Guns

  • Thread starter Talentless
  • 5,167 comments
  • 246,830 views

Which position on firearms is closest to your own?

  • I support complete illegality of civilian ownership

    Votes: 120 15.5%
  • I support strict control.

    Votes: 244 31.5%
  • I support moderate control.

    Votes: 164 21.2%
  • I support loose control.

    Votes: 81 10.5%
  • I oppose control.

    Votes: 139 17.9%
  • I am undecided.

    Votes: 27 3.5%

  • Total voters
    775
Of course, Godwin's Grammar Nazi law is always relevant.
 
Of course, Godwin's Grammar Nazi law is always relevant.

Um okay...not sure what grammar nazi has to do with it other than the term. You used the idea that some one would strike him down with Hitler-esque (Godwin's law) syntax or prose lessons in the English language. I don't know why you suggest this since no one has teased or made fun of him, and rather he is the one that originally brought to our attention that he may have trouble with English and repeated to tell us, even though we took it in to consideration from the beginning.
 
Um okay...not sure what grammar nazi has to do with it other than the term. You used the idea that some one would strike him down with Hitler-esque (Godwin's law) syntax or prose lessons in the English language. I don't know why you suggest this since no one has teased or made fun of him, and rather he is the one that originally brought to our attention that he may have trouble with English and repeated to tell us, even though we took it in to consideration from the beginning.

Dude, keep calm and re-read what I wrote. If you don't get it then so be it.
 
Dude, keep calm and re-read what I wrote. If you don't get it then so be it.

How am I not calm, dude? I don't get how you can tell or think to be able to tell if I'm calm or not from words on a screen. I know what you wrote, you're claiming we're going to be grammar nazi's to him, to an even scary Hitler degree. I get the feeling you don't understand what I said and thus took the easy approach to claim rather I don't understand you. You further this by claiming I have certain feelings that only you yourself can convey personally from how you read my post.

So in other words I'm asking you why you think we're going to be rude to him? From what past context?
 
It was a reference to the rather popular (read: we all know them) "keep calm" memes combined with the inevitable grammar nazi antics that plague those folk with English as a second language who frequent forums that expect English to be used.

I can't believe I had to explain that.
 
It was a reference to the rather popular (read: we all know them) "keep calm" memes combined with the inevitable grammar nazi antics that plague those folk with English as a second language who frequent forums that expect English to be used.

One I never got the keep calm meme, just like the doge meme to me it's a bit lame. I understood the grammar nazi bit as I just demonstrated, what I don't understand is the misuse of it by you here. Once again we knew it was an issue we accepted it, you seem to poke fun at it as if we didn't. Hence why I'll ask a third time. Why do you think this?

I can't believe I had to explain that.

Well you wouldn't have if the context seemed to fit the claim. If we were actually making fun of him then yeah this would be quite funny.
 
LMS, We are getting too off topic.

My post was both a reference to PIC (popular internet culture) and an acknowledgement that it was possible that his post would attract the ire of any number of grammatical internet brownshirts.

There was a fair amount of tongue in cheek humour involved but clearly it was taken, unsurprisingly, literally.

I'd say "lighten up" but am concerned I may be accused of suggesting you to be overweight.

But seriously, divest yourself of ballast in an upward manner.
 
LMS, We are getting too off topic.

My post was both a reference to PIC (popular internet culture) and an acknowledgement that it was possible that his post would attract the ire of any number of grammatical internet brownshirts.

Yes I get that, and pointed it has yet to do so in the several posts he put up before it, so why point it out now? Other than the common ground of having a likewise group of people that you two oppose in this moment.

Also you brought us off topic with something that we were respecting him on, and will continue to do so even if someone comes along pro-gun or anti-gun (at least I would).

There was a fair amount of tongue in cheek humour involved but clearly it was taken, unsurprisingly, literally.

Well it's the internet so you know unless there is some sort of designation or image, usually a joke doesn't get understood as a joke...

I'd say "lighten up" but am concerned I may be accused of suggesting you to be overweight.

So now you've implied I can't understand figurative language... Once again if you don't understand why I said what I said previously then leave it at that the snide remarks are unnecessary. As for the lighten up comment, once again I'm quite calm as I said earlier, but thanks for the concern.

But seriously, divest yourself of ballast in an upward manner.

What's weighing me down? :lol:
 
This is not the topic "Do you believe in God" or "Creation vs Evolution". So stop doing this comparison. Because if you do it, I can do it as well and I can put you in the "beliver/creationist" side as you do with people who disagreed with you.

About this subject there are 2 realities and not only one side of the argument is correct. You keep claiming that only your opinion is right and what other people think is wrong or is the result of misinformation. You're wrong. You can claim whatever you want, but you can't say we're wrong because we live in places where what we think is right, works. You can defend that these policies wouldn't work in your country but you can't claim we are wrong.


2 and 3. Whoever wants to verifiy can search the thread and see if what you're saying is right or not.
I won't even defend myself from that statement because what I said is here for people to check.

4. You don't care about our policies and gun laws but maybe, and I underline maybe, we care about people in your country and other countries that are directly affected by the mindset you have that having a firearm is a right and guns have nothing bad in themselves.

5. Was written by the founders long ago. As the bible. Bible endoreses slavery but we condemn it. The bible has been altered to and modified and translated. The question is that the core idea and message is the same and has not been changed. The same goes to the 2nd amendment, IMO. I love the original idea of the founding fathers and the US constitution (mainly because it's the first secular constitution with separation of church and state), but I can disagreed with the second amendemant, as many people do.
It isn't a fallacy. Precisely because the world changed. See @Badasp5.0 post.

6. People aren't dumb, it's true. But if it were illegal they wouldn't do it to easily. I gave you the example of my country and there are lots of countries like mine. We can have guns but we don't even care to have them. Why? Because we don't need and we don't feel the fear of being murdered at any time. I know the USA aren't the only one manufacturing guns, but we're talking about a country that has a "cultural" relation with guns and a great economy related to it. I don't have the knowledge to buit a gun but I could learn it. But why on earth would I lose time with that? Can you see how I ignore and disdain firearms? I don't need it. You can't seem to realize how real this feeling is and how I feel safe wihout guns arround me.

7. Do you know anything about the revolution in my country against a ditactatorship in 1975? Not so long ago. It was a peacefull revolution (maybe the only one of this kind in the world) agaisnt a 40 years regime. Very litle people died (arround 5 or 10) that day. It's called the "Revolução dos Cravos" (revolution of carnation flowers). We had the army on people's side and the state resistance was to small. If the army were agaisnt the people, we couldn't do anything with firearms against tanks, bazucas, heavy machinery.

Syria? They have fought against the gov and how many victims they had from each side and where will that lead them? Are you aware that there are Jihadists fighting against Assad's regime as well? And if they take the gov down, wouldn't be to much different from what we have been seeing in Iraq recently? Sadam was a retarded bastard but he kept the islamic fundamentalists away. Now every kinf of islamic sek wan't to control Iraq and it's a kaos-like state. I remember that USA decided to attack them based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction (but that is a completely different topic).

8. I've asked it because I didn't knew it. And reading some things about the gun policy in the US, I've found this very akward. So you're saying that a person who comitted a crime somewhere in his past and payed for his actions, doesn't have the right to self-defense. If you were in a situation where a guy came to you and pointed a gun to your head and that ex-convicted person had a gun to save you, you would preffer for him not to save you and be consistent with what you're saying? (I think this sentence is not to well worded but I think the message is clear). There are citizens and citizens is what you're saying.

9. That hobby and that "passion" can carry serious problems to the society. I would let my hobby or my passion aside if I realized that would be better for my children and grand-children to live in a society without guns. But then again, this is my personal opinion.

