Did you hear that they blame Counterstrike for the deeds of the sniper in washington?
Man, do they realy believe that?

I'd say it's fairly believable. I played it once and got killed by a sniper more than one time. What makes you think that people wouldn't become too obssessed with the "One shot, one kill," ideal and carry out their fantasies in reality?

Nowdays, almost every shooting is blamed on video games. I think the media and the politicians are to blame for this. I've heard a lot of statistics claiming that violent crimes are going down, but the media sensationalizes cases like this, spreading fear and panic. Politicians jump on it and start screaming about how these "murder simulators" are undermining our nations morals by desensitizing our kids to violence. It's a relatively safe way to act concerned to your voters about an important issue, because the video game industry, as a whole, does not really fight back and defend themselves.

People see an "epidemic" of shootings or whatever, because the media picks up on stories that get people's attention, and every similar case is reported in every newspaper and television news show in the entire US. So people develop a perception that these crimes are becoming more widespread and more frequent, because it's in the news constantly. They start looking for a cause, something to blame that they can point thier finger at and say "this has inspired people to commit these crimes". Video games are an easy target because some of the games feature shooting and violence, and graphics have gotten more and more realistic.

Back when I was a kid and first started gaming (in the Atari 2600 years), games were just blocky pixels. I remember that horror movies were quite frequently blamed for violent crimes. Then in the 80's it was heavy metal which was causing all of our problems. When first person shooters became popular, the blame shifted again.

People will always look for simplistic, surface solutions. Ban violent games and your kids will be safe. Ban swear words and violent language in music and your kids will be safe.

Remember the Columbine tragedy? The kids involved were "outcasts" and repeatedly bullied by other students. Not to say that the bullying was a justification for what they did, but the point is instead of looking at this widespread, complex problem, the media focused on the fact that the kids were avid Doom players. A few stories early on picked up on the bullying aspect, but most pretty much ignored it as time went on because it was too complex of a problem with no nice and easy answers. As a result, video games came under fire again.

Side note: There was an article in my local paper with quotes from gun enthusiasts denouncing this killer as a coward and basically saying how he was "giving snipers a bad name". Which I thought was rather strange...

[ October 14, 2002, 03:14: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

On a related side note, the "media" specifcially gets paid by the number of viewers/readers that indulge in their broadcasts/print.

There are few people who want to read about how little Johnny made it to school safely, and had a wonderful time learning about the relation of the greater-then/less-than symbols.

There are, however, quite a few people that wish to watch/read about how some rather ingenous, mostly religious, individuals have the courage and determination to detonate a bomb, killing 200+ people.

Hmm. I can see the possibility of a correlation if the murderers only encountered death in video games.

If someone had taken this guy in DC hunting as a child, he might have learned how real death is -- not something to be toyed with or taken lightly.

Probably. This maniac has also awakened the question why civilians in the US are allowed to own sniper rifles up to .50 cal or automatic weapons ... oh, I forgot - for home defence :evil:

However, silly thing that this guy has not yet been caught, but no one has ever said it is easy to catch a sniper out for spreading terror. Hopefully ge gets what he deserves - whatever that is.

I'm just glad that he isn't doing his thing in Holland, not that I want him in america either but if he would be caught in holland he probably would have gotten a sentence of 10 year (maybe) and (perhaps) a little time in an institution.

The only thing I like about america: death sentence (not in every state but still)

Probably. This maniac has also awakened the question why civilians in the US are allowed to own sniper rifles up to .50 cal or automatic weapons ... oh, I forgot - for home defence
Llllllllleeeetttt's get ready to rumble! ;)

Home defense includes not only defense against burglars but also against the British military when they try to forcibly reunite the US and UK.

We're waiting for you and your limey friends, Yerril!

BRING IT!

Aah we could woop your ass anyday...really....we could.... we just don't err....feel like it.... :rolling:

my friend tells me the KGB once released an intel report stating an invastion of the States would be impossible due to the number of civilians with guns and the knowledge to use them :) It's all about Red Dawn, baby.

oh, and Z, in the best Evil Imperialist American spirit, I'm going to press this nice little ignition button on my cute little Minuteman II-then we'll see how willing you are.

