How Do You Define Freedom? Is Gun Ownership A Necessary Component of Freedom? (crime rate, buy)
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.
No, what for? There is no threat to our lives and therefore no need for protection.
There is no need to carry (or use) hand-guns in any civilised region in the world. This is my German view which - I believe - is what most other people share.
If there truly is no need to carry guns in any civilized region of the world, surely Germany must not be civilized, as your police carry guns, do they not?
your situation, and that of the typical American gun owner is no different at it's most base level. You've entrusted your safety and well-being to someone else, and they'd rather deal with it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
The American people, collectively, have in their private personal arsenals enough weaponry and ammunition to kill every single inhabitant of the planet. That is a weapon of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the Iranian people, collectively, want to have one single weapon capable of deterring an enemy attack. You call that terrorism. When you throw around words like terrorism and WMDs, and you have a couple of dogs in the fight (for example, you are an American and a gun owner), you have rendered the language useless for intelligent conversation.
That's probably the silliest comparison I've ever read.
You're making the absurd assumption that every individual US gun owner will act in lockstep if given orders to exterminate the rest of the world. Do you really believe that would happen? And, on the opposite side, do you really believe that those in control in Iran need the approval of a huge number of Iranians to deliver a nuclear weapon if they so desired?
I'm not sure how it's not possible to miss the difference between a large number of individuals holding a small amount of destructive power each and a small group holding a large amount of power.
This is actually a very easy question to answer. No, gun ownership is not necessary for freedom.
That being said, the united states is so absolutely filled with guns, theyve become so intertwined in political speech, and the drug violence, drug culture, gun culture, runs so deep...that it's completely irrelevant and pointless to convince the people who are convinced they need to protect themselves and their own from it, otherwise.
Will someone please define me first what "freedom" is?
This is one thing I'm trying to determine. Do people feel that freedom from fear about crime, knowing one doesn't need a gun for self-protection, is real freedom? Or is the freedom to carry a concealed weapon an inherent part of freedom?
"Freedom: the absence of coercion, necessity or constraint in choosing a course of action; political independence" (From Mirriam-Webster online dictionary)
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.
yes it is. unless u have been been assaulted or watched it done to a loved one, the very concept of firearm possession is nonsense.
firearms, with only a little bit of training, allows a solitary man or woman to stand off a gang of thugs and prevent them from accomplishing what they surely would have, w/o the presence of firearms .
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.
I was hoping to poll people in other countries about whether or not they felt they would be safer if they had a handgun to protect themselves, or if they felt perfectly safe without arming themselves. Are criminals in other countries able to buy guns, and if so, do citizens worry about their safety because of that? I'm told that in England, knives are used by criminal elements, rather than guns. Also, most British police don't carry guns. Do British citizens feel safe?
This isn't about how to disarm Americans. I'm curious about the safety question, mainly. And the odd freedom issue someone raised on the Politics forum.
No, on the contrary. I feel more free knowing I can safely go anywhere without the risk of somebody possibly carrying a gun and using it.
No
No, what for? There is no threat to our lives and therefore no need for protection.
Which problems would that solve? None. As Russiaonline already said, statistics prove otherwise. Being able to carry guns clearly lead to using them eventually.
There is no need to carry (or use) hand-guns in any civilised region in the world. This is my German view which - I believe - is what most other people share.
I agree Greggo. Would give you rep. Owe you one.
I have no use for a gun, and it has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.
But Geggo, haven't you heard the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"? You need a gun to protect yourself from criminals who illegally acquire guns. Black market guns. So to combat this black market, guns need to be legalized so that all citizens can carry guns, just in case someday a criminal with a gun might threaten them when they're out at night, or if someone tries to break into their home. You wouldn't believe the vehemence with which some Americans defend this belief.
On the other hand, the Constitution of European countries probably doesn't say anything about citizens having the right to bear arms, so the question doesn't even come up.
Our constitution says nothing about that either. That amendment has to do with the responsibility, in certain situation, for American's to form a militia.
We now have the National Guard.
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 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.
. 
