So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[aaken]

2 cents from a european.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
As far as I know there are countries in Europe, like Norway, where indeed many people own a firearm (in the case of Norway I immagine mostly for hunting) but the rate of violent crimes is very low.
On the other hand, the US have their law, according to which they have the right to bear arms. We have different laws. In Italy, for example, I can own a firearm to go hunting, but I have to pay a tax on it. I can also have issued a permit of carrying a gun from the police. Does it make me a slave of my government? I wouldn't say so. After all we elect our political representatives, which form a government. How could I be slave of something I contributed to elect?
As for:

Europe is currently fixing its population problems by immigrating a ton of Muslims in from the middle East. DOesn't take rocket science to figure out that some of them will be whacked and opt to bring Europe to its knees in the future. An armed populace would not let this happen.

I come from a country that was invaded by almost everybody, greeks, romans, saracens, normans, longobards, goths, franks, vandals, huns...Myself, I'm actually descending from frankish family that settled first in Catalonia in the IX century then south of Italy and Sicily in the XI-XII century. Yet, now, in the XXI century, we are a state, we have laws to regulate immigration and we have police forces to uphold those laws. How they are effective can be debated. But personally, an armed populace that start shooting indiscriminately people because they have a different color of skin, because they come from another country in search for a better life, I think that is barbaric. But maybe I'm just a naive leftist.

[dean_acheson]

Europe is currently fixing its population problems by immigrating a ton of Muslims in from the middle East. DOesn't take rocket science to figure out that some of them will be whacked and opt to bring Europe to its knees in the future. An armed populace would not let this happen.

From aaken: I come from a country that was invaded by almost everybody, greeks, romans, saracens, normans, longobards, goths, franks, vandals, huns...Myself, I'm actually descending from frankish family that settled first in Catalonia in the IX century then south of Italy and Sicily in the XI-XII century. Yet, now, in the XXI century, we are a state, we have laws to regulate immigration and we have police forces to uphold those laws. How they are effective can be debated. But personally, an armed populace that start shooting indiscriminately people because they have a different color of skin, because they come from another country in search for a better life, I think that is barbaric. But maybe I'm just a naive leftist.

I wouldn't consider that to be the opinon of a naive leftist, I would consider that to be a very rational opinion. However, I would be very very concerned if my elected representative did not act to curb the influx of individuals who had no desire embrace the core values of the nation-state they are entering into. Those core values, being at its most basic:
1. Separation of Church and State.
2. Republican form of government.
3. Libertarianism.
Those are very broad, and we could argue of semantics of them, but I am against the influx of anybody who thinks my nation-state would be better off under Shria law.

Do you get in trouble for straying off topic if you started the thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

No, I wouldn't. I like beer! :p Talk about not being analogous - you hit it on the head!

Yet you'd ban tobacco? [/sidetrack]

Originally Posted by dean acheson

Tchoky,
I don't mean to be smart, but there are all kinds of numbers, with all kinds of meanings that can be extrapolated...

That's correct. Any number of factors could explain the following. Personally, I believe it's down to the 200 million guns that are in the US, and arent in the UK.

The murder rate in the US is 4 times higher than the UK, and over 2/3 of those murders are shootings. In the UK it's one in ten.

Tchocky.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While it is a fact that the US does have a higher gun-crime rate overall than her European counterparts, it's also true that the parts of the US with the strongest gun-control laws have the highest gun-crime rates. Here in Utah we have very loose gun laws, and one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Go figure.

I appreciate that a decrease gun crime and gun control legislation don't always go together, but there is no legislation severe enough that takes the guns off the streets. Comparing a 'tough' state to a country in which it's near-impossible to get a gun doesn't stand up.

My main beef is that in our founding document is a right to bare arms. To me that is a pretty simple phrase

"bear" arms, isn't it? :p

[aaken]

I wouldn't consider that to be the opinon of a naive leftist, I would consider that to be a very rational opinion. However, I would be very very concerned if my elected representative did not act to curb the influx of individuals who had no desire embrace the core values of the nation-state they are entering into. Those core values, being at its most basic:
1. Separation of Church and State.
2. Republican form of government.
3. Libertarianism.
Those are very broad, and we could argue of semantics of them, but I am against the influx of anybody who thinks my nation-state would be better off under Shria law.

Do you get in trouble for straying off topic if you started the thread?

I hope the moderators will tolerate the slight OT.
I would certainly agree with what you stated. There are laws that prescribe the form of government, the repartition of powers between the branches of the State, that state what is legal and what is not. Anybody who wants to settle in a place should live according to the laws of that place. I do not debate that.
But, not always the 'danger' to those laws comes from immigrants, muslims or not.
I'd like to point out a recent example, an example that I immagine few people outside of Italy know. Recently the italian government tried to pass a project of law (to be voted in the parliament) about the extension of the rights of married couples to unmarried couples, or couples, not bound by marriage, that live together. This would include gay couples. The catholic Church has fiercly battled against this project of law. That is their right, of course. Some bishops went so far as to invoke the excomunication of these couples and put high pressure on the shoulders of catholic representatives in the parliament. Needless to say, Italy has a catholic majority. This, for example, could be seen as an example of interference on religious basis of another State.