The cute little problem there is that not only for the KGB it would have been dangerous to go to the states :D The americans and their guns are much more dangerous for themselves - when citizens outgun the authorities there can't be a real monopol of power of the government. Why call the cops when you can enjoy shooting a potential burglar yourself ... ?! :hahaerr: oops, it was the new postman, what a pity ... :hahaerr:

Where people in other countries are happy to beat each other to pulp, the americans seem to happily use the extended capabilities their guns offer in everyday conflicts. This also seems to apply for the guy with the sniper rifle - his long arm allows him to strike with impunity - agression without repercussion.

However, I strongly doubt it's counterstrike that makes people go kill-kill-kill. The calls to ban such games are populistic babbling from politicians who want to show that they *do something* against violence. It's just an attempt to gain public popularity.

Even when these games don't make people kill, they look so ugly that they are perfectly suited to scare the average citizen enough to commend a ban. And even when a ban is unfair to the gamers who play these games, who cares? People who play games like that are freaks anyway, and a small group in the elections ... :holy:

[ October 15, 2002, 18:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

These sniper people are awful, so's the game. :(

Post some numbers or shut up, Ragusa. Your little deluded fantasies about what America is like sound (again) like someone who operates on stereotypes rather than actual information. Seig heil.

Oh, if those who spoke of these killings had any idea what they're talking about.

This is hardly an extraordinary weapon being used. A .223 is a common cartridge used in a variety of applications. I believe, in fact, if you went through the rolls of the weapons that American citizens sent to British homes in WWII, you'd find a lot of them.

Nor are these killings the work of a professional. Nothing more than 100 yards, either stationary targets or people walking in a straight line either towards or away from the shooter.

This is a sicko, plain and simple. It's a man with no conscience or regard for human life. No law will (or would have) stopped him and I'd love to see anyone argue otherwise.

As for use of guns in general: Their availability is a necessity for their use.

However, posting my personal, deluded fantasies I can't see a reason to post any numbers to proove myself what I think. As a matter of fact, I don't really care enough to search any statistics about it not only because I don't trust a statistic I haven't manipulated myself - I would probably end up in the internet anyway .... and outside of SP that is not really a guarantee for profound information :D

And eventually Shralp, you should have become used to my posts a long time ago ... :shake:

[ October 15, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

oh, and Z, in the best Evil Imperialist American spirit, I'm going to press this nice little ignition button on my cute little Minuteman II-then we'll see how willing you are. You must remember that we have nukes too. Aah this is a horrible thing to talk about! :wail:

I wonder why a lot of you people here look down on cs (and probably shooters in general). Sure they look down on RPG's, but that's no reason to do the same.

Yes it's violent and yes it's more about reflexes than about thinking, but what's wrong with people having a good time playing those games?

The same thing could happen to RPG's. It takes but one person with a sword and some murderous thoughts inspired on the BG series to have RPG's banned. :hippy:

[ October 16, 2002, 17:04: Message edited by: Uytuun ]

Come live here in Texas, the words "Dungeons and Dragons" will have every religious fanatic (that is to say most Southern Babtests) threatening to kill you with all their guns. I think here in the south of the United States games like CS are more tolerated as opposed to RPGs because many people think that it's "Satin worshipping" to play games that deal with magic or mention the word "Demon" nevermind the fact that the average gamer is more interested in killing the damn thing.
I get so sick and tired of politicians here in the US blame games for violence. The average gamer has no desire to pick up a rifle and go kill someone in real life. I play shooters myself but I'm not totally desensitized as some politicians think most gamers think. When I saw the movie "We Were Soldiers" and when they showed the Vietnam Wall Memorial at the end of the movie I nearly had tears in my eyes, same with the movie Black Hawk Down, I thought it was a very sad movie, yet I play shooters all the time.
Of course, you guys haven't come to the other conclusion that motivates politicians here in the US: power. The only reasons that lawyers even take up the cause of suing gaming companies for supposedly causing school shootings is to line their own pockets. They don't care about little Tim being killed because of some psycho kid, they just want cash. If society here in the good old US wants to point fingers maybe they should start looking closer to home yes?

