The problem with this is that the only thing that often separates the two are appearances. The same innards and guts are exactly the same. Just the handles and stock. Some are fine finished wood then just swap it out and you have carbon fiber stock and it looks menacing. Now that is what I call judgmental and very silly. On the inside it is exactly the same thing.

Ha, if there's someone who should be very weary of governments here is you man, you live in a country whose government... well you know what happened, don't you? :rolleyes:

Hunting is not a profession.

obviously you don't understand the concept of collecting. I have met people with collections in excess of 300 guns, does that make them nutters or idiots? Hardly. They just have interests and hobbies different from yours, so have some respect for that.

once again, you probably never handled a firearm or frequented a shooting club. The fact that you think of guns as a boost for self-esteem makes you sick, not the others. Gun clubs and training schools teach you to respect and fear firearms.

Yes, I think it makes them nutters and idiots and I do think people who want to collect firearms have personality problems.

well bravo, idiotic self-righteousness has a new face, yours.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1233928590_ci...20clapping.gif

Lol. Why are my views idiotic and self-righteous exactly?

If guns protect freedom, where were the guns when the patriot act was signed? Where were the guns when the big banks got bailed out? Where were the guns when the Fed recieved all it's power? Etc.

In the US you talk alot about freedom, but there are very powerfull institutions in the government or in the private sector who take this freedom from you, but nothing happens. Why?

Btw. I have the highest respect for the "occupy wallstreet" people. But they didn't need guns to make a point.

No, I have never fired a weapon (wasn't conscripted, either, due to health reasons) nor do I intend to. And to answer your question yes, I'd consider someone owning 300 weapons a person in dire need of psych evaluation. And to derail your other rather far-off analogy you only need to take a look at all of Germany's history to understand why privately owned weapons never were and never will be seeing any kind of grand social acceptance here. Us Krauts aren't a society of revolutionaries - we've had two revolutions in our entire history, the French had more in a single year IIRC - so the idea that privately owned weapons would have prevented Hitler ... Pardon, but Bullsh*t!

Since my words have apparently touched a nerve and I have no intention of being dragged into a flamefest I hereby do the clever thing and say goodbye to this thread. ;)

you're not really asking me that question, are you?
Care to elaborate your point a bit more or you're happy to leave it like a stupid sentence that escaped the no-that's-a-stupid-thing-to-say in your brain?

Why you think guns collectors are idiots and nutters with personality problems exactly?

I figured as much.

so, you have no experience, and still you feel the right to say whether someone who has an interest different than yours is in need of psych evaluation. Sounds terribly like Germany in the early 30s to me..

If there's one thing that is really cool about Germany is that in all their decisions (good and bad), they've always been "Ein Volk", and the orderly mentality of Germany hardly marries with the idea of revolution. Gun ownership wouldn't have made a difference anyway cos the majority of people in Germany were pro-Hitler..

The problem is that you're still giving the wrong meaning to gun ownership, something you actually know NOTHING about, but still feel like you can give your uninformed opinion because of God knows what reason.

And yeah, nice way of flipping things around, I think you're leaving because you realise you actually don't have a valid argument. Funny that your avatar is a hunter with a gun though, isn't it?

I still really do wonder what these anti-guns preachers are doing here in a military combat simulator where they fire with cannons and machineguns at other aircraft.. why you're not using Flight Simulator or X-Plane?

Of course u understand that Stern... I have higher thoughts of u (or anybody else in this forum) than that. Of course u understand that people can discern fiction from facts. Just because I don't like the notion that firearms are free for all to buy with no restrictions, doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good action movie or can't be interested in combat flight sims... I am SURE you understand that.. your just trying to make a point mate ;)

Given the vehemence of the arguments here on both sides, can I offer a hypothetical question...

There has been a lot of talk about the need for guns to defend oneself/family/freedom from a government gone wrong or bad, with the implication being that the U.S. may at some point in the future (if not already according to some people) be ruled by such a government.

In such a scenario those in favour of gun ownership see themselves as potential defenders of freedom.

Here's the hypothetical bit: supposing that after several more shooting incidents of the kind seen recently a big majority of the US population and both main parties switched to advocating stronger gun control. Supposing that a democratically elected government expressing the will of the majority of the people enacted to enforce these measures.

What do you do? Do you reluctantly admit to the democratic will of the people? In such circumstances you can hardly see yourselves as still upholding freedom and democracy?

(I suppose what I'm getting at is that in Europe there seems to be more of a distrust and fear of loose amalgams of people or organisations that may be armed to the teeth and possess certain political views than there is of democratically elected governments. The general mindset here is that we need good governments to protect the population from whatever rag-bag set of extremists with a grievance that may come along...and that consequently it is wise to limit the availability of guns so that such extremists can not challenge democratically controlled police and armed forces)

Can i also say that many in the U.S. seem to have extremely low faith in democracy, checks and balances, etc, etc.

