Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

Countries that sell guns or only allow police and other important workers to use guns, what are your opinions? Tasers too. Because quite a lot of accidents happen, or may not even be accidents at all.

 

New Zealand, my country, has very strict protection at our airports for guns, knives, etc. But of course there are residents who have knives, or find their own weapons. It obviously can't be stopped. But are you against having such things allowed in parts of the world? Does it make you feel safer, knowing that they can also protect you?

 

There was only about one story (that I know of, and lasting a few days though) last year in NZ where a man had a gun and was locked in a house, caused huge problems. But not having guns here, means that criminals find other methods, mainly repetitive stabbings. It makes me feel sick. I can't explain how many murders involving stabbings happen here, not to mention the rest of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against gun use. People shouldn't have guns in their homes, it's crazy. If guns would make anything safer, the US would be the safest country lol. Germany has very strict laws. Most people don't own any guns. You need a lot of special permissions. It's a pain to get one. But on the other hand Germany is a major arms-exporting country.

 

It can only be stopped if people start thinking differently. That war and aggression isn't the way. Otherwise I don't see how it can be stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning a gun probably wouldn't make me feel any safer. It might give me slightly more of a chance in certain situations, such as a home invasion, but I think the benefits to my personal safty are marginal. I would be more likely to choose to own a gun are if I were interested in shooting for sport and/or hunting.

 

As long as we have criminals they will find weapons. I think the real issue here is looking at the reasons why crime and violent crime are increasing (if in fact they are). Weapons are simply a tool to commit a crime. While owning a gun may be protection it is not a deterant, as most criminals are not going to know whether or not you own a gun. I'm not going to feel safer until we do a better job at decreasing the motivations for people to commit violent acts on other people. There's a very complex social, economic and phsycological aspect to criminal motivation and criminal deterance.

 

I would not rule out ever owning a gun for protection. But I can tell you that even if I did, it would do little to make me feel safer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in The Netherlands you can own guns but you need to get a permit and lock them up in a safe, seperate from the ammo. I believe. I had a roommate once who owned a gun(not at our home...the landlord wouldn't allow it. He practiced it as a sport. Now that's fine with me. The idea that carrying a gun around is safer is total and utter bull in my opinion. When a guy is aiming a gun at you demanding your wallet you don't have time to get your gun out and shoot him...of course, I don't live in the US(sorry US people for using that as an example).

 

The use of guns or any weapon cannot be prevented. I have some kitchen knifes that wouldn't look bad in an Alfred Hitchcock movie, what stops me from using that as a weapon?(besides my own moral code that such an idea is utter ridiculous). People will always find a way to hurt another human being if they want too. Like the three letter abbreviation above me said: People need to start to think differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against gun use. People shouldn't have guns in their homes, it's crazy. If guns would make anything safer, the US would be the safest country lol. Germany has very strict laws. Most people don't own any guns. You need a lot of special permissions. It's a pain to get one. But on the other hand Germany is a major arms-exporting country.

 

It can only be stopped if people start thinking differently. That war and aggression isn't the way. Otherwise I don't see how it can be stopped.

 

I beg to differ. Switzerland, a country in which every male citizen keeps a government issue assault rifle in his house is one of the safest. Per capita, Switzerland has more guns than the US. Guns aren't the problem, people are. And sadly people won't start thinking differently. I'm a realist and believe that there is no such thing as Utopia. In the meantime I plan on keeping the guns I own. Mainly for collection purposes, right now I'm trying to acquire long rifles used by both sides in WWII.

 

As long as we have criminals they will find weapons. I think the real issue here is looking at the reasons why crime and violent crime are increasing (if in fact they are). Weapons are simply a tool to commit a crime. While owning a gun may be protection it is not a deterant, as most criminals are not going to know whether or not you own a gun. I'm not going to feel safer until we do a better job at decreasing the motivations for people to commit violent acts on other people. There's a very complex social, economic and phsycological aspect to criminal motivation and criminal deterance.

