What is your viewpoint on Guns?

[soulfood]

depends on the gun.

The ability to fire 10 rounds a second leaves nothing to the skill and enjoyment of a fine marksman that's for sure.

All in all though, guns are for pussy's. The ultimate phallus. Going off in your hand like that... I can't really comment on the safety issue, as I've done some damage with hardback literature in my time, but that doesn't mean that books are bad.

I do hear that the emissions are lower than a fast car or a motorbike though.

 

[hyperspacing]

Phan I really think you should experience something before passing judgement. Perhaps a day at the range would change your mind. There's so many wonderful things in life that at a glance look bad. If you give them a chance you may be suprised.

I challenge any anti-gun person to not enjoying a shotgun and some skeet shooting. :d

 

[ragabr]

It seems to me that most of the people here who do not feel any self-defense pressure live within relatively stable and privileged nation-states. There's a funny contrast between this and the thread on the collapse of Western society.

There's a lot going on that doesn't receive much media coverage, at least here in the United States. The level of violence in Argentina, organized crime families taking over the role of the State in Northern Mexico and Nagal controlled areas in India, what Dmitri Orlov describes happening to Russia in his works, the intensity and growth of predation described in McMafia all point to a need for community-based security. In situations of collapse, the police reveal themselves as another criminal gang. Here in the United States, a growing problem has appeared, where military veterans return from the wars and contract themselves out to street gangs. In Oklahoma, IED's have been used by gangs on the police force, and the perpetrators haven't been caught.

One of the deepest lessons to come from my psychedelic use has been the necessity of healthy boundaries. Claiming all expressions of ego as negative results in at least as much pathology, if not more, than overly rigid ego, in my experience.

 

[polytrip]

I understand that people in different places have different opinions about gun's and the right to posses them.

I can totally understand that in some places, gun's are just a part of everyday live and not a big issue. On the other hand, it's important that people obey the law to at least a certain extent: illegal gun-possesion and trade is something deeply immoral, unless you live in a failed state where you'd realy need a gun in order to live through the day.

There is also a difference between a rifle for hunting and automatic weapons that fire hundreds of rounds a minute. I don't see how anybody could need such a weapon for hunting deers or for self protection.

I think, and here i may differ radically from many americans and probably many non-american nexians as well, that the government (that is the police, army, military police and such organisations) should realy have the upper hand at all times. There should never be a situation where the authority of the police can be seriously questioned.
All places where this is the case are NIGHTMARES to live.
Remember that many iraqi's rather would live under the most terrible opression like they had, than in a failed state where NOTHING is certain, and everybody can decide at any second of the day, that he is your new leader.

In short, i grant you your fun at the ranch, but i don't wish for anybody to live in a place where the police is seriously being outgunned by any group of civilians.

 

[Ice House]

the government (that is the police, army, military police and such organisations) should realy have the upper hand at all times. There should never be a situation where the authority of the police can be seriously questioned.
All places where this is the case are NIGHTMARES to live.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Spoken like a good little Dutch socialist! Thats exactly what your government wants you think. Thats exactly the way your government wants you to feel. WoW!

There should never be a situation where the authority of the police can be seriously questioned.

The authority of government and the police should always be questioned by the people. Thats what keeps the system in check.

In America we have a government for the people, by the people. The reason that the second amendment was written was so that the PEOPLE could arm themselves and organize into civil millitias in order to keep our police, military, and government in check. This was done to protect the population. It is far from a perfect system. It is however the very best system out there. Much better than being a bunch of complacent, mediocre robots, that do and live exactly how the government tells them to. IMHO, no where in this world do people have more freedom, more liberty, and more rights than in the USA

 

[polytrip]

Hey man, it's not that i want to rain on anybody's parade or something. Like i said: i do grant you your fun at the ranch and i do understand that in places like america, canada or finland, people look differently at guns.

But look at places where the police is seriously being outgunned by militia....like in northern and southern mexico, where every now and then people find a view hundred beheaded body's alongside the road. I mean, do you have any idea how a few hundred dead body's smell? You don't want to live there. Or iraq, or afghanistan.

Don't ask me, ask any iraqi civilian if he likes 'being free' that much. When the police is no longer top-dog, somebody else is gonna be, and that other person is not gonna be democratically elected, bound by law and procedures.

We have had civil militia's here in europe as well. You may have heard of the places: they're called northern ireland, basque region, bosnia herzegovina, kosovo, kroatia and albania...