If the country was emerging from 60 years of communist dictatorship I could understand more what that was about, but for a country that prides itself on democratic values and freedom there seems to be one hell of a loss of faith.

It's still a contradiction in terms though, when I fly the sim myself I don't think "die you Nazi s..t!", it's more of a measure of skills, yet when I fly for real I have a completely different attitude, I don't even dare doing manoeuvres that I do in the sim, but I wonder how turning one of the darkest conflicts of human kind in a sim is actually doing us any good..


I was thinking about this watching the latest Batman a few nights ago: Batman used to be a super-hero and his reality was a bit dystopian, and there was an element of surrealism to it. Nowadays they're desperately trying to make as realistic as possible, even when it's not strictly necessary, and in a way they're kinda doing more harm than good to our society. Fiction has become a perfect portrayal of reality, and if back in the days there used to be some non-written rules about keeping decency and strong images outside the mass stream communication, nowadays it's ALL about it.
And no, not all people can discern fiction from reality apparently, surely not 24 years old that rig their house with explosives and go on a shooting rampage killing people randomly. THAT is the stuff to worry about, the signs that the problem with society is alienation, not firearms.

Contradictions in terms? That I want gun control but can enjoy action movies and enjoy flying combat sim? I see no contradiction there at all mate.. naaah sorry mate ;)
I would say at least 98% of all Swedes are FOR our regulations and gun laws... does that mean they/we can't enjoy a good action movie or play brainless 1st personn shooters? naaah :D

Sure, there are nuts who cannot discern fiction from facts.. like this dude who thought he was the Joker.. and a great example of why gun control is important... a necessity even. AND as you say; alienation... and/or medical healthcare (phyciatric treatment) in this case. ( too bad if you or your family can't afford it ;) but that is another topic... )

I think is still boils down to; people who are against gun control is against it because it's a matter of principle...(it's a "right" and it is regulated in 2nd amendment)... people who are for gun control seems to me to be more pragmatic. It's up for each and every country to decide, through democratic process, which way to go. I can't see any gun control law beeing introduced in any/many of the US states any time soon (maybe some blue states). Not a chance for a federal law though.

A firearm to be assault rifle has to be select fire, (able to fire on full automatic) .
99% of what people call "assault rifles" are not assault rifles. Just semiautomatic rifles that are either based on some assault rifle design or in many cases just look like an assault rifle.
The thing is there are a lot of people that are active in anti firearms circles and even in governments, making laws, that know so little about the subject that use looks in making their decisions in what's dangerous and what's not.

You see some pearls coming from this people that you shake your head thinking, how come someone so ignorant about the subject is allowed to make laws about it.

Here are few examples:
:rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...QqieimwLQ&NR=1

The problem is that, even if you take away the semiauto rifles, the anti gun machine will not stop there. They'll go for the hand guns , then shot guns, then bolt action guns and then the firearms of the police, so in the end only criminals have guns.
Some people think that just by removing guns, (from those not likely to shoot anyone), people would stop killing eachother. It's a utopia. We were slaughtering eachother for thousands of years without guns.

Come on, you know the difference between games and reality.

Not true, an assault weapons ban is just that. You are just fear mongering to stir up the pro gun crowd.

Hmm the more I read this "guns don't people, people kill people", the more pissed off I get. FOR ME (i am talking about ME here) it is an absurd asinine argument .No doubt whoever said it first thought it was quite profound...

So let’s see, someone needs to defend the poor innocent little gun.. It’s not the gun’s fault that it falls into the hands of criminals, lunatics, suicides and mauronns who accidentally shoot their own foot off or worse. The fact is the way you CONTROL misuse of guns is to limit people’s access to them and control by legislation, their allowed use of them in a CICILIZED society.

I wonder if u guys a pro nuclear weapons. "nukes don't kill people. people kill people" . Why not drop all the regulations around nuclear weapons?

I can somewhat understand some arguments that some people put forward.. but that phrase.. just.. pisses .. me..off.

i REALLY hope we have evolved as societies... during those tousands of years....

It's been proven beyound the shadow of a doubt that I am right:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2B...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT...eature=related

damn.. again I went into the debate.. again.. I shouldn't.. so I bid you are fare well.. and again.. see you when the patch is out :D

Unfortunately we didn't. :( Just reading the news is enough to realize we are the same savages we always were.

If you were correct the USA Federal Assault Weapons ban would have been expanded and not allowed to expire. It was not and it did.