 

Washington, D.C. completely bans handguns but has one of the highest rates of crimes involving handguns in the US. As you're saying weapons are only a tool. If guns kill people, pencils misspell words. The Philippines has much more strict laws regarding guns; in short unless you're very well connected with government officials, a bodyguard or very rich it's close to impossible to obtain a firearm legally. On the contrary many guns involved in crimes are obtained illegally from various sources.

 

In short my argument is, guns aren't the problem. People are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also against owning gun because it can be very dangerous to have one in the house. With that being said, I also recognize that there are many country's where people may have a hard time surviving without one. Many of you know that I am basically half Israeli. There you can own a gun. While I do not believe it is necessary throughout the whole Country. I definitely believe it is a MUST in certain cities. The same thing goes for many of the other Middle Eastern Country's. For the every day family who lives in a dangerous place, they should be allowed this luxury. I call it a luxury, because being able to defend yourself is a luxury! People who live in dangerous country's should be allowed to have some sort of protection.

But, on the other hand. It is extremely dangerous to have a gun in your home. Children and guns do not mix. So I guess I am sort of split. I think it just depends on what situation of the Country is in. If a Country has peace and no threats, then forget it. There is no need for any weapons in a home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. Switzerland, a country in which every male citizen keeps a government issue assault rifle in his house is one of the safest. Per capita, Switzerland has more guns than the US. Guns aren't the problem, people are. And sadly people won't start thinking differently. I'm a realist and believe that there is no such thing as Utopia. In the meantime I plan on keeping the guns I own. Mainly for collection purposes, right now I'm trying to acquire long rifles used by both sides in WWII.

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. completely bans handguns but has one of the highest rates of crimes involving handguns in the US. As you're saying weapons are only a tool. If guns kill people, pencils misspell words. The Philippines has much more strict laws regarding guns; in short unless you're very well connected with government officials, a bodyguard or very rich it's close to impossible to obtain a firearm legally. On the contrary many guns involved in crimes are obtained illegally from various sources.

 

In short my argument is, guns aren't the problem. People are.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. Switzerland, a country in which every male citizen keeps a government issue assault rifle in his house is one of the safest. Per capita, Switzerland has more guns than the US. Guns aren't the problem, people are. And sadly people won't start thinking differently. I'm a realist and believe that there is no such thing as Utopia. In the meantime I plan on keeping the guns I own. Mainly for collection purposes, right now I'm trying to acquire long rifles used by both sides in WWII.

Fair enough. But that would mean people can think differently. Because I don't see as many murders and gun problems in Switzerland. But I agree in our current world situation it's sadly not easy at all. But afterall my believe is that weapons of any kind make the situation worse.

 

I seriously can't understand why people have to do that to each other (to kill and stuff). I just don't get the logic behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But that would mean people can think differently. Because I don't see as many murders and gun problems in Switzerland. But I agree in our current world situation it's sadly not easy at all. But afterall my believe is that weapons of any kind make the situation worse.

 

I seriously can't understand why people have to do that to each other (to kill and stuff). I just don't get the logic behind it.

 

Oh no doubt on that. Even when people are the ones that cause violent crimes, weapons are only the tools. Tools make things easier to perform. The human mind is the most difficult thing to understand, I too have no idea why people would want to deliberately take another life. I just know that there are those that do. As far as wars are concerned, any combat veteran you meet who says that they enjoy taking another human being's life is either lying or a clear section 8. Mostly though, they're just doing what they must whether they like it or not. The cause in doing so can be left for argument but lets not go there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

if anything a gun would prbably make me more scared as the criminal could snatch it off of you then turn in on you!

 

If that were the case you probably don't know how to use a firearm and/or aren't prepared to use it and therefore shouldn't be carrying one in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume cpearce's argument is regarding a scenario in which someone has a firearm and then a perpetrator turns the firearm on that person. If you have a firearm in this situation and don't know how to wield it effectively, you probably don't have any business carrying a firearm at all. You're probably more safe not carrying one at all than to carry one and not know how to use it; in more ways than one it'll protect you from yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don`t know if strict and wide-ranging gun prohibition laws such as the ones here in Germany actually serve to make this a safer place as far as gun use by criminals is concerned. Criminal elements always seem to have no shortage of illegal weapons, though many are never used.