This is just the next stop along the way. It used to be D&D, horror movies, and heavy metal (remember Judas Priest being sued over the suicide of two fans?). I grew up playing D&D, watching horror movies, listening to heavy metal, and playing computer games (some with guns). I have no urge to act out anything I saw (or heard, or experienced) in any of these mediums.
I can say that I was desensitized to violence.
Why do people do this? Perhaps it is easier to blame something inanimate for societies problems. It's easier than blaming the parents.

[ October 16, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Its the same here in Alabama. I worked for a company called Mad Science for awhile. We did hands-on science programs for children. Last year when the whole Harry Potter craze hit, Mad Science developed a HP afterschool program. We did various HP experiements with the kids, making a golden snitch, troll buggers, etc. Anyways, when we were promoting this program, we had to get permission from grade school principals to run the program in their school. Most did not want it because of parental reactions to HP. We even polled some parents and they said they didn't want their children studying witchcraft.

I remember growing up and going through all this with the Simpsons and Beavus and Butthead. Remember when B & B stopped using the word "fire"? All because two kids set fire to their home or something.

I lived in Chicago growing up and a lot of us int he neighborhood played D&D. My mom was so worried. My dad claimed that in games like that if you were in a situation and couldn't win, you'd kill yourself, so the game taught kids to commit suicide.

My brother and I were not allowed to wear black and red together because they were gang colors.

I could go on and on with more examples. But my point is this. It doesn't matter what you watch on tv, what games you play, or how you dress. What makes you the person you are is your morals and how you were raised as a child. If the parents and teachers don't teach you right from wrong, then yes, I can see how you could be influenced by games, tv, etc. Working in education I see so many kids get dropped of at school and forced into afterschool programs because mom and dad don't want to have to take care of the kids. I understand parents work, but they need to spend more time with their kids and instill in them the proper morals and teach them right from wrong.

I just wanted to say that Shralp's

We're waiting for you and your limey friends, Yerril! BRING IT!comment was just plain outstanding in every way, shape, and form.

That is all.

[edit:liemy /= limey].

[ October 16, 2002, 18:34: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

Ah Ragusa
Since your from Germany I thought you would remember one of the first things the Nazis did when they decided too start realy putting their plans in action.
They went house to house and took the guns from the civilians.
I dont own a gun and never will but I do beleive people have a right to have them.The average response time for the police is 30 minutes or more.If someone was threating your family or yourself would you want to wait that long to see what happened.
Guns cannot kill anyone unless someone pulls the trigger.

Agreed, Dorian.

Perhaps a better question to pose to folks who don't believe in the right to bear arms:

1) I own a gun. It's a nice gun. A Sig-Sauer P245, semiautomatic .45 caliber handgun. One of the better ones you can buy, actually.

2) It stays loaded with Corbon +P high-velocity, controlled expansion hollow point rounds, designed to stop and incapacitate, or kill a human being. (or, in the rare ocassion, I guess - the marauding moose elk.)

3) If someone you loved, your wife, daughter, sister, etc were being attacked, assaulted, raped or threatened with death -- would you like for me to intervene, or go on my way?

I would like you to lend me your gun.

And maybe some bullets.

Just because somone comes from Germany does not mean there going to know about what the Nazis did, thinking like that is just racist. World War 2 was over half a centuary ago and people still assume that Germans know about or even are Nazis.

Anyone against owning a gun legally should remeber this:

If a person legally licenses his gun, he is most likely going to be fine with it. A person who walks into a bank and starts blowing the casheers and customers away, is not very likely to have a nice licensed gun anyway. Thus it dosn't matter either way.

[ October 16, 2002, 20:09: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Ritwngr, I didn't know you were a superhero, I certainly feel safe now. (Kao you knucklehead!)

Note to self:

ArtEChoke's family...on their own.