Recent history contradicts your statement so you really have not proven anything.

In a wierd way, I follow that logic. I don't mind flying about in my WW2 plane trying to live out my Walter Mittyesque fantasies, but I can't really enjoy games like CoD (the other CoD) or Modern Warfare. I know it's pixels on a monitor, but I don't get enjoyment out of it. I've played with my nephew and have fun when I'm with him, but the gaming experience itself? Naaaah.


I don't know if this is a wives tail spun by pundits to bolster their side of the argument, but if there are over ten thousand laws and regulations regarding gun ownership in the U.S., then why is there need for more gun contriol?

Regarding people like the man who shot Gabby Giffords or the Virginia Tech mass shooter? I think mental health advocacy would be a better solution to that particular problem than more gun restriction. Today, we just discard the mentally ill without any forethought to the consequences of the sufferer or society in general. I don't want to impinge on the personal freedoms, but many aren't getting the care they need because there are few measures in place to assure proper care. Many people, after the fact, reported that there was strange behaviour in both these individuals, and that if there had been measures in place these tragedies could have potentially been avoided.

That's because in USA over one hundred million people got behind NRA and fought togethere united. A lot of democrats that suported the ban were voted out of the officew by their constituents. That's what prevented the expansion of the ban.

Please post the link confirming your wild statements.

THe peopel who have low faith are primarily the hard core right wing extremists (aka republicans). They are the american equivalent of the taliban.

That's a bit of a ridiculous comparison but your point is valid. However, I would not say they have a low faith in government, rather a low faith in overwhelming government.

To me the only thing worse than the far right is the far left. That's why I reside near the middle. Neither right nor left, I call it the intelligent zone.

--Outlaw.

An advanced stage bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected 108 year old suffering from alzheimer's has enough cognitive power to determine that the above is a truly asinine statement.

It would be interesting to know your definition of an idiot.

--Outlaw.

I think people who collect garden gnomes are a bigger threat.
Remember: You can use only one at the time.

That just fits perfectly. Yuck.
Some of their core ideas were ok, but most of them are just unwashed lefties/commies/hippies - human trash.
F' them.

Isn't the fact that there was not enough support in the house/senate to extend the ban enough confirmation?

--Outlaw.

So, for you Outlaw. Lets recap; we have been invited to consider the personality traits of people with large collections of firearms. As I am lucky enough to live in a society where personal firearms have been largely removed I have affirmed that I do indeed believe these people to be "nutters". So far I have only received personal abuse for this affirmation.
I have then asked why my views are wrong but seem to have received no coherent answer. Wanna try? Remember, I live in a society that is unarmed but to help you one of my definitions of idiot would certainly be someone who owned three hundred firearms.:rolleyes:

This is what de moc ra cy looks like!!

they are doing the same thing hitler, and mao have done....simply imposing their views and controlling others...after all dictators across the world and throughout history have also believed in disarming the public....thus leaving them defenseless....

Please give us an example of such a dictator.

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

This really starts to be amusing


creator????

reading isnt one of your stronger skills is it....read the first half of that statment....


also in history many feudal societies have restricted the arms of the day from the peasant and lower classes...to keep them oppressed...


through out history we have restricted arms from black and native Americans, again in the name of racism of and oppression....\\

Chavez is a recent example...

:grin:

i guess you really dont understand anything about freedom....unless that is you dont have any or simply dont care....

see your freedom is INNATE...thats what the founders of the USA meant when they said creator...it could be god Allah, Jesus, Buddha, your parents, nature, who ever....

this is basic stuff....

by including this in the first LEGAL documents of this country, it essentially says that your freedom comes from an "authority" HIGHER than govt....

these are REAL legal principles...so go cry if you dont like them...but my freedom is more important than your false sense of security....

My bad, I did not realize that your statement applied to citizens of your country only. I'm not making an excuse for my bad but it would have been helpful to be a little more specific though as this discussion has largely been around the ownership of firearms in the US.

I agree that anyone with 300 illegal guns is certainly a, "nutter" and an idiot.



--Outlaw.

oh... Dear.. I Think that Was my cue to leave the Room. IAmazing and amusing.... Wow.. I mean... Wow :)

I did read the first half of your statement and I'll ask you again; give us the name of a dictator that disarmed "the people"? Guess what, when my country was a feudal society the men were required to practise with the Long Bow:grin:. I'm really not sure what the sad history of black and native Americans has got to do with this thread but it's your history.

Chavez? Hugo Chavez? He's up for re-election this year isn't he?

lol egypt had election too but it took a violent revolution get him outa power....

also feudal japan was one such country...im sorry the extent of your knowledge is so limited...

disarming unpopular groups or classes has ALWAYS been a popular and obvious (i guess not so obvious for some) tactic by those looking to oppress people....this is obvious...and i already stated examples....


since you seem so limited in your ability i went and did research for you....