But I can tell you that a government policy of almost total disarmament of the populace will over generations lead to that same populace having an abnormal and distorted view of guns, their use, and even personnel regularly involved with both. Playing this card the right way has influenced voting behaviour in the past and thus international policy - the majority of ppl here would rather hide in their closets and leave all conflict to others. They have been more or less told "Guns mean violence and violence is bad. Guns mean you may have to decide if deadly force is justified or not. You are not to think yourself qualified to make that decision under any circumstances. Only the government is allowed to have weapons." An arrogant point of view, even if originally well-intended. The result now is a population incapable of defending itself in everyday life, and willing to tolerate almost any kind of "misbehaviour" in the rest of the world if the alternative is going in using force.

If this was San Marino....that would probably be ok.

But this is one of the top ten global economic players.

So decide for yourself if this is better than the american way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in The Netherlands you can own guns but you need to get a permit and lock them up in a safe, seperate from the ammo. I believe. I had a roommate once who owned a gun(not at our home...the landlord wouldn't allow it. He practiced it as a sport. Now that's fine with me. The idea that carrying a gun around is safer is total and utter bull in my opinion. When a guy is aiming a gun at you demanding your wallet you don't have time to get your gun out and shoot him...of course, I don't live in the US(sorry US people for using that as an example).

 

The use of guns or any weapon cannot be prevented. I have some kitchen knifes that wouldn't look bad in an Alfred Hitchcock movie, what stops me from using that as a weapon?(besides my own moral code that such an idea is utter ridiculous). People will always find a way to hurt another human being if they want too. Like the three letter abbreviation above me said: People need to start to think differently.

I agree. Having a gun woild noy protect you in most situations amd although criminals will get weapons no matter what if its easy for me to get one its easy for criminals too. I'd feel uncomfortable if my boyfriend brought a gun to the house.

 

He's only 12 :doh:

Then he def shouldn't have a gun :P

 

 

 

 

Although I don't think the general public should be aloud guns, I do think the police here should have them. They're left with no protection and are being attacked while they're out trying to keep us safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't think the general public should be aloud guns, I do think the police here should have them. They're left with no protection and are being attacked while they're out trying to keep us safe.

 

To some people that's become the double standard. Whose to say that authority figures are only allowed firearms. Where is the line drawn and where does it end?

 

The UK is an argument I use refuting the outlawing of firearms as a whole. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns is the usual saying. If someone were so screwed up in the head to want to murder someone with a gun (or any weapon for that matter), they're going to get their hands on a gun whether it's illegal or not. If that person can't commit a murder with a gun, they're going to murder with a blade, or a bat, or an iron, or bare hands, etc. Less than one percent of gun crimes in the US are attributed to a legally owned firearm and according to the DoJ, 79% of incarcerated criminals obtained a gun through illegal means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to call it double standards call it that, but personally I would call it a privalige, the law need to have certain privalidges in order to do their job in protecting us against crime. You are not aloud to handciff and hold someone ash ainst their will even if you have resonable belief they have commited acrime, the police can, is yhat a double standard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although I don't think the general public should be aloud guns, I do think the police here should have them. They're left with no protection and are being attacked while they're out trying to keep us safe.

 

AMEN to that lol

 

Let me use Raul Moat for a example, he went around northumbria shooting and killing all these people in his life and the "armed police unit" werent around for a long time lol. Now if this was in America, Raul would have been shot down as soon as he pulled the trigger for the second time. And it only took the media to expell the situation to get the MET get their bums moving. Once the MET were involved they sent up armed response teams and sniper teams too.

 

But this was all too late, and ended up in a stand off. And we still dont know whether he shot himself or a police officer killed him.

 

Either way, if the police had guns on them at all time this wouldnt have happened to the extent it did. Yeah people would have still been killed but not that many, or maybe he wouldnt have been killed.

