Gun Policy

[Odin]

Thats a harsh topic you got here

 

I say, every american knows himself that their gun laws are plain stupid, and utterly outdated.

But everyone of them is afraid to tell that others, they might think they are "unpatriotic".

 

Yes.. a knife is a murdering tool too.. even a pencil can be one.

But through centuries of shooting homicides, their nerves are fragil and they are angst-ridden, so no one will let go off their weapons

and they are fast at shooting if they hear sth at night in the kitchen, like their wife getting sth to drink.

Or the police officers who first shoot, then talk. 

It's not sth to be changed by laws alone, the whole american society, and their way to think has to change.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Wilhelm II

[Grillick]

The first step to changing the way we think about firearms is recognizing that they were designed for, and are really only useful for, piercing and tearing the flesh and organs of living beings.

[Sailor Jerry]

The first step to changing the way we think about firearms is recognizing that they were designed for, and are really only useful for, piercing and tearing the flesh and organs of living beings.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about bows/crossbows and arrows?

[Odin]

And it could be all so easy...

 

Dont think about crossbows, or Shuriken, thats all nitpicking. Just go for necessity of ownership.

 

Like the german Waffengesetz:

 

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:

• age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
• trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
• personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
• expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
• necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

 

And for all, who already have guns, they should be proofed again if they pass those criterias.

[Grillick]

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about bows/crossbows and arrows?

Yes, although their decreased effectiveness at the job for which they are designed makes them less objectionable.

[Fox Fire]

The first step to changing the way we think about firearms is recognizing that they were designed for, and are really only useful for, piercing and tearing the flesh and organs of living beings.

Exactly. That's exactly why I should have the right to own them.

The object is not at fault. That's the biggest flaw to the fight against guns.

Millions of people in America own guns. We know what they are for, we have the right to own them. Good luck getting such a deep part of American culture to give up such a powerful freedom to the government.

[Solomon]

... Good luck getting such a deep part of American culture to give up such a powerful freedom to the government.

Let me guess. We're going to have to take your weapons from your cold dead hands. 

[Fox Fire]

Let me guess. We're going to have to take your weapons from your cold dead hands. 

That's a guernetee.

[Fox Fire]

And it could be all so easy...

 

Dont think about crossbows, or Shuriken, thats all nitpicking. Just go for necessity of ownership.

 

Like the german Waffengesetz:

 

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:

 

• age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
• trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
• personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
• expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
• necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

 

And for all, who already have guns, they should be proofed again if they pass those criterias.

I would tell that idea to blow me..... Not out of fear of hiding something, but because my personal information is nobodies business, and certainly isn't the business of a simple salesman of all people.

Quit blaming the gun and focus on the real issue for !@#$ sake.

I know it's hard for foreigners and non gun owning upper class liberal !@#$ bags to realize, but if you don't defend you power to kill, then you're a !@#$ and a prime example of stupid.

There is a reason our founding fathers gave us this right. And it wasn't to hand it off to the government after they wrote an entire essay to protect us from that government.

 

I mean really, why would anyone have such a right?

Does anyone know why? Probably because our founders realized government sucks and the people are better.

OMG!! A revolutionary idea?! No way!!!

 

Anyway, wake me up when we get back to that stage. Maybe I'll enjoy being an omnipresent dictator in a video game more....

[Odin]

1. Americans shouldn't talk about privacy of information to other countrys

2. With all our rules, germany isn't really all that liberal, we're social(ists), conservative, and ecofriendly, and unlike the US economical efficient.    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade)

3. Yes, talk about foreigners in an international forum

4. Of course you are against those laws... you wouldn't get one by at least §§ 5,6 and 8.

5. Founding fathers? That was around 1776,  even we Germans removed laws 'just' 70 years old...  , and what, they realized governments suck..     before or after they created a government?

6. Defending my power to kill? Am i living in Gaza or Berlin-Kreuzberg? wtf..

 

If you want to handle weapons, just join police, army or play paintball.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I'd love it if we talked about rational and reasonable moves rather then tea-party "a gun for every toddler" nonsense or liberal "guns are for killing and killing is bad" nonsense.

 

I used to think the politicians abandoned the middle, but no...its the people who have fled to extremism, and the politicians who have reluctantly(some of them) followed.

[Ayayay]

I used to think the politicians abandoned the middle, but no...its the people who have fled to extremism, and the politicians who have reluctantly(some of them) followed.