10. I think it's quite possible to learn in an informal environment. Of course I don't disdain factual proofs or sources for very specific claims but there are general things that I can accept or argue against without any facts. How did you learn do talk? I learnd in the most informal way... living and breathing. I've learned to play GT in a very informal way and not my the manual. I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If peoplea are intelectually honest, they won't create thing from thin air just to win an argument (except in the "Do you belive in God" threat :D).


If you read the God thread you'll see that I don't like to have both sides of the coin. I've made a post in that particular thread, assuming openly that I changed my views on the god issue and I want the true and not what I like the most.

In this subject, as I said in the begining of this post, there isn't just 1 side that is right. Both sides can have relevant arguments. I've said that people have being harsh, not only to me but with other people too. You, for instance, called a user "Pierce Morgan" in a prejurative way. If that's not being harsh and hostile, I don't want to know what is it.

I find you guys quite capable of reason and thinking outside the box (because if you're athists like I assume the majoraty of you are), you are not blind by what people tell you. But I can't grasp that idea that "we're right, you're wong" about this guns issue.

@LMSCorvetteGT2
 
Last edited:
For the record i voted for option 2.

I won't argue for or against but I will state this: back in 1996 this man did this thing and this other man (who I rarely praise but I do in this instance) stood up, 8 weeks into his term, and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

As a fellow Australian, and someone that has absolutely no interest in owning a gun, it's my opinion that the law changes have altered very little in respect to gun crime. My thinking actually leads me to believe that the laws risked changing the prevailing attitude of disinterest towards guns, and having the opposite effect of that desired. For an anti-gun person, Australia's biggest asset may very well be that disinterest.

I don't see freedom as a linear equation, and I feel that I have in a sense greater freedom than those in the US are afforded. I can choose to own, not own, or ignore guns. To be honest I think that the last one is generally not a viable option for many in the US. I don't want to be an active non-owner thank you, and our context very much allows for that. Having to fight against myself just to achieve a state of indifference?.... screw that.

That's individual psychology via mass psychology, but I think when talking about massacres and such, individual psychology of the exclusive kind plays a role as well. It's my opinion that stabbing with a knife is psychologically more challenging than shooting with a gun, particularly as an aggressor. There's a reason why covering the faces of victims to be in more intimate situations is "a thing". The distancing is sometimes very important to effective execution (of plan and person). People often bring up the perceived effectiveness of spraying bullets versus using close range weapons, but it's that psychological difference that strikes me.
 
I won't reply to any of my previous interlocutors because I recognize I haven't try to make myself clear enough and some of my ideas were to rough and basic to make a sound argument.

Well that's unfortunate. You probably should if you want people to bother reading your posts.

1. This thread is pretty much about some american users vs every person that "dares" to have a different opinion. That's my impression, not a fact.

You know, except Michael88 who's in Austria, Famine and Liquid who are in the UK, and several others...

2. You can't accept personal opinions; I've seen several times the link to an article titled "no one's entitled to their opinion". That's a position that can be usefull in some cases, but is not universal. On the other hand, I've read lots of posts by oponents to gun control with several claims and statements and just a few of them were supported by any type of source. Double-standard is self-evident throw out the thread.

You must not have read the thread. The pro-rights side has always been extremely good at providing relevant and complete information.

Here's one of my favorites that his been posted several times. It is not directly related to recent discussion but I already posted a study on that.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I would say that most of the people who take the anti-rights side come in with vague ideas rather than actual facts then quickly wash-out when they realize that they're opinion is poorly founded. How are you any different?

3. Several times, people have missquoted other users and argue against them, leading to paralel discussions that originally weren't even there. (check the thread for yourself and you'll see it over and over).

I don't see it.

4. You can't seem to comprehend that people can feel secure and safe living in countries where exists restict gun control. I can state how I feel living in Portugal (and I've been in other countries as well) and I don't have to provide any factual proof of how I feel. And the way I feel is the reason I think what I think. In my country I can legally purchase a weapon (I have to follow strict regulations to recieve a license, but I can). But I don't feel the need to go and buy one, or any other type of weapon. I never felt or saw any kind of gun violence and the few news I hear where people killing others with guns is in a large majoraty, inside their own families. "husband kills wife";"son kills parents";"men kills ex-wife and children", etc. I dont't remember of any mass shooting in this country or any similar to that.

Crime reported by the media and actual crime levels do not correlate.

5. You defend the 2nd amendment like christians defend the bible: as if it were written by god and it can't be wrong or modified.

This section covers like 4 half arguments that I'll address one at a time.

I'm not religious, I defend the 2A because it is an important human right. Guns should be legal for civilian ownership regardless of the constitution.

And when confronted with examples of countries that have a different policy on gun control and have less crime related to it, you refuse to find some credit on those examples. It's always rubish and every source presented isn't adequate. Then, you all expect that people who don't agreed with you to accept all you have to say and all your sources (if there are any).

Now I really don't think you've read the thread. Famine has repeatedly brought up that crime has risen dramatically after the UK installed gun control measures. I asked a similar question about Australia and crime has also risen in American cities and states that have banned guns.

Your argument and the argument that constantly fails in this thread is that gun control would work in the US because it worked in other countries.

This is untrue because...

A) It did the opposite of work in many countries.

B) The USA has different gun and crime culture than other countries.

C) It violates human rights.

Why do you think the 2nd amendment isn't at least in some part, outdated? Back then, people could only shoot a gun once in 30sec (it's not a factual number, just an illustration) and now it's possible to shoot 10x faster, at least. That is an huge differense that carries some profound alterations in the relationship between people with their guns and the possible harm they can do with it.

I don't support the right to bear arms because the Second Amendment says so, I support the right to bear arms because it is a good idea and morally correct for people to have the resources to defend themselves.

6. I can comprehend that the situation in the USA is very unique. They're the major manufacturer of weapons and military equipment and it's a large economy that envolves a huge amount of people and a lot of money as well. I know that simply ban firearms would be a catastrophe in the short term.
And in the long term.

But the situation has escalated to the point of today because people didn't care about it earlier, I assume. Yes I can be wrong. Giving easy acssess to a gun to virtualy any person can only mean that in time, more and more guns will be in circulation, augmenting the possibility of mass shootings, crimes envolving gun shots, illegal black markets, etc. And it's a basic social response to go and buy a gun to defend yourself if you see all this occouring arround you. I reckon that I would probably have a gun if I lived in the US. But since I don't, I can have a different opinion about guns and their impact in my sense of security and social well being.

I see a lot of conjecture and no fact or reasoning. There's your problem.

What about the huge number of robbed guns? There are a lot of "good people" that sees their legal guns robbed and those guns can kill someone afterwards.

Conjecture, facts, round and round we go. Defensive gun use estimates range from several hundred thousand to a few million per year in the USA. How many stolen guns are used in crime? How many are stolen from owners and not from other sources?

7. I can't comprehend (and I didn't find any information on this on the posts i've read) why the 2nd amendment and your right to own a gun or guns would make any difference against a threat of tyranny. I mean, the US army is by far the strongest in the world and is larger than almost all his allies armys combined. What difference would it make your gun/guns against an army of this magnitude? And if your response is "there is the possibility of the army not supporting the regime". In that case, the army would be on your side and the Tyrant wouldn't have any chance.

The US military with all of its tanks and drones couldn't stomp out a bunch of Afghani goat farmers with rusted Soviet AK's. What makes you think they could wage war against their own people?

8. What do you think of denying the right to own a gun to a person that has been convicted earlier in his/her life? Doesn't he/she payd already the price of his/her actions? Doesn't he/she have the same right to self-defense and defend his/her family, property and the country against a tyranny theat?

See earlier posts by Danoff.