[dean_acheson]

aaken,
Certainly you have a good point. I don't think that I really agree with the analogy, but that is for another whole long set of posts.

Tchocky,
Well you just popped me for stupid mistakes #2 and #3 today.....

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106230

I seem to be all ate up with stupid today. :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Yet you'd ban tobacco? [/sidetrack]

You know i was joking, so get over it!

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.

-S

[Tchocky]

Actually I'm glad of the typos, dean. I've been playing the scene out in my head for a while.
The Founding Fathers, sitting around giving birth to a nation, whatever that entails

Franklin: UUNNNGHHHHHHHH.........AARGGGHGHGH

Adams: I can see the head! Push, man, push!

Hamilton looks, faints. Franklin rolls up his sleeves to deliver the EagleFlagJesusChild

Franklin: Hey, now I can work without getting my sleeves dirty! This advantage must be enshrined in law somehow. Get Madison working on a right to bare arms!

*Birth Of A Nation*

[Tchocky]

Anyway, the point is, over 99.999% of the firearm owning population has the maturity and self control to own a firearm, and I am happy to know that someone is there to back me up if something went wrong in my neighborhood. Things are good in the US right now and I hope they stay that way.

I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.

People commit murder and those same murders are going to happen - gun or not. Guns do not commit murders.

What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States because you lack guns to deter the crime. If you want to compare another analogy, try nukes - why have them? It is a deterent. Same thing. Might as well give them all up, but you know your enemies won't so you can't. You can't ever. History is your teacher and that is where you need to look to see your future. A world without guns is impossible.

I think it's time to start pulling the real statisitcs.

-S

PS. They are here on this board already

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a good article for you to start with. In a country with no guns, the gun crimes are on an alarming rise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm

-S

PS. Is that true? You have an annual percentage of almost 27% of becoming a crime victim in the UK on a yearly basis? That is terrible!

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I think things would be better in the US if there were fewer/no guns in the hands of the general civilian population, the murder rate as it stands compared to a similiar country without widespread gun ownership backs me up on this. I'm not a fan of vigilantes, so the police will have to look after my neighbourhood instead.

Then how do you explain a country like Switzerland that has even more guns per capita than the US but a crime rate below both the US and similar countries. Not just guns either but real by God assault weapons...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

Then how do you explain a country like Switzerland that has even more guns per capita than the US but a crime rate below both the US and similar countries. Not just guns either but real by God assault weapons...

That is so true - and every male is required by law to have one!

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States because you lack guns to deter the crime. If you want to compare another analogy, try nukes - why have them? It is a deterent. Same thing.

False. Nukes are not used every day in murders/burglaries. There is a lot more to guns than criminal deterrence. Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?

People commit murder and those same murders are going to happen - gun or not. Guns do not commit murders.

But people with guns do. I think removing a powerful method of murder would help.

A world without guns is impossible.

Quite right. I'd like the world's guns to be in the hands of those trained to use them, Army/Police. This is where the Swiss model is unusual. The mandatory gun ownership is for all men who have left the military, men trained in the use of guns.

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If those who continue to to manufacture their own fire arms will be criminals by their disobedience to the law which the government has legally made.

I'm 5 feet 8 inches tall and nearly 60 years old. When a 6-foot-2 guy comes into my apartment and attacks me without warning, should I beat him up? How?

If fire arms are banned no criminal activity will threaten your life.

I don't understand. Are you saying that governments always allow people their rights?

Of course where else would you get rights.

If so, I can show you many cases of governments denying citizens their rights. History is full of them.

Please, list your cases where the government purposely turned on those it governs.[/quote]


Ok, i have a comment on the "if all firearms are banned there will be no criminal activity in your life". Ok, so we criminals are called criminals because they break the law, correct? and if they murder people with guns and steal things, why would they obey a law saying they can't have guns? We call them criminals because they Dont do what the law tells them. and also guns don't commit crimes, people do. If you set a bunch of guns in the middle of a street, they won't start jumping up and shooting people on their own. Humans might use guns for purposes that oppose the law, in that case the humans should be punished not the guns.

[loynokid]

I ran across some info in my cities local archives this is it. A soldier that fought on the pacific front in WWII recovered some Jap documents and broght them back home. I was looking at translated copies of these and guess what i found out. The japanese never invaded the US homeland directly because so many people in the US possesed firearms. They figured that they would be getting shot at everywhere they went. Just a little interesting tidbit.