PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

garyb wrote:no, i don't assume any of those things, but almost all humans have the ability to be adults, if their society permits.

I am wondering, if you americans also have those "don't drink drive" campaigns once in a while? What does the need for such a campaign say about adult people's abilities to be responsible when alcohol enters their body?

but i will fight if i must, and i'll kill if my hand is forced. i am a free man, no matter what the bank says.....

How often do you get in a situation, where you need to make this consideration? It looks like something that has been on your mind more than once - not for fun, but because surcomstances has made you make these thoughts. Does these situations really make you feel free? I will put a perspective into it to give my question meaning:

Sometimes I (as a pasing by stranger) have taken part in stopping fights between very upset drunk people in the late (and early) nights in the weekends. I have the size and can sometimes put on the charisma needed to make people calm down - it can be soft style, it can be hard style. It depends on the situation. It's a mental way of saying 'I am stronger than you (which is not nessesarily the case) and I really don't want to hurt you. This is possible over here with next to no risc of loosing one's life (taken, that you know how to chose your situations). I have never gotten hurt by doing this - also not when helping stopping a drug addict shop thief.

I would never do that, if I was afraid people carried guns. Rather, I would turn around and walk away hoping I didn't get hit by a "wild shot". This is just one more way, in which life becomes safer without guns. Yes, you could hold up people with a gun, but the chances, that it ends out bloody on a late saturday night will IMO not be smaller.

once again, most people are cool. i'm not saying i do or want to carry a gun

i don't think it's great for drunk people to have guns, but.....

i'm MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE GUNS HELD BY POLICE AND MILITARY. THESE GUNS HAVE KILLED MILLIONS MORE PEOPLE THAN ALLTHE LATE NIGHT DRUNK IDIOTS COMBINED.

you fear the uncultured boob with a weapon, but i fear the trained killer much more.

i live in an area where there are hundreds and hundreds of guns in the hands of ignorant fools and yet almost all shooting around here involves the police. if the police aren't involved, the it's gang violence which is funded by men in suits. gangsters consider themselves soldiers for their neighborhood, they're copying those in power. the drugs and prostitution involved is regulated and approved by the most respectable sources. it's admitted fact that during the '80's cocaine came into the country via us planes based in arkansas where william clinton was govenor. he was working with the man he calls "daddy", g.h.w. bush, formewr head of the cia. as i said, this is fact, the man who ran the base for the cia has already come forward publicly. european governments are no better. here's the germans using nazi thinking just like the usa politicians do:
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?art ... 6120070419 the U.N(the european world empire's parliement) grants rights as privilege. the us constitution acknowledges rights as inalienable and pre existing to governments, as humans are acknowledged as being soveriegn, each and every one. sovereign, you know, like your king, who still lives in a palace with servants, even if he has no cash, and who grants the right of self government as a matter of practicality(and noblese oblige), but still retains royal perogative.

why do you trust these fools more than your neighbors? get rid of these guys' guns first, and we can probably find a way to live without them.

do i worry about trouble day and night? no.
i don't live in a wealthy scandinavian country, either. my people here are NIGGERS and WETBACKS and nobody is making sure they have jobs or nice things or any future, so i do have to be a little bit on my toes in case someone cracks under the pressure and does something rash to try and make ends meet, but that has nothing to do with guns. it has to do with empire and greed.

i fear i need to stop writing, though. i really don't want to be in any personal wars over this, nor do i want to imply i think it's great to wave guns around. the fact is, for all the guns in america, most are very careful and sober about ownership. a gun requires considerable care to be useful in that one brief moment when it'd really be useful. i know that in a country where everyone is closely related tribally(like many countries in europe), certain kinds of violence are really unthinkable and i don't think everyone needs to carry weapons. i do think that people should be able to get one if they feel they need one, however. that's my opinion.

Anti-terror laws and anti-terror wars suck big time. Somebody is making a shit load of money on them, and the rest of us (more or less globally) surely do live with dimminished rights because of this 9/11 set-up (my personal view).