“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942


“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin

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. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

Pol Pot
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793, 2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.


“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro


Karl Marx also advocated for gun control....maybe cuz his whole philosophy was intent upon eliminating the rights of the individual....

Oh crap. living in a country with gun restrictions Laws makes me opressed and unfree!! Thanks for informing me !! Wow again

i bet the next thing you Will inform me of is that i live in a communist country :)

this forum is developing to become the home of cliches and preconceptions :)

slaves cant own guns and prisoners cant either....so you must be one those right??

*flabbergasted* Amazing :)

the amazing thing is you have been constantly wrong in this exchange....and you still keep going....i mean common sense things seem to elude you....

The thread is turning into a one-liner argument between a few.

Maybe it is time to close the thread. After an hour we will see, if it returns to productive respectable discussion or more of the same.

Don't worry nearmiss. I'm outta this one, it's become comedy hour.
Still, at least I learned the Swedes are slaves!:-P

How soon you'd change your drum beat if your government rounded you up and lined you up to be exterminated. This has happened many times through out recorded history. I'm sure the victims or their families, survivors, or anyone that lived through a horrific event like that had escape, self preservation, or murder on their mind. Go through a life/death experience by the will of the same people you trust to protect you and your views on self perservation or the preparation for it will change. If you think your government or any government is free from many forms of corruption, genocide, or putting your life in danger one only needs to look at history. If we can go 1000 years without an event like this I'd might change my mind. But we can't even go one human life cycle with out this treatment found throughout the world. Laugh at those that know the real world or prepare for a possible day when theirs could be turned up side down, but I bet you wouldn't be laughing if you were dragged from your home by your own government and marched into a death camp with no means of doing anything about it. I'm glad everything is fine for you now, but if you think the world is on any sort of upworld spiral you're sadly mistaken.

I almost feel sorry for the amount of trust you put into people whos only true interest is money and power. That's exactly why big business and banks run the world. That's exactly why decisions in government are hardly ever based on their moral implications but instead on their financial ones. That's why 9 out of every 10 people in a power position got there because of their ties to big business, big oil, or family/political power ties. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are hoping to achieve. And if you think those that have been bread to be a congressman from birth, grew up having the maid clean their room, paid other people to do their homework/studies while attending any ivy league school, etc., know anything about the common man, you have really got to be kidding yourself. There is no such thing as democracy anywhere in the world. You can vote all you want, but you're voting for the person or people that were put in that position to be voted for in the 1st place. I think a typical presidential campaign is on the verge of 200 million dollars now. In other words, it's big brother and the boys club running the show. It's always been this way and continues to get worse.

I'm not saying that people need to round up an arsenal or any of that jazz, but if your government won't let you own a gun there's a very big problem. The other thing is the US was founded upon that principle. When the colonists sent the brits packing, much of the fighting was done by the average man and his own weapons. That has been pounded into our heads since we could walk. That's kinda what America is all about, the roots of it if you will. We fled to get out of the that in Europe. We will not be oppressed by any form of government especially our own without being able to have the right to own weapons that your government has.

Indeed lol. Thank god i found out, i always suspected there Was something amiss with my dear country :). No worries nearmiss, i am out of herr too, the last few posts kinda killed the discussion. Nite folks

Owning a handgun or AR15 would not stop the military or a SWAT team. If they want to get you, they will...

Your military is made up of the sons and daughters of its citizens. We'd have a nice discussion with our kids about what's going on and and believe me...we parents would flip'em. Then the hunter becomes the hunted.

These are their moms and dads that they'd be asked to perform such deeds upon. A foreign Army would be considered an invasion which is in entirely different matter.

But to round up their own...

Right, I would really like the anti-gun folks to answer this simple question:

You accept the fact that the majority of law abiding gun owners are not criminals nor do any harm to anybody with their guns, yet there is a small percentage of them who in most case don't turn out to be suitable for gun ownership due to medical/psychological conditions and kill others, so to you the best solution is to ban guns or regulate them even more strictly in order to avoid bad things would happen again, is that right?

According to your theory then what shall we do about Muslims? Yes, the majority are cool, but a small percentage of them, even in our own countries, have turned out to be terrorists or linked to them. Shall we follow the same logic just because a small minority is criminal? Shall we ban Islam and Muslims from our countries?

I don't wanna get in a religious debate here, all Im trying to say is that your gun banning theory is one step further towards a regime, maybe one with no guns,but surely not a safer nor a more free one. Don't you really think that your diversity and/or lack of interest/knowledge on the matter,fuelled by the government fear mongers, is just not enough of a valid reason to instate a ban that in reality won't solve problems?