LOL

Dorion Blackstar,
thanks for repeating this funny argument - it must be pre-made, from the NRA or some other lobby since I heared it with about exactly the same words before. Have you ever questioned it's validity? It's useless to argument that way to justify gun ownership, actually it's just a primitive way to insult the people who want gun restriction - for good reasons. The gun discussion is dirty in the US. I clearly remember a pretty sick Clinton = Hitler shockwave animation, however, since you seem to enjoy that way of argumenting and thinking, go ahead and enjoy.

No one denies the right of a hunter to own a ... hunting rifle ... even the possession of a handgun make sense, depending where you live. Yes, for self-defence or sporting.

However, I really doubt civilians need a .50 cal gun, a sniper rifle, assault rifle, submashine gun or mashine gun for personal use. This is allowed in some parts of the US, in others it's not. However, ask a mashinegun owner in virginia (iirc that's a state where that is allowed) if he needs his mashinegun to preserve his constitutional rights and personal freedom and he'll doubtless say "YES!". Sure it is fun to play with these toys, but I prefer the people who use them to be in the army. Actually that's all what I question about gun ownership in the US. However, more would only lead to a repetition of an old "Why do the US need guns" (or so) thread and the old one was disgusting enough. Since this thread is going the same way, I'll stop posting here :rolleyes:

[ October 16, 2002, 22:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I saw a funny cartoon in MAD magazine once... It basiclly involved a guy with NRA stickers all over him and a 'support NRA' arm thingy, being held at gun point by a thug. lol :lol:

If someone you loved, your wife, daughter, sister, etc were being attacked, assaulted, raped or threatened with death -- would you like for me to intervene, or go on my way? Assuming that you have a bad fight with your wife, which is driving you out of control, and the gun is on the table beside you. What do you think that it will happen?

First, it's a fallacy to link machine guns with rampant crime.

Since 1968, fully automatic weapons and the parts necessary to create such a gun have been Class III firearms - NOT accessible to just anyone without a serious, serious background check. (I've never seen an instance where a class III permit holder used a firearm in a violent crime)

Even more than that, let's consider: how much crime is committed by suburban white guys with AK-47's? A teeny, tiny amount.

The problem really isn't with guns, or some real or imagined "gun culture." It's with sickos, and those sickos exist whether they carry knives, drive carbombs into place, or wrap themselves in dynamite and walk into an Israeli disco.

I'm just glad I live in a country where I have the right to put two in the chest and one in the forehead of any one of these yahoos that threatens me in my home.

If people here in the US want to own guns fine, but a civilian has no business owning an assault rifle. I don't have a problem with hunting rifles, a great many pistols, but when people start screaming that they "have the rite to own any type of firearm" I question their sanity. I have a friend that I argued this with. He said "that people could own weapons like that for target practice." I say, people, these weapons are anti-personnel weapons, why do you need to own a weapon who's sole purpose is to kill people. Saying "I like to hunt deer with my AK47 or M-16" or any other rifle of that caliber sounds plain stupid.

Atreides,

#1, my handgun (mentioned above) is designed to kill people. Period. Sure it's fun to shoot with, and doubles as a sporting gun - but it's designed to kill. The purpose of a device is not determinite - so are K-bars and other combat knives.

#2, An Ak-47 and M-16 are different caliber, but in fact the larger error you make is the fact that caliber, in and of itself is meaningless. An M-16 is actually a smaller round than most deer rifles.

#3 The entire "assault weapon/rifle" debate is a lark - the very term "assault weapon" is a meaningless cosmetic distinction that has little or nothing to do with the relative lethality of a firearm, further illustrating the distortions and deceptions rampant in the anti-gun policy debates.

I don't have a problem with people owning firearms, just civilians claiming the rite to own for military weaponry. An M-16 has a much faster rate of fire than a hunting rifle, why would a person need to kill something like an animal with a weapon that could possibly rip it to pieces?
Again, it's not the issue of whether people should own weapons that I have a real problem with (I agree that people have the rite to defend themselves) it's the types of weapons that I question.