9. Several people stated that they do not own a gun or guns to kill. They like to shoot to a paper sheet or to practice aim, etc. My question is: why do you need to practice aim, or shoot at paper sheets if your argument against strict gun control is self-defense?

I shoot guns for fun and self defense practice. Mostly fun.

[QUOTW]If it's self-defense, why do you buy a gun to shoot against a person. Why don't you practice bowling or golf if you want to practive aim? Or why don't you practice with something that doesn't have the potencial to kill?

Why do people race cars instead of golf?

It's fun.

You sound silly when you're criticizing somebody's hobby that you've never even sampled.

Several people brought the argument (in my opinion, correct) that guns were invented to harm, damage and kill. It's ok to own a gun and not have the purpose to use it for the purpose of its creation, but then again, why to buy it in the first place?

And every person who brought this up got destroyed. It's an idiotic argument that has been rehashed into oblivion. Read the thread.

Guns are not purposed to kill.

[QUOTE{10.In my country, 20% of the crimes were commited using white weapons (knives) or guns. In 1995, this number was 30,5%. From the crimes using firearms in the period from 2005-2010, the number droped 4.5% (from 14,9% to 10,4%). Crimes associated with knives (white weapons), in 1995 the number was 30%, in 2012 was 10,3% (only between 2005-2010 the number droped 13%). Crimes using poison droped too: in 1995 the number was 1,4%, in 2012 was 0,2%. Psycologic threats also droped drom 17% to 4,7%. The only exception to ehis numbers is the phisical violence that increased from 30,5% to arround 45%. This can be linked to the greater social awareness of domestic violence and the increase in situations reported to the police that a few decades weren't reported as such type of bheaviour was more "accepted" / less "condemned".

I don't care if I'm murdered with a knife or a gun. I care if I'm murdered.

Gun crime rates don't matter, crime rates matter. It's a standard cop-out by a gun control advocate that watches their ideas fail.

Hey we might have more crime but at least there are no guns involved!

The context of this change in numbers is laergely related to alterations in the law of guns ownership. The last change was made in 2009 with more resctricion and a more strict regulation to achieve a license to own a firearm.

From this simple example from my country, I think I can assume that the less guns we have arround, the more safe we will be. More guns implies more guns in good people's hands and more guns in bad people's hand too. I'm aware that if a guy comes into my house with a gun I won't be able to defend myself as I could if I have one, but in the countries where there are less guns, I "believe" people have more respecto for the human life.

Flawed premise, no supporting evidence. Bogus conclusion.

Sometimes I hear news of robberies for example to gas stations and the robbers carry a firearm. But usually they don't even use it. I don't remeber of anything like this from the last few years. The last time there was something involving a gun and killed people was in a small vilagge where a 70+ old man went to his ex-wife's house where she was with her mother, their dauther and another 2 women from their family and he shoot them all. He killed 2 and the other 2 were sent to the hospital. He was an hunter and had several guns. His reason to do this horrendous crime was that he and his ex-wife had gone through a recent process of divorce.
This happened in January I think.


This is the longest post I've ever made on GTP or any english forum I think. I hope at least that this time you find some reasonable things in what I'v said. If not, that's Ok. I wrote this with care and I've tried to be honest and reasonable. And one more thing, not getting a response doesn't make any person a winner on a particular argument. This isn't a trial. It's a forum where we share at least 2 things: our passion for cars/gran turismo and our disposition to write, think and learn about subjects and points of view we didn't knew or though of.

You really should look into facts. Actual facts that matter, not processed ones to appease a bias. The justthefacts link I posted is a good one. Read more of the thread. It's a good discussion. It answers every single one of these points.

I went to the trouble of responding to your entire post so at least do me a favor of reading more into the thread and processing previous posts that contain relevant information that disagrees with much of your opinion.
 
Last edited:
This is not the topic "Do you believe in God" or "Creation vs Evolution". So stop doing this comparison. Because if you do it, I can do it as well and I can put you in the "beliver/creationist" side as you do with people who disagreed with you.

No one claimed it was, just that there are similarities in how people go into the threads wanting to give an opinion that stems from misinformation or popular stereotypes. Also I never put anyone in a category, so stop with the the false claims of me doing so or anyone else. We disagreed with you because you showed a number of times that you didn't know the facts and had to be corrected.

About this subject there are 2 realities and not only one side of the argument is correct. You keep claiming that only your opinion is right and what other people think is wrong or is the result of misinformation. You're wrong. You can claim whatever you want, but you can't say we're wrong because we live in places where what we think is right, works. You can defend that these policies wouldn't work in your country but you can't claim we are wrong.

Where did I ever once claim that my side was right, and no one else was right? Yet another misquote from a user that just got done a page back claiming he by in large was misquoted by those from the opposing side. Also you haven't shown any info that proves that where you live violence as a whole is down.

2 and 3. Whoever wants to verifiy can search the thread and see if what you're saying is right or not.
I won't even defend myself from that statement because what I said is here for people to check.

And it has been checked, at the rate you were misquoted it should be easy at this point to specify where and how. That is all

4. You don't care about our policies and gun laws but maybe, and I underline maybe, we care about people in your country and other countries that are directly affected by the mindset you have that having a firearm is a right and guns have nothing bad in themselves.

So you read half of that one and just decided to go with "you clearly don't care about the people in your nation or others but only care about guns". Um no...you'd be wrong.

5. Was written by the founders long ago. As the bible. Bible endoreses slavery but we condemn it. The bible has been altered to and modified and translated. The question is that the core idea and message is the same and has not been changed. The same goes to the 2nd amendment, IMO. I love the original idea of the founding fathers and the US constitution (mainly because it's the first secular constitution with separation of church and state), but I can disagreed with the second amendemant, as many people do.
It isn't a fallacy. Precisely because the world changed. See @Badasp5.0 post.

The bible could be considered fairy tale, the constitution isn't. There have been many pieces of documentation in the history of man I imagine that have kept hold of their original core but had reworks to them in other areas. Does that mean that due to that small similarity that are at large similar, which is what you seem to be suggesting between the second amendment alone and the bible.

It is an almost Historians' fallacy to lay claim that the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned the world and items in it like guns becoming more advanced, and thus only made a major amendment for that time period. Even though the world prior to that had shown how far things had come along, as well as how things were still moving along and advancing. The problem here is that people tend to think that a Constitution like that of the U.S. is only living and thus it should be widely suspect to massive changes, rather than realizing that their is a core set of common law principles with in the context that you could say make a rigid yet somewhat living context. One that can't be manipulated by a hive mind like group with a bias toward one thing or another for the time, because these rigid ideals stop such an action. So in that you have a system that interprets the law, as well as a system that makes new laws
from that interpretation. If it wasn't so, then gun laws in the U.S. with be vastly different and more freed up than you seem to think, and this doesn't even dive into State law differences with in the context of Federal law.

You seem to forget the idea that it should be states deciding how far or to what degree the 2nd amendment is allowable without actually taking away the right, that is Federally given.

6. People aren't dumb, it's true. But if it were illegal they wouldn't do it to easily. I gave you the example of my country and there are lots of countries like mine. We can have guns but we don't even care to have them. Why? Because we don't need and we don't feel the fear of being murdered at any time. I know the USA aren't the only one manufacturing guns, but we're talking about a country that has a "cultural" relation to guns and a great economy related to it. I don't have the knowledge to buit a gun but I could learn it. But way on earth would I lose time with that? Can you see how I ignore and disdain firearms? I don't need it. You can't seem to realize how real this feeling is and how I feel safe wihout guns arround me.

Okay and other nations have a great economy from their weapons as well, you seem to make it seem as if the U.S. is special which is usually how media paints it. Russian and China have a massive gun industry like the U.S. by the way. Then you have several Euro nations like your next door neighbor that while not having the same size economy have a sizable one nonetheless they rely upon. As for building guns or anything for that matter no one said you personally wouldn't want to but others would, and are as seen with 3D printing.

