Gun "control" - to protect or disarm the citizens?

Post Reply New Topic

Let's see, my English is pretty good (4 on a scale where 5 was the top level); my Asperger's it not that severe, I use to understand concrete examples and a good part of metaphers as well.

Maybe you mean that if the "worst" would happen, there are always people who are presumtuous warriors and know how to get hold of guns, despite any gun laws?

Homicide rates in Australia have been relatively stable since 1915 at about 2 per 100,000 (increasing since WW2).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... DE00256331
There is no correlation with restrictive gun laws or gun ownership.

The Victoria Police report says "Victims of homicide were more likely to be killed with a knife or other sharp instrument than any other weapon. There was a declining trend in the proportion of victims killed with a firearm, with an average of 81 victims killed per year with a firearm." Obviously this is because there are less firearms available. However the homicide rate is still stable - gun laws don't reduce homicide

Homicide rates in USA vary very much between States and is more racial based than any relevence to gun laws or ownership.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Making an issue of gun related deaths and crime to gun ownership is a trick the anti-gun loby use. If guns are not available, bad guys will use other means. Gun ownership is irrelevent.

332 legal gun owners blew their brains out in Sweden 2002. I never heard about banning guns or straghtening the gun laws because of that. Of, course, it's not a crime to commit suicide, but would they have got their licenses in the first place if the application board would have known that they were suicidal? Don't think so.

Most homicides in Sweden are commited with knives or blunt objects. The total amount of homicides hasn't decreased reamarkably by restrictions on firearms. Until 1934 guns were in principle free in Sweden. The killing rates were lower than, both killing with firearms and other killing.

The only purpose with guns laws is to make the citizens helpless sheeps, that the authorities can treat as they're pleased to.

How hard can that be to get, Quatermass?

I tend to agree people who are going to kill someone will use whatever is at hand. Guns, knives, even hands pesky laws will make little difference to them

I think it would be interesting to know whether they got their licence because the wanted to suicide or if the had guns a long time prior. Of course if you are going to kill yourself, there are lots of other ways and preventing you getting a gun may just mean you jump off a bridge.

If someone blows their brains out here, it gets media attention. If people kill themselves in the toilets of the casino (as I believe happens - drug overdose) it gets no media attention at all.

Gun laws can mean that, or it can mean protection. It depends on the current or near future context!

I have never said that citizens should not be allowed to have guns, but rather, that this should be controlled. The key word here is control. Not just the government controlling weapons, which seems to be the only side of the fence you seem to fixate on, but rather also the citizen being in control. Control enough so that they don't go postal, or use the gun as a threat on others. I understand, for example, that the criminal elements of society will inevitably get their hands on firearms.

Now for a little test, Litigious. Out of these firearms, which would you have?

[] A semiautomatic handgun (like a Beretta)

[] A magnum handgun (Desert Eagle, or a magnum revolver)

[] A hunting rifle

[] A submachine gun (MP5, etc)

[] A military rifle (M16, AK47)

[] A sniper rifle (PSG1, etc)

[] A "gat" (although how could you lift one?)

Interesting. I've never heard in the media that anybody blew their brains out, if they weren't well known criminals. I heard it from people I know, last time from my father. The son of one of his working mates shot himself. But Quatermass says Sweden is on of the best countries on this planet, so I guees they have good reasons not to mention suicides with firearms in the media or that it is that frequent as it really is (as suicide is in Sweden anyway, no matter the method).

I don't think anyone would bother getting a license here to commit suicide. It's easier to buy a gun illegally, if you really want to kill yourself. But those people were unstable already when they applied for a license, or most of them were. A suicide usually just doesn't come out of the blue...

Ha ha ha ....

[] A semiautomatic handgun (like a Beretta)
Yes - Browning 45 and/or Luger - if I could without all the BS

[] A magnum handgun (Desert Eagle, or a magnum revolver)
Ruger Blackhawk in 357 (so can shoot 38's, 38Special and/or 357 at target range- again if I could without all the BS

[] A hunting rifle
have several

[] A submachine gun (MP5, etc)
no. no purpose. But it was fun getting a 22 to go full auto with a 20 shot mag.