It's like saying "hey, we don't like gingers because **paste here any ridiculous reason made up specifically** let's get rid of 'em!", still sounds like that place in Europe in the early 30s..

You either didn't read a thing I said or entirely missed the point of it. I never said 1 person could take on any sort of swap team let alone the military.

Very basic military strategy is based on the opposition's armed forces. The population level hardly comes into play (unless it's the US) - only the strength of the weapons and the numbers/amounts of people in the military of that particular country. That is why you could get 20,000 of the Jewish to board a train with only 100 Nazi's overseeing the entire operation. That's why the military doesn't base it's amount of troops for a conflict on the size of the population only the size of it's military.

Because of this strategy, unarmed, helpless civilians can be herded like cattle with relative ease - as was clearly demonstrated with Nazi Germany during WWII. To break it down even further. Just for numbers sake (I'm not going to be bothered to give exact numbers) but lets say Nazi Germany had a military of 500,000 strong. Easily 350,000 of those troops would be near the front lines far spread out. The rest is left to logistical, medical, sustainment etc., of anything from command, to resupply, to maintaining Auschwitz etc, etc., etc.,.. That's pretty standard military operation during any sort of conflict.

Now take the number of population of countries over ran with such a seemingly small amount of troops staggered throughout Europe and then take into consideration the amount of people in the millions that couldn't do anything.

Now take that 100 person swat team you talked about earlier. Now go ahead and try to round up 20,000 of the Jewish when all 20,000 of them have guns. You soon realize, as a military strategist, that this isn't gonna work to well. You soon realize you're going to need many more people to get the same job done. By doing that you also soon realize that this pulls resources from other areas of conflict where you may need them the most. Then you soon realize the sheer amount of resources required to maintain let alone achieve your mission has gone through the roof. Now you need 10x the ammunition, 10x the fuel, 10x the bombs, 10x the tanks, and 10x the manpower to put up with the once unable to do anything population that is helpless and isn't even included in your military strategy as a real threat compared to the now millions of people taking on your military of 500,000. That's what happens when citizens are armed. That's why any sort of military strategy to invade the US would be suicide, and that's why it's one of the few countries if at all, that has never in it's life had any sort of attempt at an invasion. Our military is big enough. But you invade us, you'd have majority of the country doing it's part as well.

You may think "what a crock" or I'm full of BS. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how powerful numbers are. Especially those that are armed. People didn't just walk into the gas chambers on their own free will. That armed weapon pointed at their head does a hell of a lot of convincing.



Edit: @ EZ - I don't really consider the war of 1812 an invasion. Most of the fighting occurred on the water or in water ways close to the coastal areas. There was obviously fighting on land but they didn't exactly make it very far ;) I would consider Iraq an invasion as we setup military bases where ever we needed them throughout the entire country. I guess I should have worded my response differently.

Lets see here each person with a weapon has 100 rounds. And since that is a multiplying factor ... wait a second this is a trick question!

yea you are right...we might as well submit to the nearest authority...resistance is useless...why bother standing up for what is right....why bother standing up for ones inherent rights...lets trade our dignity and freedom for a false sense of security....

the japanese did not even think about doing any thing to mainland usa, because they feared and rightly so that their was "an american with a gun behind every blade of grass"

but yea the people can just rely on some authority to keep them safe...move along....

ahem.. Don't forget 200 years ago, to the year. (The War of 1812)
I'm from Canada btw ;)

You have some valid points... except for the last couple of words you posted.

@ ATAG Bliss (#356)...

and pretty much what happened in Iraq/ Vietnam

Some people will fight to the death for their right to be defenseless. Or not.

I probably don't know what i'm talking about but if you ask me the best way to put people off guns would be to make 'em do Nation Service, get them to spend every weekend for a couple of years at the range in the morning and cleaning the guns in the afternoon. (The first year would be compulsory safety cources and dry firing. ;) ) "Make those rifle shine boys or it's ten laps around the compound!"


It'd put people right off them! :)

Illogical question. Law abiding gun owners are by definition not criminals. If you mean lawful gun owners then the answer is "no". The answer does not however mean that gun law should be relaxed.

I must confess I don't follow that guns equate to Muslims, it's a bit random. Pick any race, cultural or religious group and the same question can be asked. The answer will be the same - do nothing because a few bad apples doesn't spoil the crop.


And you display arrogance, assuming that people who do not like guns do not know what they are talking about. You could as easily say that those that do not like guns are more enlightened, educated and better able to make rational decisions. Suggesting that having gun law will lead to regime change is quite a leap of faith and one I don't share.

