Guns - Page 5 - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**MeTurk** · 11-17-2005, 08:39 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("KILLER")</div>

Quote:

Too many European countries have outlawed guns on a knee jerk reaction like the UK after the Dunblane massacre[/b]

I think you can understand given Irelands history why we'd be against guns in the home. We've had our fight and now it's time to sit back and relax, reap the benifits and so on..

**LiveFreeorDie** · 11-17-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

The Swiss case is that all the Swiss population have to do national service which instills discipline and good gun ownship practices, much like in Israel.. gun ownership is high but the relevant gun crime (using legal weapons!)/death rates rates are low.

People love to cite switzerland when discussing gun control. I do not think you can compare Switzerland to the U.S. in any way, shape or form. What leads to the Swiss having such a low occurrence of gun crime is their society in general.

Switzerland is a country of 8 million people with a fairly homogenous ethnic background. They have a very large middleclass, low unemployement, low levels of poverty. They have almost none of the societal factors that give rise to violence and crime - gun ownership in this situation doesn't change anything. If people are happy and satisified and educated and have opportunity, they will not turn to crime.

Of course, that type of society is much easier to achieve and maintain with a smaller, rural based population that is well educated and that does not consist of large amounts of unemployed, dissatisifed people or repressed ethnic groups - which is what you see in larger countries.

These countries that have a greater divide between rich and poor, have higher levels of unemployment, higher populations of divergent ethnic groups and populous urban areas will by default have higher violent crime rates - whether guns are owned or not. The U.K. gun crime rate is rising rapidly. Outlawing guns there is not stopping gun crimes. It really comes to down to societal pressures that give rise to violent crime. Guns are a tool, nothing more. Banning them is not solving the societal issues that give rise to crime in the first place.

**voyd** · 11-17-2005, 10:55 AM

^ Agreed, it's too easy to take a few data points from entirely different groups and draw correlations from that.

I'm no Swiss expert, but their neutrality stance and minimalist military (hence citizens must all be armed) has diverted far more of their gov funds into their economy, education and domestic wealth. This has created a highly-skilled workforce that creates high-end precision products. Also, I'm sure they rake in tons from their secret bank accounts...which also protects them from attack by all their varied depositors.

In short, they are a small, wealthy 'country club' country protected in the Alps with a well-educated, non-violent populace. They don't need/want to commit crime, guns or not...

mark-0 · 11-17-2005, 11:37 AM

I wonder what the world would be like if guns didn't exist? Would we be taken over by a race of aliens because THEY had guns?

**The Monsignor** · 11-17-2005, 11:50 AM

Naw, but there'd be some serious inequities in our society...

"God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal."

If it weren't for the gun, we would likely be ruled by people (or armies of them) who spent their entire lives learning swordplay (or pointy-stick play, or archery or whatever)

Guns have made it so the local librarian, with a minimum of training, can hold her own against someone with a lifetime of martial arts training. It's good and bad, just like cars... It has helped ensure a balance of power, but it has allowed the 'wolves' among us to become much more efficient predators against even the strong...

**bluepea** · 11-17-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

I think you can understand given Irelands history why we'd be against guns in the home. We've had our fight and now it's time to sit back and relax, reap the benifits and so on..

I like your stance on this Meturk

**juliagulia** · 11-17-2005, 03:35 PM

I wouldn't mind being in a house with someone who owned a gun, so long as I trust that person completely and I know that they can use it properly. And it locked up. Or not put on display or something. Cause honestly, if some crazy person come into your house and sees a gun just sitting there, some seriously bad stuff could happen. And then that stuff with kids and all that.

So really, I just believe in responsible use. I don't THINK that I could ever own a gun, but then again I have a lot to live so, I won't rule it out completely. If I did own it, I'd do all the legal stuff and make sure I was comfortable with it before trusting myself with it. And I'd probably keep it hidden somewhere... And not tell people I don't trust about it...

**Tadpole** · 11-17-2005, 05:47 PM

The guy who is willing to loose it all or die for what he belives will eventually be the victor. AN army armed with swords risking dieing for their belief will run right through an yone who isnt willing to pay the ultimate price. As long as death is considered the ultimeate price then new ways of killing will be invited. Right now Guns are the common weapon of control. The historical pattern will continue and a new eapon for the common man will be invinted. Just like 'fist fights' took a back seat to axes and swords and swords took a back seat to gunpowder. But for the time being just as long as man will go to the extreme exists, so will devices that cause the extreme exist.

**Joker** · 11-17-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark-0@Nov 17 2005, 12:37 PM
I wonder what the world would be like if guns didn't exist? Would we be taken over by a race of aliens because THEY had guns?

[snapback]87973[/snapback]

Nah, we'd just fight them off with boards with nails poked through them.

Without opening up another can of worms entirely, Tadpole is correct: the guy that is willing to die no matter what for their cause is likely to be the victor, regardless of the weapon of choice if their enemy is unwilling to do the same. Such is the case with Islamic terrorists. If the American public has no taste for loss of American lives in a war regardless of the virtues or intentions or intelligence surrounding, they have won.

