Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2012, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Where the heart is...
4,927 posts, read 5,321,642 times
Reputation: 10674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Not in Chicago, they can't. Illinois has no concealed carry, and doesn't recognize it from other states. In Illinois, if you fear for you life, you have to carry illegally or go bare.
After decades of living in Chicago and going bare, imagine...not a single incident where I felt my personal freedom was endangered and I never felt the need for a handgun. Many, many Americans are bare and just fine with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2012, 06:54 PM
 
1,106 posts, read 2,886,121 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger beer View Post
also this american political controversy is fairly irrelevant on the world forum. It doesn't apply to europe or oceania or canada or our other regular world forum viewers.

It only makes sense if someone has a deep understanding of american culture, history, politics, etc.

If someone doesn't understand it, taking it to the world forum certainly won't help someone understand it.

Once a country becomes inundated with guns, it's also nearly impossible to get them out. It would be interesting to hear from residences of other gun-entrenched current societies like afghanistan or african countries where there are many child soldiers, etc. What's their take on trying to de-gun their citizens when gun violence has already gone too far.

It's doubtful our world forum would get past the aghast of guns in america though, to realistically get much deeper into this topic or subject though.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Where the heart is...
4,927 posts, read 5,321,642 times
Reputation: 10674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
So, making handguns legal only ups the ante. Outlaws then will have submachine guns. Good to know.
Any outlaw, anywhere in the world who wants a submachine gun already has one, or two, or three, or four, or...well you get the idea; I think it's called an arsenal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 09:17 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,234 posts, read 108,060,523 times
Reputation: 116200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer View Post
Also this American political controversy is fairly irrelevant on the World Forum. It doesn't apply to Europe or Oceania or Canada or our other regular World Forum viewers.
The world forum is the only place where one can get opinions from Europeans on whether gun ownership is necessary for self-defense (or "freedom", the new buzzword). There's this slogan that's basically a marketing ploy disseminated by the gun lobby, which I mentioned earlier on the thread: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Meaning that in order to be safe, the populace must be allowed to own guns. It's amazing how many Americans have fallen for this line, and defend it rabidly. So I wanted to find out if Europeans and others around the world felt unsafe because they weren't allowed to own guns. And if they don't feel unsafe, why not? Why don't they live in fear (as we would be led to believe Americans do) of criminal elements getting hold of guns and using them to rob and wreak havoc on an unarmed populace? (I realize this may be viewed as a crazy question, but this is the mentality that's being pushed by certain interests in the US, including some very vocal people elsewhere on this forum.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:01 PM
 
Location: WA
1,442 posts, read 1,941,882 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The world forum is the only place where one can get opinions from Europeans on whether gun ownership is necessary for self-defense (or "freedom", the new buzzword). There's this slogan that's basically a marketing ploy disseminated by the gun lobby, which I mentioned earlier on the thread: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Meaning that in order to be safe, the populace must be allowed to own guns. It's amazing how many Americans have fallen for this line, and defend it rabidly. So I wanted to find out if Europeans and others around the world felt unsafe because they weren't allowed to own guns. And if they don't feel unsafe, why not? Why don't they live in fear (as we would be led to believe Americans do) of criminal elements getting hold of guns and using them to rob and wreak havoc on an unarmed populace? (I realize this may be viewed as a crazy question, but this is the mentality that's being pushed by certain interests in the US, including some very vocal people elsewhere on this forum.)
Ruth, please feel free to elaborate on why it's apparently incorrect to believe that criminal individuals/entities in the U.S. would actually not comply with national firearm restrictions. If there are roughly 300,000,000 firearms in ciruclation throughout the U.S., what makes you think that any significant number (or even minor number) of those used in the commission of a crime would be traceable to, say, a national registry (assuming that all ≈300,000,000 of them would actually be accounted for in a federal database on any given day in hell)?

Answer: next to none. Show me a robber, a hitman, a thrill-killer, a druglord, a common gang-banger, etc., who would legally acquire a firearm and subject it to federal regulation thereafter (gee, who knows, maybe they'd surrender their weapons to a buy-back program!!! Bad guys love money, right?!).