That picture from New Orleans reminds me about something I read here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

"The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities."

double

On a note on the anti-terror law thing. Saturday I received a call from the Amnesty International Danish headquarters, if I could go to 3 "local" members of the government and give them a piece of paper and a bag of carrots this Monday. Unfortunately, it crashed with my other things going on.

The reason behind this little "action" was to inform the politicians about some of the ways in which everybody's rights are suffering from the anti-terror laws. However, I see no change comming as long as our prime minister is Anders Fogh, who apearantly is a big friend of Bush (actually more looking like a fan - judged by the admiration in his eyes when looking at Bush).

But I agree with you Gary, I think we both have said more or less, what we have to say. And yes, I do still respect you. And no, we don't agree, but if I had grown up in your neighbourhood and you in mine, we just might still not have agreed ... but defended the oposite views of, what we do now.

A bit more food for thought on Katrina/New Orleans. There's a guy here in town who made it up here about 6 months later, he MC's for us sometimes. According to him the following events occured:

They were looking for food and went to a local grocery store. It was guarded by Sherrif's deputies who wouldn't let anyone near the building. There were armed men on guard at all times and 2 more cars roaming. There were sometimes crowds of hungry people but noone was let near. People had been converging on the site because apparently the store had supposedly initially just opened the doors to anyone. It wasn't clear why the sheriffs were in place when they arrived.

A large convoy of food was seen approaching on the highway. He knew this because it wasn't safe where he was staying anymore and large groups of people were camping out on the raised freeway to get away from the random acts of violence going on in housing areas (ie, not just to get away from flood waters). The only time they saw the National Guard was when they showed up to prevent the people from approaching the truck convoy, which was told to turn around and leave the city (?!). Eventually the people were told via 2 armed helicopters (military) to disperse from the freeway and return to the housing areas "for their own safety". Several people were apparently badly beaten on trying to re-enter the housing areas.

At one point a group of them tried to enter a wealthy area to find food & perhaps a car to leave the area, as the area was higher in elevation and most vehicles etc remained intact. They found the area guarded by the local Police's SWAT team and were fired upon when trying to approach. The SWAT people were completely unresponsive to their pleas, and had apparently been protecting the area for days. There were no residents apparent after many hours watch, so it seemed the SWAT teams were defending property, not helping citizens.

During the second day my friend had apparently been separated from his family, who managed to get out of the city. He did not leave until 3 weeks later.

-------

I've heard firsthand reports from quite a few other people along similar lines, including a friend of mine who eventually killed himself, claiming he was unable to bear some of the things that occured to him during that time period. He happened to be one of the people stuck inside of the Superdome area for days longer than he thinks he should have, was starved and apparently raped by some other men. Very sad...

----

I'm still not running down to the local hunting shop to buy a firearm, but hearing accounts like the above during a national disaster definately gave me pause. I've lived down there before and been through some of the more severe hurricanes myself and don't really understand why things went the way they did, during every other hurricane I experienced the National Guard was in place within 12 hours of the storm moving on, regardless of the levels of floodwaters (I lived a mile off the coast in Mississippi, my mother was in the Military at the time but we lived off-base). Most of my neighborhood was destroyed during that storm by roving bands of tornados/waterspouts. Power took some time to be restored but otherwise we had ready access to supplies within a day. Our house was rebuilt within a month. That was 25 years ago and less than 50 miles from New Orleans.

some interesting articles..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buy ... 65717.html

""Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... i-news-hed

"
In 2005, South Africa passed strict new gun licensing laws to address some of the word's worst rates of violent crime. Under the rules, anyone seeking to buy and own a gun must first install a gun safe at home, pass a course on gun safety, laws and proper firearm use and allow police to interview at least three acquaintances about the would-be gun owner's suitability to posssess a firearm.

The new law dramatically cut the legal sale of guns in South Africa. But illegal weapons are still widely available and the country continues to have high levels of gun-related crime, from murders to carjackings."