What about the fact out of the 25 guns per 100 residents, half of them are suspected to be illegally owned/in possession? With the supposed number being 1.2-1.3 million illegal guns out of the entire 2.6 in circulation. So why would people need to make them when they are that easily available in your country on an illegal basis? If someone wanted a gun it sees quite easy to get one through illegal methods.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/portugal


As for the ignore disdain portion, I can understand easily how firearms are not a thought in your mind. What I can't understand is the uneducated disdain you have for them because you've ignored them and never really gave them thought. Yet now want to attempt to argue with people who have, and simply ask that before you do so you try and learn.

7. Do you anything about the revolution in my country against a ditactatorship in 1975? Not so long ago. It was a peacefull revolution (maybe the only one of this kind in the world) agaisnt a 40 years regime. Very litle people died (arround 5 or 10) that day. It's called the "Revolução dos Cravos" (revolution of carnation flowers). We had the army on people's side and the state resistance was to small. If the army were agaisnt the people, we couldn't do anything with firearms against tanks, bazucas, heavy machinery.

Well yes, despite our nation being a wild west we some how have found the time to make History books. Hell even world history books. Our Universities and Colleges even teach classes on certain modern regional histories of the world.

Also you seem to prove my point that a revolution if it happened could garner more support for the people through the Governments own military, than for the Governing themselves.

Syria? They have fought against the gov and how many victims they had from each side and where will that lead them? Are you aware that there are Jihadists fighting against Assad's regime as well? And if they take the gov down, wouldn't be to much different from what we have been seeing in Iraq recently? Sadam was a retarded bastard but he kept the islamic fundamentalists away. Now every kinf of islamic sek wan't to control Iraq and it's a kaos-like state. I remember that USA decided to attack them based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction (but that is a completely different topic).

Are you aware that Jihadists extremist there are opposed by actually Syrian rebels trying to gain back their nation from a tyrannical gov't? And did you know that those Jihads that arrived are outsiders trying to gain power when and if a void occurs? So wait, because at this point I'm pretty much done with you if this is your school of thought...Sadam (and by default Assad) kept Islamist away, and thus since they did this it was the lesser evil. Despite the fact that they killed innocent citizens, and dictatorship laws in place and took all the chances away from those people to defend themselves?

8. I've asked it because I didn't knew it. And reading some things about the gun policy in the US, I've found this very akward. So you're saying that a person who comitted a crime somewhere in his past and payed for his actions, doesn't have the right to self-defense. If you were in a situation where a guy came to you and pointed a gun to your head and that ex-convicted person had a gun to save you, you would preffer for him not to save you and be consistent with what you're saying? (I think this sentence is not to well worded but I think the message is clear). There are citizens and citizens is what you're saying.

They have the right to self defense, just not with a gun as their option. This is a loaded question where damned if I don't or do, and a narrow improbable sequence to unfold. If the person committed a felony crime then yes (only one type of felony crime I don't agree with drug use crimes) he/she shouldn't be able to buy a gun. If you commit say armed robbery, why should you be able to go buy a gun, after serving your time? You make it sound as if prison helps these people get on the straight and narrow.

Most nations have citizens and then those that will forever in some degree have to repay their debt to society for their actions. This is not limited to being able to own a gun. Also it seems this is just an easy way for you to try and create a void in an argument with a hypothetical event that doesn't disprove.

Also I carry a gun as I've made clear, so why would I need his help? And how does him helping change the fact that he broke the law (again)? Even if this happened why doesn't my personal story some how get to outweigh the law agreed upon by many, because of a knee jerk emotional thanks?

9. That hobby and that "passion" can carry serious problems to the society. I would let my hobby or my passion aside if I realized that would be better for my children and grand-children to live in a society without guns. But then again, this is my personal opinion.

How does this hobby harm society? See this is the issue you give a thought like it's a piece of literature and then expect people to nod and say "I see what you mean". I've practiced the hobby of shooting for almost a decade, my dad competition shot for more than a decade and still practices (not much at all anymore due to his work). In that time not once has the impact of that culture in our area been a cause for violence that I've read in the local papers or anything. So I find it hard to believe that people who take the opportunity to practice a sport they love, would squander it or let others squander it.

Once again what problems?

10. I think it's quite possible to learn in an informal environment. Of course I don't disdain factual proofs or sources for very specific claims but there are general things that I can accept or argue against without any facts. How did you learn do talk? I learnd in the most informal way... living and breathing. I've learned to play GT in a very informal way and not my the manual. I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If peoplea are intelectually honest, they won't create thing from thin air just to win an argument (except in the "Do you belive in God" threat :D).

Sadly living and breathing doesn't breed enough "knowledge" on such complex issues as say how one washes their clothes or something simple. Hence why the comparing a game with the topic of gun laws/usage/ownership is a bit laughable since I'll be reserved. Rather it seems you want the sheer easy of perhaps talking on philosophical basis or idea basis or much less that of feelings on a subject that isn't that easy nor has been for decades. Who created anything from thin air here?

If you read the God thread you'll see that I don't like to have both sides of the coin. I've made a post in that particular thread, assuming openly that I changed my views on the god issue and I want the true and not what I like the most.

I have read the god thread, if anything your as blunt there as I am here. Do I need to source documentation from here to prove it? Unlike you I know quite well I'm blunt and hard hitting in debates but I do so in with in the bounds of AUP, if I didn't I'd have gotten far more warnings considering I haven't had any.

This thread has opened my view to change as well but okay.

In this subject, as I said in the begining of this post, there isn't just 1 side that is right. Both sides can have relevant arguments. I've said that people have being harsh, not only to me but with other people too. You, for instance, called a user "Pierce Morgan" in a prejurative way. If that's not being harsh and hostile, I don't want to know what is it.

No one ever claimed there is one side that's right, what was claimed is that one side on here tends to bring more to the table than the other side. There are a few anti-gun posters that actually do their job and show data to help support their view. Why, for some reason you think this is too much of an order to ask is yet again beyond me and the others that have reviewed and responded to your posts.

Not sure the word here, pejorative perhaps, it makes sense... Anyways, how is being blunt or to the point hostile? The user used the same premise as a popular or well known media figure without directly sourcing him, and I connected the dots. He in no way attempted to dissuade my train of thought, so it's highly possible that is a commentator on the subject he thinks is right, and this is further deduced by this nearly mirror like view points to Morgan's. If I went around calling every anti-gun member a liberal tree hugging nutcase, who wish to be best friends with Peirs Morgan I could see your point. But since I don't, haven't, nor plan to then I can't see how.

I find you guys quite capable of reason and thinking outside the box (because if you're athists like I assume the majoraty of you are), you are not blind by what people tell you. But I can't grasp that idea that "we're right, you're wong" about this guns issue.

@LMSCorvetteGT2

You can't grasp because unlike the "god?" thread you're on the minority end (as far as people responding in the thread go), and thus have to put up a defensive rather.
 
Last edited:
5. Was written by the founders long ago. As the bible. Bible endoreses slavery but we condemn it. The bible has been altered to and modified and translated. The question is that the core idea and message is the same and has not been changed. The same goes to the 2nd amendment, IMO. I love the original idea of the founding fathers and the US constitution (mainly because it's the first secular constitution with separation of church and state), but I can disagreed with the second amendemant, as many people do.
It isn't a fallacy. Precisely because the world changed. See @Badasp5.0 post.
What's important regarding the amendment hasn't changed. You're not doing anything wrong if you're not getting in someone else's way. So buying/owning a gun is a non issue. It doesn't really matter what the amendment says, the right to bear arms is more fundamental than the law. If you want an objective moral system that puts all people as equals, why burden people with needless limitations?