As with all gun discussion it comes down to cultural differences. If certain countries want relatively easy access to guns then fine, have them. My personal (informed) opinion is that guns are cool and nasty at the same time but the arguments for having them are circular and feed off each other, or they have no grip on reality.

But what do I know, I'm a sheep with no intention of bettering myself living in a weak-willed country that is slowly going to hell because we as individual sheep aren't allowed guns - this is a relatively poor attempt at cynical humour.

gunpolicy.org and nationmaster.com gave me 5 minutes of interesting reading, comparing the stats for the countries that the main protagonists on these boards live in.

Hood

Let's not turn it into a battle of semantics, you know what I meant.

Muslims were only an exmaple, pick any other group who has "a few bad apples" and see if you can apply the same logic that the anti-gun fans here would apply.. You'll see that NONE of them will answer my question.

No, you probably didn't read the previous posts. All of them admitted they don't have experience, and some even say they like guns but they don't want them (?!?!).
And I don't think that owning guns will lead to any regime change, there's no hope for that in our society, it's a matter of leaving me the right and the choice to defend my property and my loved ones in case it's necessary. Depriving a man of these fundamental, instinctive, rights is not fair nor human. The problem is that a lot of people here do not like to take on responsibilities (because owning a gun is first of all a responsibility), they're so weak and selfish that they would never think about giving their families adequate protections, and delegate this responsibility to the institutions.. They live with their head buried in the sand and hope they're not gonna be the ones in the news, but if violence strikes you then what are you gonna say to yourself, that you did all the best you could to defend your rights?
There's a lot of male individuals, but less and less Men...

Define "cool and nasty".

It's kinda worrying that you see that as cynical humour, it's reality.
If the police forces in the Cumbria shooting were armed, that crazy man wouldn't have carried on killing all that people, because what they told on the news once and once only is the police was following him during his shooting rampage but couldn't intervene cos they weren't armed.
Now go and explain that to the families of the victims, I'm sure they'll be very impressed with that..

shouldn't-- but.. can't .. resist .. gah...

"Sweden took silver in double trap"

AAAH I said it. :) :)

so your solution is slavery and servitude??? wow what a joke....

The peaceful life I've lived was bought by the men (and women) before me who bled and suffered. Unfortunately I never really thought about it till I've gotten a bit older.

Public service should not be considered servitude nor slavery, just responsiblity.

What have I done to ensure that my children can have the same advantages that I have enjoyed? Not much? Now that I am probably past it, I wish I had done more.

Who was it that said something like "Those who aren't preparded to fight for peace and freedom will neither deserve nor will they get either."

those willing to give some of their freedom for peace deserve neither

quite apropioate for nowadays

is it true that in the states there are more people murdered by guns than born, a frien told me while there, he told me he was moving to europe

Congratulations Sweden! And look who won Gold.... ;)

@ Stern

Semantics are important otherwise a question becomes loaded.

Your example of Muslims was a bad one. You cannot equate guns with religious beliefs as they are very different things. And my answer stands - a few bad apples do not spoil the whole crop. At a stretch you could equate them with drugs/alcohol.

You are entitled to defend yourself, family and belongings, just not with a gun (in the UK anyway). If you do use a gun then provided you're licensed etc you may well be acquitted unless you shoot whoever it is in the back.

You equate a distaste for guns with being weak, selfish and showing a lack of responsibility? I equate it to being rational, intelligent and culturally advanced. Owning a gun doesn't make you more of a man - what a ridiculous belief. I think they are used to cover inadequacies down below. ;)

Cool and nasty are subjective opinions. Cool is attractiveness because of form and function. For me guns satisfy both criteria. They're nasty because of what they were designed to do - kill things. This is regardless of target shooting etc, they still kill humans and animals. There is no contradiction here, it's like big furry spiders - they're cool but I really don't like them.

Re Cumbria, imagine you live in a country that has lax gun ownership and arms their police. If you really want to kill people, does the fact that the police are armed stop you? Do some research in the USA.

Hood

ps For the record I think the USA is an amazing place with amazing people. It is a country that takes every facet of humanity and takes it to the nth degree. I'll still argue that the right to bear arms is outdated and no longer of relevance, but the USA is stuck with it forever because of how the country has developed. C'est la vie.