 

[polytrip]

In America we have a government for the people, by the people. The reason that the second amendment was written was so that the PEOPLE could arm themselves and organize into civil millitias in order to keep our police, military, and government in check. This was done to protect the population. It is far from a perfect system. It is however the very best system out there. Much better than being a bunch of complacent, mediocre robots, that do and live exactly how the government tells them to. IMHO, no where in this world do people have more freedom, more liberty, and more rights than in the USA

You clearly haven't thought it through. I mean, overthrowing the government may sound like a fun thing to do in some of your spare time, let's say sunday morning. But then what? Let's say you succeed. You would want people to be able to overthrown your then newly established government as well i suppose?

It's just that civil war's are maybe nice to start for some people, but it's just never as nice to be in one, as you'd imagined it would be.

This dutch socialist, as you call me (not that i am a socialist, but let's not argue about that) can now. My mother grew up in a place plagued by a civil war and i have many friends who fled to this socialist state, as you call it, from the former yugoslavia.

If there's any place where these idea's about civil militia's keeping the government in check where put into practice, it's former yugoslavia. You may have heard of a guy called tarkan, no? He was very well in keeping the government in check...well, untill he got shot that is...and he wasn't that nice. One of his specialties was have his militia's plundering towns and raping all the women there.

Who's gonna tell me that your civil militia's aren't gonna do that as well? And if they would. Who's gonna stop them if not the government?

 

[BananaForeskin]

In response to the above ^^^

You make some very good points, but let me point out that in Afghanistan earlier this year, there were several villages who armed themselves and defended themselves from the Taliban without American help and without the intention of becoming closer to the Americans. This was simply because they were tired of the injustices. This, I think, is the point Ice House is trying to make... figuratively speaking, in a country where guns are illegal, the Taliban would probably still have guns, but the citizens of that country would be unable to defend themselves... resulting in rape and mass executions. But in Afghanistan, because the Pashtun tribes are all armed to the teeth, they can defend themselves from the Taliban if need be.

I think if, in Afghanistan, there had been effectively enforced anti-gun policies pre-Taliban, the situation there would be worse... as the Taliban would still have guns, but the everyday citizens would have nothing to defend themselves with.

And for the record, I also agree with Ice House that the citizen body should have the ability to keep government authority in check, if need be.

 

[Ice House]

polytrip, I apologize if calling you a socialist was offensive in any way. I didnt mean to be rude. I lived in Holland for four years working for the Dutch government. I have a real close connection to the country, a kind of love hate relationship, but thats another story.

I dont believe many Americans fantisize about forming a millitia and overthrowing the government.

For the American government it is just the thought of that scenario that is a component of the checks and balances. Its written into our constitution. Any organized uprising would NEVER be done to over throw, The idea is to RESTORE our civil liberties. There are allot of rightwing wako Americans that take these ideas too far and they give a bad name to purist americans who believe in the constitution written by our founding fathers.

Well it's not a system without faults.

 

[jungleheart]

I'm surprised no one has made the argument that if people carried guns, spree type shootings may be less likely. That's a common argument I think. I know in smaller towns, especially in the Midwest, pretty much everybody has a gun in their car.

 

[amor_fati]

I think if, in Afghanistan, there had been effectively enforced anti-gun policies pre-Taliban, the situation there would be worse... as the Taliban would still have guns, but the everyday citizens would have nothing to defend themselves with.

Gun-control hardly figures into the history of Afghanistan's turmoil, though it may be relevant today as you mentioned previously. Afghanistan was armed and its terrorist regimes formed under CIA sponsorship to fend off Soviet invaders. But you're right, folks like the Taliban would have guns regardless of whether the populace were allowed, so it's best to allow the populace to arm itself. Criminals and governments will always be armed, so it's foolish to relinquish your own rights in the matter.

 

[polytrip]

polytrip, I apologize if calling you a socialist was offensive in any way. I didnt mean to be rude. I lived in Holland for four years working for the Dutch government. I have a real close connection to the country, a kind of love hate relationship, but thats another story.

Fortunately i'm not easily insulted.
And i have a love-hate relationship with this tiny piece of real-estate as well, i must admit.

The afghanistan issue is a good point.
I do think though, that in more pacified society's, including the USA, there is a relatioship between the amount of guns available on the legal market and the amount of gun's available to criminals.

I don't think that criminals always will have as much firepower available to them as they'd like if guns where controlled.