The problem is that there are 2 main arguments for the second amendment.

1. The idea is that an armed populace is harder to subjugate by a foreign invader (which, as the arsenal of Democracy, is not something we need worry about)

2. So we can fight against our own tyrannical government. (Which is again, ludicrous, how is a civilian supposed to fight against A-10's or Abrams?)

 

Both of the arguments are outdated. We are the world leader in military strength, and with NATO behind us we can take on the rest of the world. Even if the worst came to pass and someone invaded us, we have over 5,000 nuclear warheads, you can extrapolate from there.

A rebellion, on the other hand, would need to be supported by the American military to have any hope of success. Your "Barbie doll" AR-15 is, weather you want to admit it or not, not going to help you.

Edited September 2, 2014 by underlordgc

[Solomon]

It's "whether" not "weather" but basically this ^.

 

The firearms industry (and its NRA) has done its best to maximize its shareholders' profits and you can't blame them for trying, but how long are U.S. citizens going to buy it? Accept that the firearms industry has its agenda, move beyond the second amendment ploy, and try to arrive at a rational contemporary set of firearms laws.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Solomon

[Fox Fire]

The gun laws here are perfectly fine.

I'm not sure how you all keep repeating the idea that guns are the problem. Maybe if we actually enforced the paws we already had, the problem would be mended.

 

The problem is that there are 2 main arguments for the second amendment.1. The idea is that an armed populace is harder to subjugate by a foreign invader (which, as the arsenal of Democracy, is not something we need worry about)2. So we can fight against our own tyrannical government. (Which is again, ludicrous, how is a civilian supposed to fight against A-10's or Abrams?)Both of the arguments are outdated. We are the world leader in military strength, and with NATO behind us we can take on the rest of the world. Even if the worst came to pass and someone invaded us, we have over 5,000 nuclear warheads, you can extrapolate from there.A rebellion, on the other hand, would need to be supported by the American military to have any hope of success. Your "Barbie doll" AR-15 is, weather you want to admit it or not, not going to help you.

Have you seen Iraq lately?

 

Besides that, a couple more points:

1. Our police forces are militaries of their own. They're also the largest street gangs and share the exact same mentality as a gangbanger.

"Oh no they don't!"

Yes, Yes they do. And that would be because being the largest street gang on the street is what they do for a living.

2. America is the worlds leading weapons producer.

Would you prefer the rest of the world be armed instead?

 

Giving up my firearms is like cutting my hands off. A completely stupid idea that accomplishes nothing other than my own impairment.

As wide spread as guns are in the US, banning them would leave you with an unarmed populace where only criminals have guns. Because I can absolutely assure all you Europeans, that around here, people have entire arsenals. People also have arsenals hidden away in discreet locations that would never be found by police.

I can't even fathom how the hell the Government is supposed to collect all these guns. In my state, firearms don't even have to be registered and you don't need a license to own one. And shootings are a very rare occurrence. Most murders here are actually committed using everything except a gun. Odd, huh?

Not really.

[Fox Fire]

Also:

Anti-Gun argument destroyed in 3 minutes or less:

http://youtu.be/Lh1zornUVv8

[Ayayay]

I should set my stance on this issue since I've been less than serious most of the time. People should not be able to purchase anything above a pistol. You also need to pass a training course and be mentally stable. I also doubt a gun law would ever pass that would take away guns people already own. Especially considering the fact that you can still buy a handful of miniguns that were sold into the civilian market before the law went into place banning them.

 

I have seen Iraq, it was far less violent when they didn't have guns under Saddam. I also find it laughable that you think we are anything like Iraq.

 

1. The militarization of the police force is a direct consequence of the war on terror. Changing gun ownership laws won't have an effect on it.

2. We are the leading weapons manufacture, we spend 40-45% of the entire world's military spending. But, again, changing gun ownership laws won't effect that because that is spent by the government on defense and has nothing to do with what a consumer spends.

 

That guy in the video is pretty hypocritical, he denounces using children as political ammo but then turns around and uses his dead comrades as political ammo. Also, should congress take up arms and go overseas with the marines when they declare war? Really appears to be nothing but rhetoric which I tire of. I agree that the bill should not have been forced through but they did it before for same-sex marriage, where was the outrage when they gave men and women the right to marry their own sex? Or when they did the same for teacher evaluations? How dare they evaluate teachers!