"In Russia, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, strict gun laws ban possession for self-defense purposes and require sportsmen to keep their guns at clubs. Today, less than 12 percent of the country's murders are committed with guns, a number officials fear would soar if the rules were relaxed."

just a couple of things;

How someone who says a P90 is for shooting tincans can call himself a weapons expert is beyond me. and 60% fatality with hollowpoints at 1-3m distance isnt exactly exeptional. ive had one as a service weapon for a long period.

We also have to consider the era we are living in. has there been any conflicts lately solved by the fact that citizens are armed? as far as i recall, massive unarmed actions taken by calm citizens have made more difference, hasnt it?

This "you need a gun to be safe" is just an industrial idea, built on that famous constitution act, which really has been a well working marketing strategy.

and if your guns sadly are taken away, you could always rent a cowboy from companies such as http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

Gary, there is no God given right to own a gun. That is so ridiculous. I have never heard this before from anyone. First of all there is no such thing as God and secondly if there was a God, I am sure he would not like guns. You seem to be saying that a ban on guns would be immoral; quite the opposite my friend. If there are any natural rights, one of them would be the right to lead your life without being shot or threatened by any Tom, Dick or Jane. While I disagree with our government on many issues, I certainly do not want the average Joe to be the judge, jury and executioner!

You seem to be saying that a ban on guns would be immoral; quite the opposite my friend.

Not necessarily. A gun is just an object. It has no morality. It's a tool for killing.
So, the question you have to ask is all killing immoral?
Obviously the answer would be "no".
Otherwise anyone who has ever fired a shot defending their country from invasion is just as 'guilty' as those doing the invading.

Personally I think absolute pacifism is less moral than being willing to kill in order to defend yourself or those under attack from an aggressor.

Where would Europe have been in WW2 without Americas guns?

If there are any natural rights, one of them would be the right to lead your life not being shot or threatened by any Tom, Dick or Jane

I think that is where the "God given right" bit comes in..
If Tom Dick and Jane are all packing heat, and you are not, your ability to defend yourself is severely compromised.
That is what people forget when they talk about outlawing handguns.. There are still going to be PLENTY of people out there who will have them, and they are not going to be keen on handing them over..

Im interested to hear what solutions our european friends have for dealing with that issue.
So you pass a law and all the law-abiding citizens have turned in their guns.
And there are still thousands upon thousands of criminals out there who decided to keep their weapons..
What to do now?

Where are we today with americas guns

amusing how fear is the main argument over there.

manfriday, acording to you post there should be very low crimerates in the US. Nobody dares to break in at peoples houses because they might have guns, right? And SURLEY, if they decide to break in afterall, the thief wouldnt dare to break in without packing some serious heat himself? It is, after all, in his God given right to bear arms to defend himself?

And when the burglar goes in and shoot you in self defence, who do you think he sells your gun to?

I know your thinking "yeah but if the law obeying citizen is unarmed, the burglar STILL will be armed when he enters, and i have nothing to defend myself with!"

and your right. but the chance that he will shoot you while you are fiddeling with your nighttable drawer are far less. you maybe got robbed, but atleast you didnt die. shit happens, thats what insurance is for.

manfriday, acording to you post there should be very low crimerates in the US

Where did you get that notion? I realize that the media may portray American's as "cowboys" where we all have a gun each (just like europeans all have a castle each) but that is not the case.
I'm not sure what the statistics are about the number of Americans who own guns, but I can say that the crimerate in D.C went way up when they outlawed guns, and I can say that in cities where they pass conceal carry laws, crime rates went down.

That doesn't mean crime rates dissapear. Crime rates, and the reason for crime is a lot more complex than that. I have read that burglary rates in the UK are far higher than they are here in the states by the way..

if they decide to break in afterall, the thief wouldnt dare to break in without packing some serious heat himself? It is, after all, in his God given right to bear arms to defend himself?

I think perhaps you have the wrong idea about what "defense" is..

the chance that he will shoot you while you are fiddeling with your nighttable drawer are far less. you maybe got robbed, but atleast you didnt die. shit happens, thats what insurance is for.