[] A military rifle (M16, AK47)
maybe, but banned here and no practical use.

[] A sniper rifle (PSG1, etc)
have one - Omark 7.62 - not as good as more current stuff. Would love to have a 50 cal.

[] A "gat" (although how could you lift one?)[/quote]
no - ammo costs too much.

You forgot shotguns. A shotgun is probably the best self defence firearm you could get and is most easily available.

Its interesting, that when semi-auto shotguns were banned, the average duck bag INCREASED. A good U/O is more effective than a semi-auto.

PS - there is nothing special about a sniper rifle. A Remington 788 out of the box is pretty good.

Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 28 Sep 2006, 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A Beretta 84 Cheetah Maxi against the criminals.



You cant get that gun legally in Sweden, because it's to small and easy to hide and powerful at the same time. 10 9 mm bullets, 173 mm long and weighs only 660 grams unloaded.

A military rifle of some kind to fight an unjust government. And a ruck sack with hand grenades...

Shot guns were actually totally free in Norway until a couple of years ago. I didn't know that then, if so, I'd bought one. I live nere the border.

Maybe they're still available in Norwegian gun stores if you pay the gun dealer a little extra...

Quatermass, it's 2.43 in the morning here, so I must go to bed, but I'm sure that you've written some funny comment on my choice of guns tomorrow.

Godnatt!

What about a Flame throwers? How am I suppose to cook outside in Texas without one?

Actually, I will not. You've actually shown yourself to be less bloodthirsty than I thought.

And I do apologise to Bazza about not putting boomsticks on the list.

On a related note, can anyone tell me how to stop ducks crapping around the pool?

A little qualifier here. I do not mind people of sound mind using guns for self defence or hunting. Problem is, they will fall into the hands of people who don't realise they aren't a toy (ie kids, but controllable with either a gun cabinet or a condom, hahahaha), who do not know what taking a human life entails, or using guns right (nutters, again controllable), or just who do not give a damn (criminal element, only controllable to a small degree).

There is also a disparity of skill, etc, Litigious, between a civilian who knows how to use a gun, and a trained soldier. A soldier is also less likely to think twice about shooting someone. Imagine a group of armed civilians versus an equal group of armed soldiers. The odds tend to favour the soldiers, although, of course, I'm not saying it is impossible for a civilian group to win.

But remember this Litigious. A soldier follows orders. A civilian does not have to. Therefore, a civilian can have more potential in any despotic dystopia that you can think of than any group of soldiers, even if they are unarmed. How do you think the Molotov Cocktail came to be made? These were civilians (being bombed by "Molotov picnic baskets") who were able to fight against tanks with a bottle, a rag, and petrol.

And may I ask, how, in any despotic environment, you would get a military rifle and a sack of pineapples? Do you even consider the logistics of doing so? You'd be lucky to find any lying about, and we know that there would be only three other ways:

1. From a dead soldier, or a live one killed by you (get 'em while they're Freeeeeeessssshhh!)
2. From a supply depot (very risky. You could end up with a hole in your head or abdomen. Very inconvenient)
3. Black market, which would have to use the above supply methods, and I doubt that, if you were in any mindset to resist a despotic government, you may have enough relative currency, whether it be money, gold, jewels, or collectable porno mags.

As I have said before, I do not deny your right to have a gun in self-defence. Self-defence can be separate from gun ownership, but you seem set. However, think of the likelihood of your country and mine becoming despotic. It is closer with these new anti-terror laws, but it isn't close enough to warrant full concern, at least in Australia, Sweden (I think) and the UK. The US, however, well I need to say only two phrases of two words each: PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo Bay.

Just what part of either the Patriot Act or the detention camp at Guantanemo Bay has the slighest thing to do despotism? Be very specific, pleas do not repeat something you have read in a Michael Moore Blog or heard George Galloway say, please confine your reply to verifiable facts.

I'm not worried about about the FBI or CIA breaking down my door anytime soon as a result of these laws OR any misuse of them.

The only thing that wories me is gun registration laws and gun transport laws (The ones here in California are written to bust amost anyone going to the range!)