Edited September 3, 2014 by underlordgc

[Adama]

Underlordgc is right in that a rebellion against the US government would only be successful with the military and the police on the side of the people which in a lot of ways will be unlikely due to conditioning and the current climate that exist with a militarized police force. 

 

However, I think as a matter of principle the population should maintain the right to defend itself from government oppression, no matter how futile it may be. Power does indeed come out of the barrel of a gun, and in the past 100 years government oppression has been the leading cause of unnatural death (Democide) giving some reason to keep the populace at least sort of able to defend itself and not just keel over. 

 

That being said, the only real way to affect change with the government is to go through legal means, first by getting money out of politics and then addressing the issue of police militarization and Orwelian Big Brother policies. And we should pass reasonable gun legislation such as back ground checks, but that won't happen even with a 90 percent nation wide support for it, due to the NRA not actually supporting gun owners but rather gun manufactures.

 

 

 

 

I have seen Iraq, it was far less violent when they didn't have guns under Saddam. I also find it laughable that you think we are anything like Iraq.

 

In Iraq, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is an even worse guy with a gun.

Edited September 3, 2014 by CMDR Adama

[Fox Fire]

I should set my stance on this issue since I've been less than serious most of the time. People should not be able to purchase anything above a pistol. You also need to pass a training course and be mentally stable. I also doubt a gun law would ever pass that would take away guns people already own. Especially considering the fact that you can still buy a handful of miniguns that were sold into the civilian market before the law went into place banning them.I have seen Iraq, it was far less violent when they didn't have guns under Saddam. I also find it laughable that you think we are anything like Iraq.1. The militarization of the police force is a direct consequence of the war on terror. Changing gun ownership laws won't have an effect on it.2. We are the leading weapons manufacture, we spend 40-45% of the entire world's military spending. But, again, changing gun ownership laws won't effect that because that is spent by the government on defense and has nothing to do with what a consumer spends.That guy in the video is pretty hypocritical, he denounces using children as political ammo but then turns around and uses his dead comrades as political ammo. Also, should congress take up arms and go overseas with the marines when they declare war? Really appears to be nothing but rhetoric which I tire of. I agree that the bill should not have been forced through but they did it before for same-sex marriage, where was the outrage when they gave men and women the right to marry their own sex? Or when they did the same for teacher evaluations? How dare they evaluate teachers!

You realize the vast, vast majority of gun related deaths are with a pistol? In fact, some areas have pistol bans where you can still purchase an assault rifle.

I quit reading your comment after sentence #1 because it's the dumbest shit I've ever heard

[Fox Fire]

I should set my stance on this issue since I've been less than serious most of the time. People should not be able to purchase anything above a pistol. You also need to pass a training course and be mentally stable. I also doubt a gun law would ever pass that would take away guns people already own. Especially considering the fact that you can still buy a handful of miniguns that were sold into the civilian market before the law went into place banning them.I have seen Iraq, it was far less violent when they didn't have guns under Saddam. I also find it laughable that you think we are anything like Iraq.1. The militarization of the police force is a direct consequence of the war on terror. Changing gun ownership laws won't have an effect on it.2. We are the leading weapons manufacture, we spend 40-45% of the entire world's military spending. But, again, changing gun ownership laws won't effect that because that is spent by the government on defense and has nothing to do with what a consumer spends.That guy in the video is pretty hypocritical, he denounces using children as political ammo but then turns around and uses his dead comrades as political ammo. Also, should congress take up arms and go overseas with the marines when they declare war? Really appears to be nothing but rhetoric which I tire of. I agree that the bill should not have been forced through but they did it before for same-sex marriage, where was the outrage when they gave men and women the right to marry their own sex? Or when they did the same for teacher evaluations? How dare they evaluate teachers!

Guns a completely different topic than teachers or marriage.

Also, he wasn't using his dead comrades. He was honoring their sacrifice.

Treyvon Martin didn't fight and die for this nation's rights.

Try again.

[Fox Fire]

Underlordgc is right in that a rebellion against the US government would only be successful with the military and the police on the side of the people which in a lot of ways will be unlikely due to conditioning and the current climate that exist with a militarized police force. 

 

However, I think as a matter of principle the population should maintain the right to defend itself from government oppression, no matter how futile it may be. Power does indeed come out of the barrel of a gun, and in the past 100 years government oppression has been the leading cause of unnatural death (Democide) giving some reason to keep the populace at least sort of able to defend itself and not just keel over. 