I think that any sort of firearm should be severly restricted. Rifles only for people that have a hunting license and handguns only for people that are in a shooting club and then I am not talking about your normal pistol but sportguns. As for military weapons you must be maniac if you even want to have one.
Rightwinger, you argument of protecting whomever you see fit is worth null and void. Bash them on the head with a baseball bat if you really want to do something. And isnt the problem really that lots of people think they need a gun in their home to protect themselves? Isnt that something that is worse than the whole weapon issue. Are you so paranoid or do you live in such a lawless society that it is everyone for himself?

What's the difference between bashing someone's skull in vs. shooting a hole in it? They're just as dead.

I guess that pulling a trigger is easier than beating someone to death, I don't know, just a thought.
As for society being lawless, it is a bit crazy over here in the US right about now with that accursed sniper on the loose. I'm sorry for those in the area but I'm glad he's not here in Texas and in the same area as my friends, and cadets.

I know this is off topic but I had to reply to this.
Juggalo exactly how does thinking German citizens would be aware of the Nazis make me a racist.I would be troubled if world war II was not taught in germany how could you ignore such a huge event in history.
By the way I have many friends of variouse colors and nationalities.

*sigh*

(I had a fairly lengthy rant in here, but decided to just nix it as I tend to rant on issues such as this>

Dorion Blackstar,
are you aware you're talking terrible rubbish? Since you seem to insist on that foolish nazi-gun crap I think I have to point out a few things before you make me puke.

Well, I am german and this is probably the reason why you had the brilliant idea to bring up the nazi-firearm bulls***. I am very well aware of the Nazis, actually most germans are, and it doesn't need you to remind me or them. Nor do I need to justify myself for WW-II or the Holocaust. I'm young, that's history for me - my only responsibility deriving from that time is to ensure that will not happen again and fortunately I can tell you that, in germany, that is highly unlikely.

Your nazi-firearms parallell is misleading, ignorant, naive and foolish. You seriously think that widespread gun-ownership (iirc that was your thought) could have prevented Nazi dictatorship or mass murder? I strongly doubt that and to tell you why I'll bring up another, more actual, parallel:
Have a look at Zimbabwe (ex-Rhodesia) - every farmer (usually white) is armed there yet they don't resist the local dictator Mugabe (black) who wants to take their farms away - why? The do have the firepower - doesn't that confuse you? Are they just cowards? Maybe they are cowards for a reason ....

Have you ever even wasted a single, brief, confused thought on how it might be to live under a the rule of a dictator?
Do you seriously think that in a dictatorship the use of firearms against the authorities will have no consequences, that you can win in a direct confrontation? Without a price to pay? Since dictatorships generally rely on force to control/ opress the population, what do you think will happen when you challenge their main instrument of power? People under a dictatorship have little illusions about that:
It will not be much unlike what will happen to you today in the US, when you shoot on a cop - SWAT will come and get you. The Farmers in Zimbabwe know that too - and are well aware that, when they resist, their farms will be burned down, they will be put in jail, leave their family and loyal farm workers unprotected from Mobutu's mob and that they will not get any legal protection from courts.
Shooting a nazi before or in WW-II would have clearly meant beeing interrogated by the Gestapo, or more clearly beeing tortured, and sentenced (in a swift and completely unfair trial) and then hanged or deheaded for murder.

But of course: Had the jewish kept their guns, things would have been different :rolleyes: and most certainly, in the land of the free and the brave etc. things would be totally different too .... :rolleyes: Only utter morons can believe in the equality *citizen firepower = guarantee of freedom*. And as an exponent of that argument that's evidently just what you are.

:flaming: PS: Ack, you made me post again ... anyway, your fault :flaming:

[ October 17, 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ah, yes. You kids never quite get it through your heads that private ownership of guns is what won America her freedom. Might have something to do with why we value the right so much.

Ragusa, what gives a dictator his power? Stunning good looks? Nope. Guns. How do you defeat a dictator?

C'mon... I know you can think of a way. And it doesn't start with "surrender all weapons to him."