The comparison stands on a level of a group of people that is identified by a specific feature (religion, gender, hobby...) and the reaction of people. You're ready to prohibit the use of guns to gun enthusiasts but not prohibit the following or the presence of a certain religious group whose a minority of members committed violent crimes all over the world? To me that's a double standard. And mind you, I'm not for the persecution, I'm for the integration and respect of different religions/hobbies, just don't like when someone comes at me and tells me what I can or cannot do without one valid reason, it's not hard is it?

good enough for me, still there are people here who shudder at the idea, yet support our troops using their guns in other countries... double standards again?
that is SO hypocritical!! You feel rational, intelligent and culturally advanced, yet you're cool to send our military forces abroad to kill people for their own sake? Nice! Some of you lot are really a laugh...

fair enough, I understand what you mean. To me they're interesting and deserving of respect.

Why is lax to arm your own police?! They're supposed to serve and protect you from situations out of the ordinary, and sometimes ones that might require lethal force. If this was unnecessary why having armed response unit? Don't you really see how ludicrous this all is?
The police does stop you indeed if they're armed and find you in the middle of shooting at people, they shoot your a** dead and rightly so, your argument is not valid.
Once again, the 3 major cases of shooting crimes in this country could have been stopped way before they got out of control, had the police officers that intervened on the scene straight away been armed. Let's not ever forget that. You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

This argument works both ways: e.g Jean Charles de Menezes

Had those officers not been armed an innocent man would still be alive.

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

sure, but you know why that happened? Because of incompetence. Police officers that live in one of the most important cities of the world should be trained on a level on par with the rest of the armed police forces in the world. It's again a political choice not to have armed response or anti-riot units that are competent enough, see what happened with the riots of last year as another example, that was good stuff, wasn't it? And you know why it happened? Cos police forces have been turned into a joke in this country. You keep on wanting to contain violence and threats with the wrong methods, applying common sense and society values to social layers that don't give a rat's bottom to your idea of nice and civilised society, and when there are no other choices left, you make mistakes because you're not adequately prepared to face such threats.

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?

the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems? :rolleyes:

The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.

Its not just the UK. This is in the USA this year alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_States_2012

76 this month, more often than not due to the involvement of firearms.

In most of these cases the person killed had a gun but there are plenty of examples of unarmed people being killed by law enforcement officers. Oscar Grant in the USA, Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Greece (15 years old), Carlo Giuliani in Italy.

Unlawful killings aren't limited simply to mistakes in one country due to gun laws or training, they happen worldwide in different police forces.

look im not saying it would be bad for people to CHOOSE to volunteer, and maybe you need some more organized uncorruptible local organization as an outlet for people who choose to to such work to go to...

btw your quote is irrelevant since if your govt imposes mandatory service unto you, then you are not free.....

but the SECOND you make it mandatory or compulsory you are infringing on the rights of others....and what about people who refuse...do you throw them in jail (kidnap, hold them against their will, in mediocre to poor conditions at the expense of the state) do you fine them (steal)??

MAYBE if you think such mandatory service is a good thing maybe you should BE the change that you want to see....why dont you start doing so if you havent already....


by the way, a program like this would only take away paying job....but thats the idea...the state not only wants us to pay a large % of our income to them, but they also want us to work for them as well (Rahm Emanuel and Obama both want mandatory service)

I'm sorry but this is just too simplistic, loads of people die every day for the most random reasons, law enforcement is surely one of the minor reasons, but in most cases they're not unlawful.

Carlo Giuliani's case is typical: he was taking part to a riot during the G8 in Genoa, he was wearing a balaclava and throwing a fire extinguisher against a carabiniere (who are all armed with a pistol), the man shot in self defence cos he's been jammed into his car and being attacked by all sides. You don't get shot in the face by a police officer if you don't attack them with an extinguisher, so let's not make confusion here. The use of lethal force for self defence is NOT a crime, and the judges discharged the officer of any charge.

In order:

I'd rather not have armed forces but it's a deterrent writ large. This does not in my mind justify deterrents on a handgun level.

I didn't vote - I'm an ungulant so I cannot hold a voting paper and pen at the same time. Usually when I see paper I try to chew it.

The agenda to disarm civilians to protect an uprising is a conspiracy theory. Gun law has only recently become stricter and before that time you didn't see armed militia roaming the country.

What you don't understand, is that if it is easier to get a gun, that increases the likelihood of someone using a gun to kill a commit a crime. If you don't understand that, there's no point discussing it further.

About national service, I think it's a great idea but that's another topic entirely.

Hood

ironically enough a deterrent might be more needed on a social level than on a national scale. Burglars and thugs commit crimes because they know the chances of being confronted by a bigger threat than they are are virtually nil.

nice, so you don't do your basic duty of voting and still wanna say what's right and wrong? How am I supposed to take your opinion any serious? The extent of self-righteousness of some people is mind boggling..