Furthermore: The fact that in societies in which firearms are banned, the bad guys always have a way to locate them, illegally. There was a story I read last year regarding Australian police busting a firearm manufacturing facility illegally making copies of famous weapons (AK series rifles, HK 91 clones, etc) that are falling into the hands of the bad guys. Amazing. Its sorta like the US "war on drugs." No matter what is banned, someone will figure out a way to get it.

Repressive gun control laws, however, only prevent the law-abiding citizen from obtaining the gun. That simple. The above case proves that point quite clearly.

And given the status of the Swiss population, yeah, they don't quite become persona non grata in this issue. I do think that the idea of each person owning a gun would be a deterrent to crime given the consequences. This is the argument in favor of the CCW issue. An equalizer, yes.

Killer Cyborg · 11-18-2005, 02:22 AM

Some dim people round here missing the boat

The whole point of mentioning Switzerland is as a society they're showing a responsible attitude, they don't need tight gun controls whereas societies that have demonstrated that they are morally and legally irresponsible need tight controls and access to guns restricted.

Yes, the factors of high GDP, employment oppertunities and general social conditions make it so.. and to leverage the point American society isn't demonstrating any positive trends that would suggest relaxing gun controls/laws. Theyb should however had restricted access to guns if their personal circumstances merit it

**MeTurk** · 11-18-2005, 05:03 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tadpole")</div>

Quote:

The guy who is willing to loose it all or die for what he belives will eventually be the victor. AN army armed with swords risking dieing for their belief will run right through an yone who isnt willing to pay the ultimate price.[/b]

I wouldn't say that, maybe on a one to one basis that's true but modern soilders are trained to act out their training without thinking about it to much.

It's actually very hard for people to kill eachother there's a physcological block that prevents most normal people from doing it. That's why modern soilders are so well trained to bypass that block and can come home from battles with demons. They say up to 98% of soilders in world war 2 didn't shot to kill most deaths where from bombing and crew based weapons. Weapons from the American civil war where found to be loaded many times but never fired. These people wheren't cowards they just couldn't bring themselfs to kill.

You'll see evedence of this in the news as well, if you watch the untrained terrorists or gurillas that fire weapons off for the cammeras their usually not actually shoting at anything in particular it's showboating (can't rememeber the proper name at the moment) Most mammels fights are decided by the loudest and biggest animal, we still act that out in our own way.

So under normal conditions your right tadpole, but modern warfare has bypassed that.

That's another reason why I'm against guns, you may kill the intruder but your the one that's going to have to live with the consequenses of what you've done. Killing someone will scar you for life.

xanthuos · 11-18-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killer Cyborg@Nov 18 2005, 06:22 AM
Some dim people round here missing the boat

The whole point of mentioning Switzerland is as a society they're* showing a responsible attitude, they don't need tight gun controls whereas societies that have demonstrated that they are morally and legally irresponsible need tight controls and access to guns restricted.

Yes, the factors of high GDP, employment oppertunities and general social conditions make it so.. and* to leverage the point American society isn't demonstrating any positive trends that would suggest relaxing gun controls/laws.* Theyb should however had restricted access to guns if their personal circumstances merit it

[snapback]88183[/snapback]

I'm sorry, did you miss "The Boss'" post that we would like to discourage name calling here? Calling fellow T-Punkers "dim" is not gentlemanly conduct.

In any case, I think that you, fair sir, are missing the point. Regardless of how you feel about whether or not a "morally and legally irresponsible" society needs gun control, you're not addressing the root of the issue...that those gun controls will still not stop criminals from acquiring firearms. All they do is make it harder and more expensive for a law-abiding citizen to purchase and license a firearm.

Killer Cyborg · 11-18-2005, 05:27 AM

.... so the 3000 odd that's died in Northern Ireland since the 60's, was that all heart attacks ??

I think your point is nonsense, yes there are a token of deserters in each conflict but I'm sure if we dropped you into the battle of the Somme in WW1 you'd soon be quick to stick a bayonet in a Germans belly.

Once in the combat zone regardless of training, it's kill the guy at the other end of the street with a gun before he kills you, eliminate the threat. It's in built survival mechanisms not some poncy liberal new age peace mantra that kicks in.

Pure bullshit!

Killer Cyborg · 11-18-2005, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xanthuos@Nov 18 2005, 01:20 PM
I'm sorry, did you miss "The Boss'" post that we would like to discourage name calling here?* Calling fellow T-Punkers "dim" is not gentlemanly conduct.

In any case, I think that you, fair sir, are missing the point.* Regardless of how you feel about whether or not a "morally and legally irresponsible" society needs gun control, you're not addressing the root of the issue...that those gun controls will still not stop criminals from acquiring firearms.* All they do is make it harder and more expensive for a law-abiding citizen to purchase and license a firearm.

[snapback]88198[/snapback]

Yes, you are dim and you are still missing the point.