Let's say that gun control did reduce crime. Does that make it right? No, because valuing a lower crime rate over personal freedom is subjective and if you were to do that you're basically saying your OK with people forcing any law they want on other people just because they want to. Tradeoffs are involved everywhere and there is no real way of objectively evaluating them besides looking at the extremes (0% and 100%). The anti gun side seems to say some level of risk is unacceptable and that once that threshold is crossed, the opinions of people who don't find it unacceptable are incorrect. What is the level of risk that is unacceptable and how is it determined?

6. People aren't dumb, it's true. But if it were illegal they wouldn't do it to easily. I gave you the example of my country and there are lots of countries like mine. We can have guns but we don't even care to have them. Why? Because we don't need and we don't feel the fear of being murdered at any time. I know the USA aren't the only one manufacturing guns, but we're talking about a country that has a "cultural" relation with guns and a great economy related to it. I don't have the knowledge to buit a gun but I could learn it. But why on earth would I lose time with that? Can you see how I ignore and disdain firearms? I don't need it. You can't seem to realize how real this feeling is and how I feel safe wihout guns arround me.
This is not unheard of in the US.

7. Do you know anything about the revolution in my country against a ditactatorship in 1975? Not so long ago. It was a peacefull revolution (maybe the only one of this kind in the world) agaisnt a 40 years regime. Very litle people died (arround 5 or 10) that day. It's called the "Revolução dos Cravos" (revolution of carnation flowers). We had the army on people's side and the state resistance was to small. If the army were agaisnt the people, we couldn't do anything with firearms against tanks, bazucas, heavy machinery.
Firearms are effective against people and without people, none of the other weapons you mentioned are any good. Being armed would at least force the military to go through a greater effort in trying to subjugate people and if there were a lot of people, that would spread them thin. As this would be in their own country, there's a chance that the military would end up cut off from supplies and resources as no one would be willing to provide any, they would have to exert a lot of effort to get any by fighting, and any territory they possessed would be surrounded by hostile forces.

Syria? They have fought against the gov and how many victims they had from each side and where will that lead them? Are you aware that there are Jihadists fighting against Assad's regime as well? And if they take the gov down, wouldn't be to much different from what we have been seeing in Iraq recently? Sadam was a retarded bastard but he kept the islamic fundamentalists away. Now every kinf of islamic sek wan't to control Iraq and it's a kaos-like state. I remember that USA decided to attack them based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction (but that is a completely different topic).
So you're saying that staying under oppressive leadership is better than a bloody rebellion? What if the people fighting disagree?

9. That hobby and that "passion" can carry serious problems to the society. I would let my hobby or my passion aside if I realized that would be better for my children and grand-children to live in a society without guns. But then again, this is my personal opinion.
And this goes for everything. So what makes guns bad, but gas powered cars good? At the very least we probably don't need racing. It burns gas and emits pollution, so shouldn't racing be banned?

What makes living longer or with a lower chance of death objectively better living? Shouldn't someone be able to choose which lifestyle they prefer?
 
@Zenith I won't reply to red herrings. It's a complete lost of time. So I'll reply to what I can and with the time I have.

- I have read almost 1/3 of it and I realized what I posted. You keep saying that people defending your view is always extremely correct but I didn't find the same. Sometimes they are, sometimes they don't. And if anyone wants to be sure of which one of us is right, they can read the thread and take out their own conclusions.

- People leave the thread not because their opinion is poorly founded or they have vague ideas. They just don't care to continue in a discussion where is only black and white way of thinking and all facts presented against guns are dismissed as inadequate or irrelevant or subjective or out of the context.

- You don't see it because you don't want to.

- Where did I quoted the media? You completely ignore my main point, as other people in other situations with other users.

- I didn't say you're religious. I've said you act like one on this issue. And you say it's an important human right to own a gun but I don't see it in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights (the 3rd article says that Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person). In Saudi Arabia killing a woman because she cheated on her husband is a right of the husband too. You're claiming your right like it's an universal right. You can disagreed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but in that case you'll defend what you want because you like it.

- A) You have to prove that the rise of crime was only related to gun control measures.
B) Yes, but why is that an obstacle to a more strict gun control?
C) Wrong. Quote needed.

- People already said they don't carry their guns all the time. So why do you think is morally correct and a good idea to have the resources to defend yourself if you buy a gun and you don't carry it with you every time? It isn't legal? Why?

- I didn't give you a number of stolen guns. I said it happens. I saw a debate where one of the debaters said 232.000 each year and that for each good action of a good guy with a gun, 5 guns are stolen. I don't have his source but the opposition didn't said he was wrong.

- Ill repeat the question: If it's an hobby why do you come with the right to self defense? You have to be consistent. I questioned the "hobby" because it seems like when confronted with the fact the firearms exist to kill or harm, people say they don't want to kill anyone but practice aim, or use it for sports, etc.

- I think you live in a "state of fear".

- Flawed premise, no supporting evidence, Bogus conclusion? Why don't you open the link and translate the content? It was said by a portuguese security representant.

- I've already said that I did read a part of the thread and some of its links. I won't read thow the entire thread. That's completely silly. I never saw this in any other thread. People never tell one another to read the entire thread before posting anything.

You went to the trouble of responding and I apreciate your effort. But I don't find a lot of helpful content. I didn't even responded to your provocations /red herrings.

--------------------

@LMSCorvetteGT2

- You've compared me to people that go to the "god" thread defending their religious ideas and beliefs. Right on your last post. I won't enter that game of you claimed, I claimed, you this, I that. It's all in the thread for people to read. I've point 2 times already and I won't do it again.

- I didn't said that you only care about guns. See how you like to read something that isn't there?

- If the founders could or couldn't envision the world as it is now I can't say. But we know that they were pro-slavery. It's nothing to do with guns, but it shows how a mindset can be outdated. If they were wrong about slavery why couldn't they be wrong about the "right" to own a firearm? Se security of the people and society has always been atributed to the state, at least in modern times (by police, army, etc). Why would people want to transfer that obligation to each individual?

- Other nations that have economy from weapons are on the same boat in my oppinion. But I won't discriminate specific coutries because we're talking mostely about USA. Some of those nations contribute with another large problems to the world as well but that's another discussion.

- In my country people have guns (as in any other country with gun control). I never said the opposite. The difference is the relationship with them and the culture. In my country the great great majoraty of guns are only for hunting and sports. In USA, the majoraty is for self-defense (from the articles people already posted). I can be wrong, but I guess that it wouldn't be much of a problem if the number of guns in Portugal was like in Switzerland for example. Because the society doesn't have that gun culture where we somehow/sometimes can do justice by our own hands. We think that guns are for police and security forces to carry.

- I've proove your point? How excactly? If a revolution could garner more support for the people through the gov's own military why would people need firearms? Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm sorry if that's the situation.

- Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is that it isn't USA dutty to go and invade those countries because they don't know how the result can be in the end. Of course I'm opposed to dictatorships. But if you went to Iraq today you'll probably find a lot of people saying that they were living better lifes than the ones they live today. Of course it was a repressive regime and had nothing to do with the will of the people. Are you afraid that some day the USA could trun into a Sadam / Assad state-like?

- Again, if it's just sports, why do people carry a firearm and why do they think they have the right to carry a gun for self-defense? Is it a sport or it's not? In my opinion, is a questionable hobby.

For instance, I've been whatching some advertisings of guns manufacturers and I find them all silly. I don't know if it's a cultural thing...maybe they are really bad ad's in general but none of their ideas could convince me to buy a gun. At least the ones I've seen.

- I'll repeat: I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If people are intelectually honest, they won't create things from thin air just to win an argument.

- Are you saying I'm infringing the AUP?

ps: I'm sorry for not quoting everything, but it would be a nightmare to write with such amount of words.