According to criminologist Gary Kleck there were about 400000 crimes commited in 1993, while about 2.5 million crimes were thwarted by would-be victims who had firearms.
Kleck was accused of exagerating the numbers, but hell.. if he was even half right, that is still pretty good argument for keeping handguns legal.

D.C. borders on Virginia, one of the easiest places to buy guns as illustrated by Cho. Most guns in D.C. come from their insanely gun happy neighbor Virginia.


The situation clearly is not in the best interest of citizens. Guys it is not working at all. We should not continue with this. We need to change. Let's just try a total gun ban and see what happens. If deaths do not go down within 10 years then you violent people can have your guns back.

We need to change. Let's just try a total gun ban and see what happens. If deaths do not go down within 10 years then you violent people can have your guns back.

No problem! Just get all the criminals to turn their guns in first. I'm sure if you ask nice they will oblige.

manfriday wrote:So, the question you have to ask is all killing immoral?
Obviously the answer would be "no".
Otherwise anyone who has ever fired a shot defending their country from invasion is just as 'guilty' as those doing the invading.

and here's exactly the different point of view!

In my opinion (and i'm not the only one for shure) the answer is YES! All killing is immoral! And there will be no defending needs if there's no invasion, it's that simple.

First comes the right to live, there's no bigger gift than life! So how could one even concern to take this right away from someone, it's like playing god in my eyes...

If all of us would clean up the own garden first, the world would be much better. I know, kinda naive sight, but think about it.

my little swiss view in improper english

And there will be no defending needs if there's no invasion, it's that simple.

I think you have something backwards here, friend.
Of course there is no "defending' needed if there is no aggressor..
And yes, it IS indeed that simple!
But typically an aggressor does not ask for permission!
He just attacks, and you are left with the option of defending yourself or dying..

So if you are attacked, or invaded by a foreign power.. is it immoral for you to defend yourself with force? Or to drive out the invader?

First comes the right to live, there's no bigger gift than life!

ON that we agree. But how does that fit into the notion of it being immoral to defend oneself?
I think there is a big difference morally between using force to attack or using force to defend.

I'm not sure what the statistics are about the number of Americans who own guns

me neither. a quick google reveals numbers between 70-90 million US citizens. and thats gun OWNERS, it doesnt say how many each got.

I think perhaps you have the wrong idea about what "defense" is..

Correct me if im wrong, but i thought Self Defence was if you found your self in a life treatening position, and took measures to protect yourself. How you got to that situation is irrelevant for the guy on the trigger.

According to criminologist Gary Kleck there were about 400000 crimes commited in 1993, while about 2.5 million crimes were thwarted by would-be victims who had firearms.

First of all, Gary Klerck sat the UPPER BOUNDRARIES to 2.5 million, the lower boundrary to 800,000. Another survey the same year said 100,000.

[/quote]

Correct me if im wrong, but i thought Self Defence was if you found your self in a life threatening position, and took measures to protect yourself. How you got to that situation is irrelevant for the guy on the trigger.

No, just the act of invading someones home (or country) makes you the aggressor, not the defender. Even if you do not have a weapon you are the aggressor in that situation.
(of course I do not mean YOU,, im using the hypothetical 'you' )

First of all, Gary Klerck sat the UPPER BOUNDRARIES to 2.5 million, the lower boundrary to 800,000. Another survey the same year said 100,000.

I think 100000 is still a good enough rate to justify gun ownership for purposes of self-defense.

andby the way, this was 14 years ago.

So?

well you shouldnt believe all you hear you know...

heh.. well, I had a hard time believing the numbers you posted, becuase you did not seem to take population into account..
So I looked into it a bit

you should check out these sites:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/

and

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#summary


if you have time, you should also take a look at this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

one excerpt from the report says:
"The survey burglary rate was consis-
tently highest in Australia and lowest in
Switzerland (followed by Sweden). It
increased in England up to 1993 and
then decreased, while it decreased
steadily in the United States.25
Burglary: Recorded crime rate per 1,000 population "