I rather want to live in a place where criminals are afraid of the police, than the other way around. That's just my whole point.
In the spanish basque region, the ETA has been raising taxes for itself. That's what you get if the police is being outgunned in pacified places.

If you don't like the government, you could vote them out. If you don't like a big mexican druglord living next to you, you better move elsewhere because he's not gonna be open to a political debate.

If criminals get their way, they will go as far as they can in terrorising people. Therefore you need a strong policeforce that will always outgun them, so they will never go that far.

In mexico, criminals are no longer afraid for the police and they don't shy away for killing dozens of people in broad daylight. And after doing that, they'll brag about how many people they've killed.

And that makes sense, because if everybody knows how easily they kill people, they can get anything they want by the power of fear. And you won't be able to protect yourself against them with any gun, because they're with more, and they're more ferocious. That's what they're criminals for.

I can't speak for the USA, but here in holland criminals won't publicly kill many people and they won't brag about it if they incidentally do kill someone.
That is because the police has more firepower.

I'm convinced that if that would change, then criminals over here would not prove to be that different than the ones in mexico. They're businesmen after all, and busines is about maximising profit, getting as much as you can.

Therefore i want this situation to stay the way it is. I want the police to have more firepower than any criminal. Because they're the police:they're hired to protect and to serve and if they don't do that correctly they'll get fired or they'll even end up in court.

Maybe i'm cynical, but i'm a hobbesian. I believe that if you don't have a strong government that has great power, people will turn into beasts and will take from eachother whatever they can.

I believe many people will always try to get away with whatever they can and therefore i want to have what people can get away with minimized as much as possible.

But if someone likes to shoot at cans of beer i can hardly object that.

 

[Ice House]

I'm surprised no one has made the argument that if people carried guns, spree type shootings may be less likely. That's a common argument I think. I know in smaller towns, especially in the Midwest, pretty much everybody has a gun in their car.

Thats a good point I live in a very small town in South West WA USA population several hundred, my best guess. There is a wild west flavor here. Lots of die hard, wild ass, meth fueled, white trash rednecks and you also have farmers and loggers and hermits and social out casts who come here to be away from society. All of them or most all of them are packing heat. Most of em have been since they were kids. They all understand that altercations with another from these parts must be handled in a delicate manner. Just driving around you see the pick up trucks with the rifle in the window. It is alo not uncommon to see someone in town carrying a six shooter open in a holster on the hip.

The police know the situation very well around here and that keeps them from stiring up shit for minor offenses. The Sherrifs around here deal mostly with high risk warrants and felony stuff.

The I feel I need a weapon in my house for home security, however I dont feel I need to lock my door at night or even shut it for that matter. Home invasions around here are very rare and the fact that home owners are heavily armed is the reason. Take a trip south to Portland or nort to Seattle and home invasions are very common.

 

[hyperspacing]

Its kinda funny here in the usa the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun related crimes. The fact is criminals are going to get guns one way or another. so if the laws in your area don't permit good people to own guns then the criminals can rob you without having to worry you might have a trick up your sleeve.

Bottom line is a criminal is less likely to rob you or your business if there's a good chance your packing heat. So basically guns stop more violence then they contribute to.

 

[soulfood]

They have knife crime where I live. It doesn't mean that I keep a machete in my bed side draw or in my coat pocket when I walk down the street. Nope. Not as much as even a spoon or a fork.

In a sticky situation when does it come to the point when you decide that using the gun is necassary? What if it's a few seconds too soon? Oh yeah! It means you just fucked up. The fact is if you are brought up to believe you need a gun, then you're going to need a gun. Just as I have been brought up to not need a gun.

 

[hyperspacing]

They have knife crime where I live. It doesn't mean that I keep a machete in my bed side draw or in my coat pocket when I walk down the street. Nope. Not as much as even a spoon or a fork.

In a sticky situation when does it come to the point when you decide that using the gun is necassary? What if it's a few seconds too soon? Oh yeah! It means you just fucked up. The fact is if you are brought up to believe you need a gun, then you're going to need a gun. Just as I have been brought up to not need a gun.

My family never owned guns. Its something I chose to own. The fact is I can CHOOSE to own a gun rather than the government telling me another thing they will let me have or have not.

In america we have this right and any real american should cherish the few rights we have left.

 

[Eden]

Any real american?
Regardless, just because something is legal does not mean it should be done. Just as you choose to own a gun, I choose not to own a gun.