There are two ways to get rid of a dictator, Shralp:
(a) peaceful uprising, only sometimes this grats success indeed, but look at chile - eventually they got rid of Pinochet - without civil war - or at germany, we managed that too in 1989, without guns albeit with russian support. Quite interesting that in the revolutions following the fall of the iron curtain the signal for uprising was the declared end of russian support for the local communist governments - only when the people knew the russians wouldn't crush them as they did in Berlin, Budapest and Prague they dared to resist - and only very few people got killed. How do you explain that? Lack of guns? Or just the end of fear?

(b) militant uprising - maybe even assassination of the dictator. The latter option usually replaces one dictator with another one, and it is a risky business too - assassins usually die during their deed or right after. More successful revolutions usually have had help from outside, living and operating in a dictators country bears some ... risks - therefor the unfortunate and destabilizing tendency of civil wars to cross borders since the weaker side also needs to have a safeheaven somewhere (sidenote: the other destabilizing factor are the refugees). How many countries do you know who got rid of a dictator in a civil war without support from the outside? Look what happened to the Iraqis who started to fight Saddam before the US stopped supporting them. They were obviously not victorious. How can that be? I mean, didn't they have guns?
Look at South Africa - the ANC had led a long, successless and bloody guerrilla war with the South African government - and who won the war? A man in prison, with massive international support.

You seem to have a revolution-clichè problem Shralp, barricades, bruning tires, tear gas and stuff ... and guns.
Beeing alone (and considering the popularity of denounciation in dictatorships you usually are) inside a dictators country usually means that you have lost already, sad but true. Help from outside is essential and way more important than guns. You're knitting the connection between guns and freedom a little loose, Shralp.

[ October 18, 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Your past two posts were excellent Ragusa, my complements!

So tell me, Ragusa - which of the examples you cite include the characteristic of an actual armed population?

I'm not talking about guerilla warfare where a small resistance (or ray-zis-taunce, as the frogs might put it), but widespread firearm ownership?

I don't think Shralp made a great point, but I think there's a point to be made - only an armed population can effectively resist the rise of a dictator, and only an unarmed population can be subdued by such a power - certainly easily.

I just can't believe you could be so obtuse to NOT acknowledge that an armed citizenry is an obstacle to tyranny. We can talk about other consequences of that, and other benefits, too. (see my earlier posts..one in head, two in chest)

And sure, it would be easy to sit back and whine about needing international support to deal with internal issues...but then again, I suppose that's Europe's modus operandi.

(oh, one more point)

Ragusa - still want to use Zimbabwe as an example? The farmers there were armed - until their guns were taken away piecemeal and wholesale.
-----------------------------------

Senior Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) officers have clandestinely released firearms from the police armoury to independence war veterans…to unleash violence and terror on white-owned commercial farms and against members of the opposition."

On April 18, 2000, the London Telegraph reported that "Zimbabwe's white farmers came under renewed pressure yesterday as squads of up to 20 police searched at least 200 properties for illegal weapons…. Chen Chimutengwende, the Information Minister, confirmed that police had orders to scour all 4,000 white-owned farms for unlicensed firearms [and] ammunition."

House-to-house searches by government agents with lists — as were carried out by Adolf Hitler's thugs — is a common pre-genocidal tactic. Said one farmer about such an incident on a nearby farm, "Every single square inch of the farmhouse was searched. They even looked under the knickers." The story noted that "the police retreated looking 'disappointed' after failing to find any illegal weapons."

[ October 17, 2002, 17:00: Message edited by: Ritwngr ]

You can be well armed but that doesn't help you much when you live in fear and when you can't really trust anyone due to common denounciation. Sure, arms may be an obstacle but an obstacle that can be dealt with, for example by intimidation. Guess why our dear Saddam used gas on the rebellish (yes, armed) kurds in northern iraq?

Edit: And guess why Mugabe ordered the widespread searches? - to find a reason to increase pressure on the farmers. He could have just as well have created a law that forbids whites to have life stock/ cars/ cigarettes and to repeat the trick. The guns are just an excuse to harass the farmers. You still don't get it.