 

That being said, the only real way to affect change with the government is to go through legal means, first by getting money out of politics and then addressing the issue of police militarization and Orwelian Big Brother policies. And we should pass reasonable gun legislation such as back ground checks, but that won't happen even with a 90 percent nation wide support for it, due to the NRA not actually supporting gun owners but rather gun manufactures.

 

 

 

 

In Iraq, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is an even worse guy with a gun.

That part about mental health is BS. I have a mental health issue, yet throughout my life I've been far more peaceful than my peers. We all remember high school and the raging hormones. Even back then, I was always the one avoiding fights or breaking them up.

My track record proves I'm not a violent person. My criminal history proves that as well.

I'd trust myself with a gun before I'd trust most mentally healthy people.

In fact, mental health is a total joke. Half the people I know suffer from some diagnosis that's just total BS. You can't really understand the mental state of anyone other than yourself (most of the time, not even then) and you certainly can't do it by seeing said person once every three months to engage in minor chit chat.

Psycologists are a joke. My doctor is a cool guy, but as someone with a mental health issue, I can also assure you that he doesn't know anything about my mentality and never will.

 

In closing, I'd like to state that insane mass murderers never tell their doctors that they want to kill people. Nor do non insane mass murderers.

So the mental health argument is virtually void.

[Solomon]

Most murders here are actually committed using everything except a gun. Odd, huh?

Not really.

You really should look at the FBI's figures before you make statements like that.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

[Grillick]

1. The militarization of the police force is a direct consequence of the war on terror. Changing gun ownership laws won't have an effect on it.

Actually, it's a consequence of the war on drugs, and the vast sums of cash at the disposal of local police forces as a result of criminal forfeiture laws.

[Adama]

That part about mental health is BS. I have a mental health issue, yet throughout my life I've been far more peaceful than my peers. We all remember high school and the raging hormones. Even back then, I was always the one avoiding fights or breaking them up.

My track record proves I'm not a violent person. My criminal history proves that as well.

I'd trust myself with a gun before I'd trust most mentally healthy people.

In fact, mental health is a total joke. Half the people I know suffer from some diagnosis that's just total BS. You can't really understand the mental state of anyone other than yourself (most of the time, not even then) and you certainly can't do it by seeing said person once every three months to engage in minor chit chat.

Psycologists are a joke. My doctor is a cool guy, but as someone with a mental health issue, I can also assure you that he doesn't know anything about my mentality and never will.

 

In closing, I'd like to state that insane mass murderers never tell their doctors that they want to kill people. Nor do non insane mass murderers.

So the mental health argument is virtually void.

 

 

I didn't say anything about mental health in my post, not sure how you even remotely thought I said something about mental health.

 

Besides that, mental health DOES have a huge affect on mass shootings that take place and the individuals that commit the acts. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by CMDR Adama

[Ayayay]

Actually, it's a consequence of the war on drugs, and the vast sums of cash at the disposal of local police forces as a result of criminal forfeiture laws.

Actually the police are receiving military equipment for free directly from the Department of Defense. While the War on Drugs is definitely a problem, the War on Terror directly lead to this situation. They were receiving military equipment before 9/11 but at least they were paying for it.

 

 

I should set my stance on this issue since I've been less than serious most of the time.

I quit reading your comment after sentence #1 because it's the dumbest !@#$ I've ever heard

What's wrong with my first sentence?

 

Pistols do account for the most deaths but that's because most people own it. Pistols are cheap and readily available, therefor by nature most shootings are going to be done by them. We should put in checks that prevent sale to mentally unstable people (like the Sandy Hook shooter) and do background checks to prevent sale to the people who are more likely going to rob and steal. You have to take a test to show that you can drive, I see no reason not to have a similar one that shows you are capable of owning a weapon.

 

In closing, I'd like to state that insane mass murderers never tell their doctors that they want to kill people.

Exactly. That's why we need people who buy guns to be analyzed. If someone is at a higher than average risk to use the gun in a violent, unprovoked manner against another person they should be denied the right to buy guns. Like the rules against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, technically your freedom of speech is being limited but it is limited so that others can be safe. Edited September 3, 2014 by underlordgc

[Fox Fire]

You really should look at the FBI's figures before you make statements like that.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

I meant in my local area.