 

Our country is a mess, and now Cameron has cut the policing budget in half there wont be anymore armed police units, and it will just be the same as always. People who voted that moron in pretty much just screwed the protection of this country over.

Edited by Imagine
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not aloud to handciff and hold someone ash ainst their will even if you have resonable belief they have commited acrime, the police can, is yhat a double standard?

 

Actually in this country we are. So long as you have a reasonable belief that they committed wrongdoing. They may sue you for false imprisonment afterward but the judge and jury are more than likely to grant you the damages.

 

A scenario being a retail shop floor employee witnesses a shoplifter steal some merchandise. If company policy allows it, that employee is allowed to confront the shoplifter and hold that person until police do arrive, review the evidence(such as security camera footage) and then arrest the shoplifter.

 

If I'm asleep in my home and find a burglar in my home stealing my stuff. I have the privilege, if you call it that, to take my rifle, point it at the burglar warning him to either leave or stay while I call the police. I will however cross the line if I pull the trigger and kill/injure the man. (If he had a gun himself and pointed it at me, I acted in self-defense) In that case I will be charged with either a crime or sued by the burglar. (There have been occasions in which the person doing a wrongdoing has actually won a lawsuit against the people he was robbing.)

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in this country we are. So long as you have a reasonable belief that they committed wrongdoing. They may sue you for false imprisonment afterward but the judge and jury are more than likely to grant you the damages.

 

A scenario being a retail shop floor employee witnesses a shoplifter steal some merchandise. If company policy allows it, that employee is allowed to confront the shoplifter and hold that person until police do arrive, review the evidence(such as security camera footage) and then arrest the shoplifter.

 

If I'm asleep in my home and find a burglar in my home stealing my stuff. I have the privilege, if you call it that, to take my rifle, point it at the burglar warning him to either leave or stay while I call the police. I will however cross the line if I pull the trigger and kill/injure the man. (If he had a gun himself and pointed it at me, I acted in self-defense) In that case I will be charged with either a crime or sued by the burglar. (There have been occasions in which the person doing a wrongdoing has actually won a lawsuit against the people he was robbing.)

I don't know if the laws are different in Tejas (kinda doubt it) but when I took a conceal and carry class they said if someone breaks into your house you can shoot to kill. You are to shoot until the threat is gone but if you continue to shoot after the threat has subsided is when you can get into legal trouble. So for instance if you shoot an intruder in your home and he drops his weapon and has no other recourse and you have him dead to rights you are to stop. If you put an extra one in his brain for good measure then you've gone too far.

 

They are intruders inside your home and so you have reason to believe that they mean to harm you. You, as a victim, have a lot more latitude in this instance. It's when you're out in public that things get a lot more strict and tricky.

 

Best protection for a home - shotgun. That way you don't have to have good aim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the laws are different in Tejas (kinda doubt it) but when I took a conceal and carry class they said if someone breaks into your house you can shoot to kill. You are to shoot until the threat is gone but if you continue to shoot after the threat has subsided is when you can get into legal trouble. So for instance if you shoot an intruder in your home and he drops his weapon and has no other recourse and you have him dead to rights you are to stop. If you put an extra one in his brain for good measure then you've gone too far.

 

They are intruders inside your home and so you have reason to believe that they mean to harm you. You, as a victim, have a lot more latitude in this instance. It's when you're out in public that things get a lot more strict and tricky.

 

Best protection for a home - shotgun. That way you don't have to have good aim.

 

No it's the same is Tejas. You're referring to criminal law though, if you're defending your home you cannot be charged with a crime (pending further investigation). The scenario you mentioned is now part of the recently revised "Castle Law" which requires you to stop your 'counterattack' should the be attempting to flee and/or is no longer an imminent threat to you. Remember though that we live in the US of A... where everyone sues for everything in civil court.