-----

@Exorcet

- As I've said, to me the fundamental rights are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Altough I think the right to blasphamy should be there as well but due to religious problems).

- If people fighting disagree they have their right. I don't think it's reasonable for another country to interevene in such problems. Saying under opressive leadership is worse. But the bloody rebellion in the case of Iraqi wasn't there before.

- How many people die racing cars or kill other people on purpuse? I know that car accidents are a huge problem (I guess all arround the world... maybe not so much in Amsterdam :P) but we people who die in car accidents aren't killed on purpuse or in self-defense.

- Do you think that living longer with a lower chance or death is better? If so, why do you think that having guns is the better option to achive that goal?


___

I'm sorry if I didn't peply to every single point but this is hard. For each post I get 2 3 or 4 responses... Now I'm gonna leave. :cheers:
 
- You've compared me to people that go to the "god" thread defending their religious ideas and beliefs. Right on your last post. I won't enter that game of you claimed, I claimed, you this, I that. It's all in the thread for people to read. I've point 2 times already and I won't do it again.

Yes in the sense that just like they don't educate themselves (though sometimes they do better than you've done here), you've done the same. And when they've shown their ignorance you called them out on it there. We're doing the same thing you do but here to you because now you're the one with a lack of knowledge. However, rather than read what we've given in stats and context and question it or try to understand you go on some defensive.

- I didn't said that you only care about guns. See how you like to read something that isn't there?
About this subject there are 2 realities and not only one side of the argument is correct. You keep claiming that only your opinion is right and what other people think is wrong or is the result of misinformation. You're wrong.

Where do I lay claim that you implied "I only care about guns"? I don't see that and closest thing perhaps is the response to the second quote in this passage. What I actually said (perhaps re-read you may have confused me with another poster) is that you just claimed that I think only my stance is correct, but I never claimed that hence why I'm trying to give evidence to support something that can be disputed. So yet again no I don't see how I like to read what isn't there because I haven't done it.

- If the founders could or couldn't envision the world as it is now I can't say. But we know that they were pro-slavery. It's nothing to do with guns, but it shows how a mindset can be outdated. If they were wrong about slavery why couldn't they be wrong about the "right" to own a firearm? Se security of the people and society has always been atributed to the state, at least in modern times (by police, army, etc). Why would people want to transfer that obligation to each individual?

All the founders were pro-slavery? Are you sure?

How does being wrong about owning a fellow human being and treating them worse than a pet animal in mindset even begin to compare to the right to defends one life, liberty, and property? Also unless your some multi-millionaire something chances are you don't have personal security, the police can only get there so fast thus the idea of "trust in them" isn't one that is an assurance as in "trust in myself". Why should I have to wait and potentially die, because you think me owning a gun, and operating it safely with training until the highly rare chance it needed to be used for my self preservation?

- Other nations that have economy from weapons are on the same boat in my oppinion. But I won't discriminate specific coutries because we're talking mostely about USA. Some of those nations contribute with another large problems to the world as well but that's another discussion.

Well you originally came in with the idea of a global discussion on this manner though the past pages showed a more regional context. So now I've shifted to what you've asked and given you insight. Hence why I bring it up, nations with medium to high medium arms output are on level sometimes safer than your nation of virtually non-output. If this goes on I'd be happy to show the numbers.

- In my country people have guns (as in any other country with gun control). I never said the opposite. The difference is the relationship with them and the culture. In my country the great great majoraty of guns are only for hunting and sports. In USA, the majoraty is for self-defense (from the articles people already posted). I can be wrong, but I guess that it wouldn't be much of a problem if the number of guns in Portugal was like in Switzerland for example. Because the society doesn't have that gun culture where we somehow/sometimes can do justice by our own hands. We think that guns are for police and security forces to carry.
No where did I see an article that pointed out in recent pages that the majority of guns bought are for self-defense. Since you've made this claim I would kindly ask you to show this. There are vast numbers of people in sporting with guns and hunting. IPSC and IDPA in the U.S. regional have many members and I even participated for a time with it. I just showed you that the great majority of guns aren't owned, because the numbers show a nearly 50/50 in legal and illegal gun possession.

Also Switzerland has a gun culture, so I don't see the comparison you've made.

- I've proove your point? How excactly? If a revolution could garner more support for the people through the gov's own military why would people need firearms? Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm sorry if that's the situation.

Well I did say that if something like this happened there is a large chance that many in the military would join forces with citizens, rather that Gov't. However, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some that would follow orders and perhaps try to enact martial law on an unjustifiable ground to where people need to defend themselves.

So basically you've proven that yes a country in a revolution could have the support of the people who were once apart of the military. However, this doesn't mean that just because one event like your country saw happened all events in other areas will have the same outcome or nearly the same.

- Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is that it isn't USA dutty to go and invade those countries because they don't know how the result can be in the end. Of course I'm opposed to dictatorships. But if you went to Iraq today you'll probably find a lot of people saying that they were living better lifes than the ones they live today. Of course it was a repressive regime and had nothing to do with the will of the people. Are you afraid that some day the USA could trun into a Sadam / Assad state-like?

I never said it was the USA's duty to do that either nor hinted...there's a thread called the 2012 U.S. Elections in there I show that I was quite against many U.S. conflicts and still am, unless realistic provocation is shown and truthful. No currently I don't have that fear, nor do I imply it. You made the claim that small arms wont do much against a modern military, so I gave you examples of how they can actually provide a defense and did so with current world events/situations. My personal feeling on the manner wasn't part of the context originally since it wasn't asked so this tangent seems redundant, other than attacking from another angle as if I'd forget all of what you've said (not saying you said this just letting you know I don't forget easily).

- Again, if it's just sports, why do people carry a firearm and why do they think they have the right to carry a gun for self-defense? Is it a sport or it's not? In my opinion, is a questionable hobby.

You've yet to tell us why it is though? What does a non-sportsman who carries a gun strictly for self-defense have to do with a person who does practice the hobby? Also people think they have the right because it has been given to them, and it's a common right for human's to be able to defend themselves when needed. The choice of how to do this shouldn't be an issue.

The ownership of guns is multi-faceted yet you seem to be implying it only has a sole purpose and not a multi.

For instance, I've been whatching some advertisings of guns manufacturers and I find them all silly. I don't know if it's a cultural thing...maybe they are really bad ad's in general but none of their ideas could convince me to buy a gun. At least the ones I've seen.

- I'll repeat: I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If people are intelectually honest, they won't create things from thin air just to win an argument.

Why have that optimism? Why not just be safe and show people where you are getting info from, that is how debate functions on here (ever since I've joined) and many other public forums. If this was just people going out for coffee sure, philosophical conversation on the subject is understandable.

However, we're on the internet where facts and statistics and proof is readily available and some of us have even stored it just because. It shouldn't be much to ask to look really quick, and to act as if it is, seems to be the real intellectual dishonesty of it all. Because instead you are arguing to make it easier to talk without being held accountable.
- Are you saying I'm infringing the AUP?

Where ? The only time I say AUP in my last posts is when you said I was being "rude" or "attacking" and I said that wasn't so. And all my comments are with in the bounds of the AUP, if they weren't I'm sure the mods would make sure to inform me otherwise.

That doesn't look like I'm saying you've infringed...so not sure where you're getting this from.
 
Last edited:
I don't see freedom as a linear equation, and I feel that I have in a sense greater freedom than those in the US are afforded. I can choose to own, not own, or ignore guns. To be honest I think that the last one is generally not a viable option for many in the US. I don't want to be an active non-owner thank you, and our context very much allows for that. Having to fight against myself just to achieve a state of indifference?.... screw that.
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting and fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.