I would personally feel a hypocrite preaching peace if my fallback plan for when things don't go my way is to reach for a gun.
If I must resort to force to defend my ideals, I have already lost them.
On an individual basis, force and violence are quick fixes to conflict. Real change will never occur if not in the willingness of all parties involved.

I live in an inner city area where crime and assault are quite common. I treat fear as the only enemy, and if the worst that happens to me is robbery, so be it. Otherwise, I am a fan of flight over fight.

Just as any issue, there are no absolutes as far as I'm concerned. If I lived in an area where I would need a gun to daily defend my life and others I care about, maybe my stance would be different. Point is, most of us are not in that situation. We live in "civilized" countries where the worst we will likely run into is just some desperate guy who wants the wallet in our pocket.

 

[polytrip]

In america, the situation is different in each state. People living in san fransisco are less likely to own a gun or to be gun enthousiasts than people who live in hutchinson, kansas.

You have to accept that customs are just different everywhere. Much of the gun culture in america is probably rooted in the war with the brit's that lead to the independance of the USA. In most other industrialised nations, there never has been such a culture.

Here in holland you can buy weed in a coffeeshop and peyote's and psilocybin sclerotia in specialised shops. I think most people in the american midwest would consider that just to be as strange and unwanted as people in holland would consider it to be strange and unwanted if you could just buy gun's in a store here.

Freedom is different everywhere because it depends so much on what your habits are and your way of life. I don't have the right to own a gun, but i don't feel like i'm missing out on something. I have learned that you have to apreciate those differences because you just cannot enforce the same moral mindset, customs, habits, traditions etc. on people all over the world.

I don't like bullfighting although i do like spain. That means i'll just have to accept that people overthere have this to me weird and exotic hobby that i don't understand. I may think it's cruel, but i shouldn't want to force my views on this upon the people there. As an outsider you're never gonna change traditions you don't understand.

To many people on this side of the atlantic, gun ownership in america is such an exotic traditional thing, just like bullfighting is a traditional exotic thing for non-spaniards.

To many people here, the right to commit euthanasia is as essential as gun-ownership is to many americans, while in america euthanasia is a considered a crime in most states. We think the right to end your own life, your suffering when you're terminally ill, is essentially the right to own your own life and therefore one of the most essential rights.
Well, i'm not gonna force that view upon americans who live in the midwest because i know it's a waste of time.
We just look at it differently because we have different traditions.

To many people those differences are upsetting. Well, than living in a globalised world must be deeply upsetting for those people because the encounters with different cultures will only increase for everyone.

 

[1992]

depends on the gun.

The ability to fire 10 rounds a second leaves nothing to the skill and enjoyment of a fine marksman that's for sure.

All in all though, guns are for pussy's. The ultimate phallus. Going off in your hand like that... I can't really comment on the safety issue, as I've done some damage with hardback literature in my time, but that doesn't mean that books are bad.

I do hear that the emissions are lower than a fast car or a motorbike though.

Too bad emissions on things like lawnmowers or weed whackers are far more dirty than just about any car due to a lack of catalytic converter:roll:

Guns are bad. They're designed to end the lives of other organisms and nothing else. People on here trying to say your kitchen knife should be viewed as a weapon too are just bullshitters, you can't use a knife to slice a piece of bread can you? Even water kills a whole bunch of people but you dont drink guns everyday to stay alive do you?

If you need to hunt for whatever reason, a rifle is acceptable. Things like handguns, however, really aren't acceptable in any situation in my opinion. Just the fact that they're in somebody's hands makes it that much more likely that someone is going to get hurt. Just like when you're trying to diet and everything is going good until someone puts a pizza with cake and ice cream in front of you.:lol:

All that being said, alot of guns are really cool pieces of machinery. Mosin nagants and mausers esp with an armstock are both pretty sexual. Ultimately they just cause problems though.

Also, though I'm from the US, I agree with polytrip that there should be a police force that has the upper hand. If all drugs were decriminalized in the US and the cops instead stopped dangerous drivers, violent people or any one endangering others would you hate them?

 

[ragabr]

If all drugs were decriminalized in the US and the cops instead stopped dangerous drivers, violent people or any one endangering others would you hate them?

I don't hate the police, but yes, I would still feel the same way. Small recording devices have just recently begun to reveal the tip of the iceberg in police abuses. It's just going to go further and further.

Globalization has commandeered the nation-state apparatus, allowing small groups with no loyalties to hijack them and drain wealth from across the globe. The entire system has rotted its way through.