Edit #2: There is a reason why dictators tend to be so keen on justifying their measures to opress people. Of course, Mobutu could just go to the farmers and let his mob collect the weapons. However, he decides to make a law about it. That takes care that pressure from outside of the country can be rejected with the argument that everything is strictly legal. Why these efforts? The population in the country knows what's going on, so this can hardly fool them. Maybe because of fearing pressure from outside?
Of course, positive side-effect for Mobutu is that he now can throw whites in jail for a reason, maybe take their farms away, when they haven't delivered their guns - strictly legal - eventually they haven't obeyed to the law! Watch closely - in Mobutu you can indeed see a Hitler at work. And yes, you don't get it, the first step for a dictator is to occupy and eventually to pervert law.

Edit #3:The zimbabwian law about gun confiscation is just an excuse to illegalize the opponents, in this case the white farmers. Considering the lists mentioned in your article I don't think that the Zimbabwe police has been searching the homes of black citizens too. That is a subtle but important difference.
The guns are exchangeable, for example with drugs or ... fake money: Then every house search of a white farmer would include the accusation that he has drugs and fake money. Or how about a fictious law about a white farmer loosing his zimbabwian nationality for rape, murder and theft? This is just as perfidious: Because white farmers do these things Mobutu *had* to make a special law to counter them ... get it now? In Zimbabwe gun confiscation is about discrimination, not about guns.

Edit #4: Ritwngr, one last thing - disarmament is not the conditio sine qua non for genocide. History shows that it can be done and that it has been done to well armed peoples in various ways: Food denial, water denial (yes, you cannot eat and drink guns), or by gassing them as saddam did (and you cannot breathe guns too) - the methods are unlimited. Having a gun is pretty worth- and pointless sometimes.

[ October 18, 2002, 13:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

My God, man... I don't get it?

The reason the searches were done was to TAKE AWAY THE GUNS. Why? Because the dictator had, at the same time, ARMED his thugs and henchmen - specifically to terrorize the farmers.

In the 20th century, every government that has perpetrated genocide has disarmed its victims first. This suggests that — although disarmament does not cause genocide — disarmament is the sine qua non of genocide.

Edit: But we digress. You can keep your views, misguided as they may be. And we'll keep ours, locked and loaded. And when you need our help - we'll be there. (man, i've got to get me one of the "Send a gun to save a British home posters")Again. And Again. And Again.

[ October 17, 2002, 17:09: Message edited by: Ritwngr ]

The UK is perfectly capable of defending itself against against any aggressor, yes even the US. It all involves nukes these days...

No, Herr Ragusa, you are zee one missing zee point.

You keep sayink "fear zis, fear zat," but you are missink vat zese people fear. Zey fear superior firepower.

No one said that "if you are armed you will win." But if you are not armed you definitely lose.

You realize that Mandela was the leader of the ANC, right? Your argument contradicts itself.

So there are two ways to fight a dictator: peaceful, which you admit rarely works, and militant.

Nice try at the psychoanalysis there, studmonkey. Except that I didn't say anything about barricades, burning tires, tear gas, etc. in war. I only asked you what you thought. You made the rest up yourself. Lovely debate tactic in that it attempts to put me on the defensive, but really it's intellectually dishonest to ascribe views to me that I haven't stated.

Isolated in jail Mandela had little influence on the militant arm of the ANC - leader or not. And actually he has always promoted peaceful resistance. I thought I made clear that militant works not as good as peaceful resistance, you must have misunderstood me Shralp.

Besides, my apologies for the revolution clichè, I was mocking ... I thought you'll get that too :) You have noticed you don't bring up many arguments, don't you? On the other hand, just claiming I'm wrong is admittedly way easier ...

[ October 17, 2002, 17:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

So Shralp and rightwinger, do you so fear your own goverment that you think you need to arm yourselves against them? Your whole line of reasoning suggest that you fear that your beloved president and his goverment whom you youself elected will start to suppress you more than you can take. Where is that line? Ashcrofts implemention of citizen spying ala KGB? Or does it need to be harsher?