OK, I take it back. I think about a gun every time raccoons get into my plants or bird feeders.
 
Last edited:
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting a fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.

OK, I take it back. I think about a gun every time raccoons get into my plants or bird feeders.

Let's not forget that most people serious about buying guns and doing research on it don't buy from Walmart...

Also that further supports your claim because now they're more likely going to an actual gun shop, which is even more so less blatantly obvious when you're driving around any major city in the U.S.
 
Let's not forget that most people serious about buying guns and doing research on it don't buy from Walmart...

Also that further supports your claim because now they're more likely going to an actual gun shop, which is even more so less blatantly obvious when you're driving around any major city in the U.S.
I honestly don't know where else to buy a new gun, legally or illegally. If I wanted a used gun I'd check a pawn shop or during the 127 Yard Sale, and I've only seen one guy selling them there. Outside of that, no clue.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't know where else to buy a new gun, legally or illegally. If I wanted a used gun I'd check a pawn shop or during the 127 Yard Sale, and Ive only seen one guy selling them there. Outside of that, no clue.

That's why I said those who research, since I want certain makes and models there are only few places I can get them at times and I'm only going to find them if I actually go online and look them up or have been there prior. As far as ammo goes I usually shop Walmart. But that's the point I'm trying to make and you've expanded on further with the pawn shop bit, it's much easier to find a pawn shop with a gun for sell than it is actual dedicated shop.
 
I couldn't agree more with you guys on that point. I never saw firearms or shooting come up as a topic, never handled one, or even saw one up close. I've adored toy guns & bb guns as a kid in Japan, then in the U.S., but firearms didn't even exist to me until I was an adult. My buddy bought a SKS and invited us to go shoot with him, that's when I finally got exposed to guns & others who enjoy the hobby.

Now I talk & handle guns all the time, but until that day I went shooting with my buddies, I was never exposed to guns, or gun violence, and had I not been interested in guns, turned down the offer to go shooting, I feel that, as LeMan's put it, would've continued ignoring anything gun related(I was still into air guns though). My impression is that, most Americans, they don't feel threatened by, or feel the need to protect their home with a gun. Hardly scientific, but that's the feedback I get anyway.
 
Most people I know who have guns for self defense had something like a break in or assault trigger their desire. There are a few guys I know who have farms that are nearly self-sustainable, food and water-wise, who are worried more about government than anything else. I'd think they are looney if it weren't for things like raw milk raids, attempted bans on wood board aged cheese, and some instances in California of local governments condemning houses that became fully sustainable and disconnected from the power grid.

In neither instance have I seen their guns or heard anything about it after they told me they had it for that purpose as part of the conversation about the crime/farm. And honestly, a farmer needs a gun. Coyotes, raccoons, foxes, and a million other pests need to be killed or captured before they will stop. As mentioned in my post above, regarding my bird feeders.
 
- People already said they don't carry their guns all the time. So why do you think is morally correct and a good idea to have the resources to defend yourself if you buy a gun and you don't carry it with you every time? It isn't legal? Why?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I don't understand. If you believe a gun is a form of self defense, why do you need to carry it all the time?

Also, about legality, laws are sometimes good and sometimes ridiculous.

- Ill repeat the question: If it's an hobby why do you come with the right to self defense? You have to be consistent.
It is consistent. Guns are self defense and a hobby.

If someone attacked you while you were frying eggs in the morning, and you whacked them with a frying pan, your frying pan would be a cooking utensil and a self defense weapon.

I questioned the "hobby" because it seems like when confronted with the fact the firearms exist to kill or harm, people say they don't want to kill anyone but practice aim, or use it for sports, etc.
Guns don't exist to kill.

--------------------

@LMSCorvetteGT2[/USER]

- If the founders could or couldn't envision the world as it is now I can't say. But we know that they were pro-slavery. It's nothing to do with guns, but it shows how a mindset can be outdated. If they were wrong about slavery why couldn't they be wrong about the "right" to own a firearm? Se security of the people and society has always been atributed to the state, at least in modern times (by police, army, etc). Why would people want to transfer that obligation to each individual?
When has security ever been 100% up to the state? I'm pretty sure in most places it's legal to defend yourself and your property. It would be completely silly to change that and make it so that only the government could act in defense.

The opinion of the founding fathers doesn't matter. What does matter is what is a right. Gun ownership isn't a right because it happens to be the second amendment.


-----

@Exorcet

- As I've said, to me the fundamental rights are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Altough I think the right to blasphamy should be there as well but due to religious problems).
And here is the problem with law, it's not always right or complete. How can you point to the UDHR as a definitive list of rights when you don't even think it is complete?

- If people fighting disagree they have their right. I don't think it's reasonable for another country to interevene in such problems. Saying under opressive leadership is worse. But the bloody rebellion in the case of Iraqi wasn't there before.
This has nothing to do with one country intervening in another's affairs. It's about deciding what is objectively superior. If someone thinks that remaining peaceful under a dictator is the best course of action but someone else thinks that a rebellion is worth the cost, who is right and why?

- How many people die racing cars or kill other people on purpuse? I know that car accidents are a huge problem (I guess all arround the world... maybe not so much in Amsterdam :P) but we people who die in car accidents aren't killed on purpuse or in self-defense.
It's not on purpose, but it's still death. Why should accidental death be ignored? If the rate of death from car accidents was 10 times that of guns would you ignore it?

Apparently cars are more deadly than guns away, at least among young people in the US:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

- Do you think that living longer with a lower chance or death is better? If so, why do you think that having guns is the better option to achive that goal?
Time spent living isn't a definitive measure of the quality of life and neither is risk of death, so I would not say that increasing either is de facto better.

If someone wants to smoke like a chimney and they die at 35, if they enjoyed that life it was a better life for them than living to be 80. The point I'm trying to make is that happiness is subjective.
 
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting and fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.

OK, I take it back. I think about a gun every time raccoons get into my plants or bird feeders.

Oh I reckon I've seen a few gun-related sigs on GTP. @Nicksfix is the one that immediately comes to mind (I just checked and as @Danoff lost his sig in the GTP format change, it seems Nicksfix did as well). It's likely you're also underestimating how much experience I have with the US. I've traveled to and through maybe thirty or so states and noted things that pertain to gun culture. Aside from unsolicited gun talk in conversation, there's things as simple as the types of t-shirts and souvenirs that are available. Is it possible that you really don't recognise certain aspects of the culture you live inside of, because you've maybe not lived outside of it?

I know people that use guns as tools, and have a love for those tools. I also know people that use guitars as tools, and have a love for those tools. Comparing Australian and US guitarists I really see no difference in attitude. Comparing Australian and US shooters I do see a difference. It's like the US shooters feel that they have some higher purpose or something, rather than just having what they need to get the job done. I see fear, and attitudes that extend from that fear. I don't know if that comes across as offensive, but it's what I've arrived at through observation.

A while back you posted in a thread about a shooting in the US explaining that you see the gun reform issue as somewhat representative of a far broader concern. A "line in the sand" topic that seeks to be a catalyst for the halting of Constitution erosion. It was a great post, and explained a position that I hadn't previously appreciated. Still, I'd think that it would be vitally important that people in general would properly understand this, but I'm not at all convinced that the majority of gunners do. It's kind of like "higher purpose" without the purpose.
 