So again, Ruth, help us backward proponents of private gun ownership understand why we're wrong to believe that a disarmament campaign in the U.S. would be ineffective, nevermind illegal (my, I can't wait for what will presumably be an apples-oranges comparison of crime in the U.S. vs. crime in a self-proclaimed liberal's favorite Western European country--good times!).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 12:47 AM
 
72 posts, read 77,804 times
Reputation: 29
much of the world is not infested with Mexican, 3rd worlders and rap-style you know whats, so of course they feel ok being unarmed. I've had plenty of confrontations with white guys, too, for that matter. You can go unarmed and slink around like granny does, or you can walk when and where you want, like a man. If you do the latter, I suggest that you be both black belt, and very fast and accurate with a powerful pistol. I am both, and both have come in very handy, many times, even tho I don't drink or seek out the "night life".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Where the heart is...
4,927 posts, read 5,321,642 times
Reputation: 10674
Default Guns...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryharder View Post
much of the world is not infested with Mexican, 3rd worlders and rap-style you know whats, so of course they feel ok being unarmed. I've had plenty of confrontations with white guys, too, for that matter. You can go unarmed and slink around like granny does, or you can walk when and where you want, like a man. If you do the latter, I suggest that you be both black belt, and very fast and accurate with a powerful pistol. I am both, and both have come in very handy, many times, even tho I don't drink or seek out the "night life".
Simon: I've gotta ask you for a favor. Let me go my way here. This truck's my responsibility, and now that the car's hooked up to it, it's my responsibility too.
Rocstar: Do you think I'm stupid? Just answer that question first.
Simon: Look, I don't know nothing about you; you don't know nothing about me. I don't know if you're stupid, or some kind of genius. All I know is that I need to get out of here, and you got the gun. So I'm asking you, for the second time, let me go my way here.
Rocstar: I'm gonna grant you that favor, and I'm gonna expect you to remember it if we ever meet again. But tell me this, are you asking me as a sign of respect, or are you asking because I've got the gun?
Simon: Man, the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that yet. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without having to ask you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car without you ripping him off. Everything is supposed to be different than it is.
Rocstar: So what's your answer?
Simon: You ain't got the gun, we ain't having this conversation.
Rocstar: That's what I thought: no gun, no respect. That's why I always got the gun.

Grand Canyon (1991) - Memorable quotes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 87,046,203 times
Reputation: 36644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Ruth, please feel free to elaborate on why it's apparently incorrect to believe that criminal individuals/entities in the U.S. would actually not comply with national firearm restrictions. If there are roughly 300,000,000 firearms in ciruclation throughout the U.S., what makes you think that any significant number (or even minor number) of those used in the commission of a crime would be traceable to, say, a national registry (assuming that all ≈300,000,000 of them would actually be accounted for in a federal database on any given day in hell)?

Answer: next to none. Show me a robber, a hitman, a thrill-killer, a druglord, a common gang-banger, etc., who would legally acquire a firearm and subject it to federal regulation thereafter (gee, who knows, maybe they'd surrender their weapons to a buy-back program!!! Bad guys love money, right?!).

So again, Ruth, help us backward proponents of private gun ownership understand why we're wrong to believe that a disarmament campaign in the U.S. would be ineffective, nevermind illegal (my, I can't wait for what will presumably be an apples-oranges comparison of crime in the U.S. vs. crime in a self-proclaimed liberal's favorite Western European country--good times!).
This is black/white simplicisticism. There is a huge gray area of people would not acquire a firearm because of the practical details of rigorous registration procedures, but who might use a firearm in an opportunistic antisocial matter if one were more easily and readily attainable.

The fact that your argument sound sensible when applied to the outliers (the fully law abiding and the hardened criminals) does not mean that it would have no effect in the intermediate range, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Location: MO->MI->CA->TX->MA
7,032 posts, read 14,494,416 times
Reputation: 5581
Being allowed to do as much as possible with the exception of infringing on other people's freedoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 87,046,203 times
Reputation: 36644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarkar View Post
Being allowed to do as much as possible with the exception of infringing on other people's freedoms.
In other words, in terms of the US Constitution and the way it is interpreted by the Supreme Court, being free to do whatever conforms with your "pursuit of happiness", unless the legislature has enacted a law proscribing it and (as every law must do) the courts have ruled that the proscription is is not arbitrary, does not incur Privilege, and meets a test of public interest.

Americans would have had the tacit right to bear arms, even without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment did two things: A) It restrained the state from enacting a law that arbitrarily and unreasonably infringed on that natural right, specifically, because that was one of the few natural rights that was infringed by the Crown, and B) It expressed the desirability of a well-regulated militia as the primary justification for the right.

Last edited by jtur88; 10-18-2012 at 11:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top