 

On a side note the weapons me and my buddies own are mainly for C&R intentions or just for the sake of having awesome firepower when the zombies attack. After a day at the range we all had a "bring all your guns and clean 'em" night at my place. Between the four of us we had 10 guns including 3 assault rifles. I'm just looking to collect historical weapons particularly WWI-WWII era.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

The less weapons in circulation the better, I know criminals will get them somehow, but that is a police matter. Taking the law into your own hands can sometimes make matters worse. Only the police need to be armed, they are trained to deal with serious incidents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Well, gun control is a violation of the Bill of Rights. You can disagree with the pro-gun movement, but whether or not gun control is an infringement to the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not debatable. Gun control is against the Constitution.

 

All rights do have limitations on them. The most basic is that your right ends when it intrudes upon the right of another. So coexistence is not only possible, but necessary.

 

Our system is predicated on the most basic principle that individual liberty is paramount, but the public good must be maintained. So all controls and limitations on rights have to be weighed between the two. When individual right intrudes upon public safety, then it must be limited; otherwise you have anarchy and mob riots. When public safety intrudes upon individual liberty, it too must be limited; otherwise you have a police state where the individual lives only to serve the state.

 

So the arguments about what could happen, what might be, what if, are not sufficient to curtail individual liberty in exchange for public safety. Doesn't keep laws from being made on that basis, of course, and it also doesn't prevent legal challenge over their constitutionality. Laws should be designed to affect an individual action that will directly affect the public safety, not about actions which could, may, possibly, eventually domino to result in some future scenario.

 

Yes, I might agree that there are way too many guns in the hands of criminals on the streets these days, but how does it guarantee public safety to limit legal gun buyers to only one a month? By definition, if they are legal buyers, then they are not the ones committing the crimes, and limiting them will not reduce the crime already going on.

 

There must be a balance between individual rights and public safety based upon intelligent agreement, not radical emotions akin to wishing upon a star. For me, if I were presented with only two extreme choices, total anarchy or total state control, I'd opt for total anarchy.

 

That being said, I do understand the need for basic rules concerning the gun (hold on fellow Second Amendment lovers, lemme explain!) In the same context that you should not be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you should not be able to brandish a gun in a crowded park and fire wildly into air. Just as you cannot verbally harrass people with words, you cannot point your gun and otherwise harrass people with guns.

 

The problem with gun control is that it has gone beyond laws that say "You may not use a cityscape as a backstop for your rifle practice". Imagine if you needed to get a drivers license in every state you wanted to drive. Imagine if you needed to pay a 200 dollar tax to register every book/scroll/article that was transfered to you. Imagine if it was illegal to speak about disagreeable politics within 100 yards of a school zone. Imagine if you needed a federal speech license to publish even something as simple as this answer on the internet. Imagine a complete ban on the mere casual discussion of illegal activities.

 

It would bring uproar. We would fall into revolution. Yet firearm owners have to deal with it every day. We need a license to carry in every state. You need a 200 dollar tax to transfer an SBR/SBS. Even with a license you cannot carry with X yards of a school zone in many states. You need federal firearms licenses to manufacture even something as incomplete as an ar-15 lower. You have a complete ban on machine guns.

 

And even among the so called sensible laws there are arbitrary laws that affect people deeply and daily. An unregistered AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel is perfectly legal, but an unregistered AR-15 with a 15.5 inch barrel is an automatic 10 years in prison. There's an incredibly intricate system defining what weapons are and aren't illegal, required registration, and require taxes.

 

People get screwed by these tedious laws every day simply because the laws are so complicated and so disorganised that a modifications as simple as a forward grip on a handgun somehow in the laws eyes converts it to a short barreled rifle, or an AOW and *BAM* automatic 10 years. Innocent people being imprisoned and taxed by these laws that say that a AR pistol with a large buffer tube is okay, but installing a stock turns it into an SBR and needs either a 200 dollar tax and registrations, or there goes another 10 years of your life.

 

Meanwhile, I hardly think the average criminal with these so called federally regulated devices know what the abbreviations FFL AOW SBS SBR CCP mean let alone the forms you need to fill out to obtain them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...