Is it possible that you really don't recognise certain aspects of the culture you live inside of, because you've maybe not lived outside of it?
I'm certain this will have effect to a degree. I realize this post wasn't directed towards me, but just to note: It still doesn't change my personal experience that I didn't have any exposure to guns, threat of one, or politics associated with it. Not until I joined the party by choice, maybe about ten years ago, by choosing to go shooting with friends. Seen guns on TV, read about them in papers, but as far as my impression go, absolutely irrelevant topic to everyone I knew.
I know people that use guns as tools, and have a love for those tools. I also know people that use guitars as tools, and have a love for those tools. Comparing Australian and US guitarists I really see no difference in attitude. Comparing Australian and US shooters I do see a difference. It's like the US shooters feel that they have some higher purpose or something, rather than just having what they need to get the job done. I see fear, and attitudes that extend from that fear. I don't know if that comes across as offensive, but it's what I've arrived at through observation.
Perhaps I would agree with the "higher purpose". Again, hardly scientific, but with every single people I know, it's not at all fear of others, or fear of the Government. It's frustration, even anger. Clearly, there is a political force within the U.S. that would like to see firearm ownership phased out. This is the kind of politics that not only affect a lot of people, but it fires them up.
 
Oh I reckon I've seen a few gun-related sigs on GTP.
So, are you saying that as a member of an international community you don't have that third option either? Do you read it and have to ask yourself if you wish to be a shooter or not, or do you ignore it?

Is it possible that you really don't recognise certain aspects of the culture you live inside of, because you've maybe not lived outside of it?
It's possible. But odds are equal that you noticed it due to cultural shock, while the average American ignored it, something which you suggest they might not have the option to do. Heck, not recognizing certain aspects means ignoring it to the point of obliviousness.

I know people that use guns as tools, and have a love for those tools. I also know people that use guitars as tools, and have a love for those tools. Comparing Australian and US guitarists I really see no difference in attitude.
So you don't get the option to ignore guitars?

Comparing Australian and US shooters I do see a difference. It's like the US shooters feel that they have some higher purpose or something, rather than just having what they need to get the job done. I see fear, and attitudes that extend from that fear. I don't know if that comes across as offensive, but it's what I've arrived at through observation.
You need to define shooters, because there is a vast difference between militia types, guys with a few hunting rifles locked away, a guy who got one after his house was broken into, and a guy training for the Olympics.

And describe the fear and attitudes. Fear their guns will be taken away? That's a reaction to others. Fear that they need to defend themselves? I don't know anyone who bought a gun for self defense without something happening to them or close to them. I know there exists the guys who think a criminal is just waiting to attack, but they are as normal as my wife thinking a psychic serial killer is waiting alongside the road for our car to breakdown.
 
So, are you saying that as a member of an international community you don't have that third option either? Do you read it and have to ask yourself if you wish to be a shooter or not, or do you ignore it?
International online community and my own backyard are vastly different. I don't want people pushing agendas for or against guns here. I think we're fine just the way we are. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if we had a whole lot more guns. It being a non-issue is what I prize.

It's possible. But odds are equal that you noticed it due to cultural shock, while the average American ignored it, something which you suggest they might not have the option to do. Heck, not recognizing certain aspects means ignoring it to the point of obliviousness.
Turns out that the exact words that I was left with after my first stay in America were "The biggest surprise was that there was no surprise". So no, no real shock factor at all. I think if you take a sensible view here you'll admit that on guns in general the US people are going to tend to have more fervent opinions, that surface more regularly.

So you don't get the option to ignore guitars?
Perhaps you missed the point. Out of the four groups of people (AU/guns, AU/guitars, US/guns, US/guitars), group three stands alone, having what I termed the "higher purpose" mentality.

You need to define shooters, because there is a vast difference between militia types, guys with a few hunting rifles locked away, a guy who got one after his house was broken into, and a guy training for the Olympics.

I don't think I do, because it's all about attitude, and all or none of those could fall on one side of the fence or the other in that sense. I don't like reactionary, which is why I saw nothing good in our gun buy back. It's also why both pro and anti gun people in the US should probably just shut the hell up. Reaction breeds reaction.

And describe the fear and attitudes. Fear their guns will be taken away? That's a reaction to others. Fear that they need to defend themselves? I don't know anyone who bought a gun for self defense without something happening to them or close to them. I know there exists the guys who think a criminal is just waiting to attack, but they are as normal as my wife thinking a psychic serial killer is waiting alongside the road for our car to breakdown.

More along that line. It's an understandable choice, but one that that not everyone makes, and there's no escaping that individual psychology contributes to mass psychology.
 
I'm certain this will have effect to a degree. I realize this post wasn't directed towards me, but just to note: It still doesn't change my personal experience that I didn't have any exposure to guns, threat of one, or politics associated with it. Not until I joined the party by choice, maybe about ten years ago, by choosing to go shooting with friends. Seen guns on TV, read about them in papers, but as far as my impression go, absolutely irrelevant topic to everyone I knew.

Reading his posts though it sounds as if he wasn't trying to just visit casually, he makes it sounds as if he was seeking out the knowledge of guns. Where for you it was one day asked "hey you want to try this out" in a casual manner. He sounds like some journalist (though not) on the hunt for the truth. So clearly when you try to seek out something you're going to be exposed to it.

Most people coming here don't see what he's claiming, none of them that I know. And I've met people before that were surprised to know I owned a gun(s) as much as I was of them. It's just not something that important or glaringly obvious as those who watch the media would expect.
 
International online community and my own backyard are vastly different. I don't want people pushing agendas for or against guns here. I think we're fine just the way we are. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if we had a whole lot more guns. It being a non-issue is what I prize.
Every gun owner in the US wants it to be a non-issue too.

Turns out that the exact words that I was left with after my first stay in America were "The biggest surprise was that there was no surprise". So no, no real shock factor at all. I think if you take a sensible view here you'll admit that on guns in general the US people are going to tend to have more fervent opinions, that surface more regularly.
Then call it cultural difference. A shirt with gun stuff on it is the same to your brain as seeing a child with a physical deformity. You don't want to notice, but you do. You make the conscious effort to not look once you notice. But live with that child everyday and you stop noticing and live life as normal.

You see what the people around it every day don't because they ignore it if they don't care.

Perhaps you missed the point. Out of the four groups of people (AU/guns, AU/guitars, US/guns, US/guitars), group three stands alone, having what I termed the "higher purpose" mentality.
All I am addressing is your claim that people in the US don't have the ability to ignore guns. I just got home from work about an hour ago. I work for the government. This is the first time guns crossed my mind today.

I don't think I do, because it's all about attitude, and all or none of those could fall on one side of the fence or the other in that sense.
Then you need to define the "shooter" attitude. I defend gun rights, but don't own a gun. Does that make me a "shooter?" I don't know because you are not using a common term in its common usage.

I don't like reactionary, which is why I saw nothing good in our gun buy back. It's also why both pro and anti gun people in the US should probably just shut the hell up. Reaction breeds reaction.
For gun owners reaction means losing their right. When someone seeks to remove what they have should they just stand aside, or is reaction sometimes good..

More along that line. It's an understandable choice, but one that that not everyone makes, and there's no escaping that individual psychology contributes to mass psychology.
So a group of people out of a large population wishes to defend their homes and don't trust police to succeed, sometimes with very good reason, and you attribute it to the entire country? You saw some guys with gun shirts. Good for you. Travel 1,000 miles and tell me if you see the same thing. Because I don't think "extensively visiting" a place makes you an expert and understanding of the full-time population.
 
Most people coming here don't see what he's claiming, none of them that I know.
Of the countless stories about their visit, or immigration to this country, I have never seen this topic come up. Not one time. Of course, it's not like I was taking a survey either. *shrug*
And I've met people before that were surprised to know I owned a gun(s) as much as I was of them.
From my personal experience, absolutely. Once I got into the hobby, I found out that so many people around me owned guns! Not just for home, or self defense, but guns passed down their family, collectibles, farmers, hunters, etc. Young, old, educated, uneducated, all these people around me actually owned guns & I was certainly pretty shocked with the discovery.
Every gun owner in the US wants it to be a non-issue too.
And like yourself, lot of non-gun owners I know.
 
Back