Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
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 10-18-2012, 01:14 PM
Location: WA
1,444 posts, read 1,944,647 times
Reputation: 1517


Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
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.
Recall that I was addressing the fact that, as we both know, there's a massive number of firearms currently in circulation throughout a country that lacks a national firearms registry--it's simply insane to believe that nearly 300 million of them would be accounted for after the formation of such a database. Surely we're both aware that the idea of cooperation from nearly all criminal and many law-abiding individuals/entities is farfetched at best, at least in the mind of anyone who understands how exponentially unpopular increased firearm regulation in the United States really is (especially if you're a firearm owner who has legitimate reasons for being one).

The effect of a national firearms registry would indeed have a long-term impact on the number of firearms sold/dispersed ex post facto, I agree, but that frankly pays no mind to the fact that powerful firearms will remain in the hands of illegitimate gun owners who utilize their weapons as a means to criminal ends; meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of gun owners who aren't inclined to using their firearms for criminal purposes are delegitimized if they fail to submit their property to a bogus regulatory scheme that ultimately does nothing but compile data that would only be useful in the event of firearm confiscation.

As for this "intermediate range" you mention, I'm not entirely sure who/what you're referring to; is there a large, middle-faction of gun owners that falls between criminally-inclined gun owners and their law-abiding opposites? I need a little bit of clarification before I can address that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 10-18-2012, 05:17 PM
14,767 posts, read 17,140,486 times
Reputation: 20659
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.)
Well there are still illegal guns in Australia.
The difference is, that its not that easy to get one. Sure,there are those gangs have weapons, they generally shoot each other.

I don't feel unsafe, or live in fear.

For the US, I think its too late. With that amount of weapons, and NRA being so vocal.... you'll never get a gun buy back scheme happening.

When Port Arthur happened, the collective shock, mourning and horror was felt across the country. It was the kind of moment, where you remember what you were doing when you heard the news of what happened.
From that incident and since the gun buy-back there have been no mass shootings in Australia...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-18-2012, 06:56 PM
Location: Scotland
7,956 posts, read 11,862,607 times
Reputation: 4167
If your a criminal in the states all you have to do is burglarise a few homes then you have a stockpile of guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-18-2012, 07:02 PM
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,538,871 times
Reputation: 9263
a group of guys robbed a Gander mtn. which is a large retail store for outdoor sporting stuff and they took 30 handguns. we have to beef up security at those places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-25-2012, 02:00 PM
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine
750 posts, read 910,910 times
Reputation: 826
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
One of our members defines "freedom" as the right to carry a gun. If you're not allowed to carry a gun, you're not "free".
agree with him.
What are the gun laws in your country?
Rifles and shotguns for hunting only, its possible to use it for self defense, but only at home.

Pistols are restricted (thats sad ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2012, 08:52 AM
Location: Victoria TX
42,554 posts, read 87,119,917 times
Reputation: 36644
Iraqis had more freedom to carry guns under Saddam than Canadians had at the same time. Virtually every household in Saddam's Iraq had a private firearm.

The five top countries in the world, in per capita private gun ownership, are US, Yemen, Switzerland, Cyprus and Saudi Arabia. Nobody ever accused Yemen or Saudi Arabia of being free countries, and Saudi is in fact possibly the most tightly controlled monarchy in he world.

Last edited by jtur88; 10-26-2012 at 09:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2012, 12:01 PM
Location: in my imagination
13,615 posts, read 21,420,438 times
Reputation: 10123
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
I have little doubt that if one were to magically vapourize all the fire-arms in the US today (like Gort in the Day the Earth Stood Still) the crime rate would drop dramatically. Of all the countries with high crime rates, firearm ownership is WIDESPREAD among all sectors of the population.

A gun in every household is a hazard. The question Americans ask themselves is, are all those school shootings, murders within families and friends, murders committed by people who legally owned a firearm, worth the right to bear arms?

The American people resoundingly answer 'yes.' That is their decision, so honestly if there's a school shooting don't try to blame it on violent movies or violent video games or ethnic minorities. Sure, guns don't kill people, people do, but they make it a heck of a lot easier and cleaner.

Here is a question for you. If your mother, daughter , grandmother or who ever were attacked and raped and killed by a deranged criminal and they could have saved themselves had they had a weapon is that a acceptable lose in grand scheme?

On a political level what makes a rich person, a government politician, or a policeman more trustworthy to have a gun than you? Do you see those people as more important and deserving than yourself?

Considering the amount of guns in households in my U.S.A they can't be considered such a high risk for hazard since the majority of these households or people never have issues with them.

The U.N has a policy generally of frowning on everyday people owning guns, yet many of these countries in the U.N use their guns in the hands of politicians, religious sects, and police forces to terrorize their people. The girl who was shot in Pakistan for speaking out for women's rights, the police are powerless or just don't want to get involved in providing security for these women and families being threatened by the Taliban yet the U.N frowns on people like these families having guns because it would supposedly escalate violence. The thing is if the Taliban get control I am sure they support gun control also, excluding themselves of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2012, 07:45 AM
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine
750 posts, read 910,910 times
Reputation: 826
I can understand (but not to forgive!) the authorities, that wishing to limit the right of citizens to the weapon. But I am struck by another - in some countries it is directly forbidden by the law to use the weapon for self-defense. And not only firearms! For example in Germany it is forbidden to use a knife for self-defense. But is even worse in England where it is forbidden to frighten the criminal by the toy-gun at your home! I don't understand it. Long time I considered as the worst law is Ukrainian, but now I think what not all is so bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2012, 07:50 AM
Location: Telford, Shropshire UK
54 posts, read 110,101 times
Reputation: 39
What does gun ownership have to do with freedom? If you feel the need to carry a deadly weapon around, obviously you're living in fear or a state of paranoia and are therefore not free at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2012, 08:13 AM
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine
750 posts, read 910,910 times
Reputation: 826
I am not agrees with you. Freedom consists including in the right to have the weapon or not to have, but not to the authorities to solve it for citizens. For example in my country not all policemen are armed, many patrol having a rubber stick, a gas ballon or sometimes the gun with rubber bullets, and it is clear, criminals in Ukraine very seldom use firearms and citizens are a little armed. But at you in England the police patrols streets in bullet-proof vests and with MP-5 though the weapon at citizens is completely forbidden. I consider it as the first signs of the armed dictatorship.
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.

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

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