..are you serious? Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland?! :confused:

I have never said that getting a gun should be easier, I'm just saying that this partial ban on certain guns is ludicrous, and even worse the sign that a government WILL NOT listen to the population, because they didn't even make a referendum for that, they just decided to apply it and that's it. This ban hasn't brought any relevant difference to the murder rates of this country, and if anything it demonstrated that this is not a democratic country. But as you said, you don't even bother voting, why would you care if they take your freedom away bit by bit?

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

"Tyrannical government has always been the problem"

Nearmiss, are you talking about previous US governments here? If so which ones would you describe as being 'tyrannical'? Seriously, are you sure that word is justified? I categorise tyrants or tyrannical regimes as Pol Pot or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It should really be used for murderous regimes - I don't see anything in present day USA that could justify that word.

"America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now."

Again. What are they doing that can justify that term?

@ Hood, lol. Fantastic m8!! We who are about to be milked salute you!:grin:

If the right to bear arms is God-given, or a basic human right, is there a limit in your opinion to what type of weaponry an individual citizen should be able to own?

(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread)
Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere).

If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom?

Because, after all, nukes dont kill people, people do. ;)


--------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer my own question - I'd say the reasonable place to draw the line would be fully automatic military style rifles

No offence but the Tyrranical goverment they had in mind is a throwback to when the British ruled, the USA is all about democracy now, I just find it slightly nonsensical to be so vehmently pro-democracy and pursue it's expansion like it's the most wonderfull thing but keep a gun behind your back in case it all goes wrong.

the Vietnam war was lost, it became communist and the free world didn't implode when it happened, maybe Jane had a point.

I don't believe all guns should be banned, there is good reason for some for hunting and pest control.

Or to put it another way, she disagreed with her goverment's decision and did something about it. Just like you're proposing if necessary.

It amazes me that you can imagine the entire gun owning fraternity of the US rising up as a well organised counter-government force. You'd be reduced to small pockets of resistance blown out of existence either by the military or by the pro-government gun owning private militia.

@ Stern

Perhaps my cynical humour passed you by. Some cattle are ungulates. To make it easier I should have said that I voted but my political views are irrelevant save for on this one issue.

@ Arthur

;)

Hood

Yeah, funnily enough I thought it was plausible enough,considering your self-righteousness and the fact that you don't even know your own history..

Lol what a petulant post. Does it grate that someone won't bow down to your superior manliness? It must do if you've resorted to groundless insults.

:)

Hood

You are either pretty young or failed history.
Lets go back a millennium.

Your Lord had the the right to
- collect taxes
- use your working power whatever hed felt it was needed to(only if you were extremely lucky he would deduct it from your dues)
- you needed HIS approval to marry, he also had the right to F*** your wife in the first wedding night

Also, no one was allowed to bear arms.
Why?
Because hungry and po'd farmers pose a threat, simple as that.
Only if he called you as a soldier, usually unpaid and where you get your meals from was your prob, you were supposed to have arms -at your own expense of course.

Every tyrant regime in the past 1000 year banned arms!

They are far from what they want to be.

I don't know about these other guys because I can't speak for them but I'll raise my hand. I want them. I want'em all available. I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it.

If I lived in a 3rd world country trust me...I'd have an S-300 and some Russian tanks. Why? Because they're willing to sell them and I want to buy them.

not really, I kinda pity you actually, I think that you represent a certain kind of self-righteous individuals who convinced themselves that whatever their government does for/to them it's all acceptable, cos they're too lazy/ignorant/blind to see how they're being deprived of their freedom. Your government is basically telling you "I don't trust you and I'll do anything I can to control you" and you bow to them, and what you get in return is a country that is no safer than what it was in the 80s, more taxes and less rights.. but I'm sure you know better, so keep on living your deluded reality..

We are Quite content thank you. No need for you to talk on our behalf. Appreciated but not necessary at all

Hit a weak spot, huh.
lol

Not really.


Btw, patch is released

That's even better :grin:. Prove all of what you say, if you can.

Hood

you didn't even bother reading my posts in full, where I demonstrated my points.. I really hope you're just a snotty know-it-all teenager..

:confused: :confused: Just because a "frien" told you a statistic doesn't make it true. :-P

Seriously look it up, there's around 11,600 babies born everyday in the US, and around 80 people killed by guns everyday.

Sadly not. You've proved nothing - prove what you say otherwise, just like my opinions, it's all conjecture.

Hood

Did you?

I think I brought enough evidence that the gun restrictions applied in the UK haven't had any effect whatsoever. What else do you want me to demonstrate?

It seems like we all have different views of valid "evidence". To me it seems you have put forward arguments rather than facts and. ... evidence.

We can speculate on different scenarios all we like, it all stems down to being very hypothetical.... and opinions... nothing else

BTW.. new patch better FPS!!! Look and feels ok....