It's two seperate issues. If you want to stamp out the illegal weapon trades you need tighter controls on the weapons industry not the general public. Every weapon starts out as a legally manufactured wepaon for it's intended market... how it gets into the hands of the criminal is the fault of the industry and the laws and regulations controlling that industry.

No argument here, most criminals are using black market guns so gun controls for that aspect of gun crime is a moot point.

Now on tighter gun controls for the public, here in the UK the Police used to make random spot checks on rifle cabinets, ammo etc.... that type of stuff would prevent kids being killed with rifles lying in sheds and garages etc. Those who abide by the laws have no problems, those don't get their weapons taken away. Any responsible gun owner must surly see the wisdom in the law even if most aspects aren't for your benefit

**travelpunk** · 11-18-2005, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killer Cyborg@Nov 18 2005, 05:38 AM
Yes, you are dim and you are still missing the point.

[snapback]88204[/snapback]

Your ability to post freely on these boards have been suspended. All future posts will be sent to the Mod queue.

**MeTurk** · 11-18-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

I think your point is nonsense, yes there are a token of deserters in each conflict but I'm sure if we dropped you into the battle of the Somme in WW1 you'd soon be quick to stick a bayonet in a Germans belly.

I saw this on a channel 4 documentry about a year ago I'd say I can't rememeber if it was a warfare doco or a human behavious doco I'm trying to find it now so I can see if there's a proper name for this.

I found bit's and pieces on it.

This is from Brown.edu

Quote:

During WWI the US military underwent a revolution in training. Studies assessing the efficacy of boot camps showed that when target practice involved circular bulls-eye style targets, no matter how sure their aim and how steadfast their patriotism, many soldiers were still not adequately prepared to overcome the psychological and moral barriers that dissuade us from killing other human beings. In combat, when confronted with the prospect of firing on another human, some soldiers would just keep loading their guns again and again, without ever firing.

This is taken from history.ac.uk It looks more comprehensive with first hand accounts from soldiers.

Quote:

"the first time I had to kill a man at close range and I did it with a fixed bayonet. It was not very light and he was a shadow but as I twisted the bayonet clear he squealed like a stuck pig. It was not till I was on my way back that I started to shake and I shook like a leaf on a tree for the rest of the night".

People can kill eachother that's easy but we're not perdisposed to killing eachother. Of course if a child is raised in a warrior tribe as a killer they'll take it in their stride.

**Joker** · 11-19-2005, 09:11 PM

BTT, nobody here disagrees that it is against human nature to kill another human for sport. But for self-preservation purposes, yeah, it can happen. Pschological counseling is the first step for a police officer that is forced to discharge his/her weapon in the line of duty... But again, the gun is the tool used for the killing, just as a car is the tool if a person is drunk and hits a pedestrian.

as I've stated before, its not the tool/implement that is evil, its the application of it and the user that make it bad. So, if I use a gun, car, baseball bat, bowling pin, lead pipe, rope, broken beer bottle, TV, shoe, guitar, or dildo to kill a man, should we be outlawing those things in the same knee-jerk reaction? Or for that matter, make it harder to obtain?

Once more, the statistics for vehicular accident/fatality rates versus gun-related fatalities and gun-involved crimes in the US alone (since our gun laws are the focus here mostly) are astronomical by comparison. Given the logic of the anti-gun crowd *calling it logic is a stretch* the knee-jerk reaction that occurs is misplaced.

**Tadpole** · 11-19-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't say that, maybe on a one to one basis that's true but modern soilders are trained to act out their training without thinking about it to much.

Modern day soldiers maybe trained to kill more efficently but that doesnt chagne the age old 'ultimate price'. The person willing to go the farthest, by useing the best means of doing so, regardless of psycological training, will alwsy have the upper hand.

There is a room with 6 red men and 6 blue men. The red guys will kill or be killed. The blue guys wont go that extra step. Take a geuss who will win in a fight. Just as long as there is a will, there will always be a way. ie: Guns and weapons

Killer Cyborg · 11-21-2005, 03:12 AM

Two police officers were shot, one killed at the weekend in England by armed robbers.

There are no guns allowed in the UK. under the law

Should the anti gun lobby revisit the decision to outlaw guns because it clearly doesn't work to prevent
gun crime ?

In a world of military conflict, guns will alwasy bleed back into society regardless of anti gun legislation.

zero · 11-26-2005, 07:13 PM

My girlfriend voiced her dissaproval of my having guns in the house when she moved in 2 months later and many fun weekends of target practice she loves shooting clay pigeons and she is even getting good with the pistols... I really believe most firearms in this country are purchased and used for recreation. Furthermore I Strongly believe that being accurate with a firearm takes just as much skill as learning archery, kendo, or karate. When it comes to america people have to understand that yes Bad people have guns but at least here we let good people have them to and that, I believe, sort of evens the odds. Jack-Ass mugger in the allyway is going to be much less likely to give granny some guff if he thinks he's going to get a .45 slug in his abdomin.