prison camps/etc.?

I suppose a few little things like that might have happened. Piddly.


As for the bombing, it's actually a matter of debate whether the terror bombings helped or hindered. I still would have done a few with fake ones mixed in so that AA/fighter protection would still have to be distributed everywhere. The bombing capacity saved in this way could have then been diverted to adding more military, industrial, and infrastructural targets.
(Yes there is that bit about the population itself being a support force, but that could be addressed when those capacities are diverted to the military, industrial, and infrastructural target zones.)



ps
By "fake ones" I mean feints that actually go after other targets that are real. Otherwise you are wasting a bombing run.

[Redeye]

...how will you depose your government, anyway?

So cliche, why not just ignore it instead?