I also want to ask why noone replied to my thought that it perhaps is something disturbingly wrong when a nations citizens feel the need to have a magnun 44 in their bedroom to feel safe? Isnt that the big problem?

With all due respect (seriously) to Shralp and Ritwngr - Ragusa is making some decent points, even if you don't agree, don't resort to insulting him. If you're mature enough to properly handle guns, I'd think you could handle a debate about them.

BTA, you don't think it would be easier to kill someone by pointing and pulling a trigger, rather than bludgeoning or stabbing someone to death, without losing your nerve? I disagree.

Besides, by the logic of, "They're just as dead", why not legalize flamethrowers? When you immolate someone they're "just as dead" and heck, if they didn't have that flamethrower, well they'd just do the crime anyway with a knife, right?

Edit for BTA's follow up: Yeah, I missed that in the chaos, my mistake. However his point wasn't that hitting someone with a bat was less murderous, more to the point of, there are other ways to defend yourself, like (heh) with a baseball bat... which I'm not sure I entirely agree with - I don't play baseball, but I have a hockey stick! Ok, nevermind, consider the point dropped.

[ October 17, 2002, 18:07: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

ArtEChoke - I was responding to the statement: "Bash them on the head with a baseball bat if you really want to do something." To me, it makes no difference what weapon you use if you're willing to use it to kill, and just about anything can be used thus if the will is there.

[ October 17, 2002, 17:54: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Jaoquin,

Is it a bad thing to feel that need? I'm not sure - I tend to think it's a realistic acknowledgement.

I've not owned a gun for very long, a little over a year. I've always appreciated that I've had a right to own one, however.

Violent crime happens everywhere - even in beloved socialist "utopias" like Sweden. I very much enjoy (or appreciate, there's really no glee in it) that I don't have to rely on the government to protect me 100%.

No matter how glib I may sound, I've never taken the notion of defending myself lightly. This isn't counterstrike or half-life or any other trivial game. The very idea of killing another human being is a terrifyingly grave act. I can't even imagine what the personal consequences might be if it ever happened.

But then I think of the family I have and the family of my own I hope to have - and I realize that whatever grief or attack of conscience I might experience afterwards will pale in comparison to the idea that if I didn't defend them, I'd live with that as well.

There are bad people and good people. Firearms in the hands of good people provide a needed counterbalance to the weapons in the hands of thugs.

In most countries the armed force of the police is enough to provide this counterballance. Just a thought, could it be that there are ... maybe too many weapons around already? Or is it just that the US police is so utterly incompetent the citizens just need to be armed? :)

Wow, here I am actually taking the right wing perspective here... (Icky)

They never said they, or we, need to be armed. They're arguing that we need the freedom to be armed. Its a matter of choice.

I honestly can't speak with any expertise on the effectiveness of our police, or of how many weapons are already circulating, legally or illegally, in our country.

I'm sure Shralp and ritwngr will have something to say about that though ;)

Sure I could, but I don't know that mounds of data or statistics really turn the tide in this case.

But a few snippets:
---------
Switzerland vs. Japan.

Similar (low) crime rates.

One bans guns, one requires citizens to own fully automatic, military weaponry.
---------
In just about every country I can find data for, crime rates went UP after stringent gun-control measures were enacted. (England and Australia jump to the forefront)
---------
If you eliminate the high-crime inner cities of the US (where crime is committed by ILLEGAL guns, not legally owned weapons in private hands), the US violent crime rate is lower than Germany. Not a specific statistic, just interesting.
---------
In 60 years of issuing Concealed Carry Permits here in this country, there has not been ONE single, solitary case of a permit holder using a firearm in any conflict with a law enforcement officer. However, over the same period, there have been more than 1100 instances where the same population of permit-holders have actually used their firearm to ASSIST law enforcement.
---------
Hey, I'm all for throwing wackos in the klink if they use guns to commit crime. Prosecute aggressively, like our Project Exile which began in Richmond where I went to college. Caught with an illegal gun in the commission of a crime (even if you don't use it thusly)? 5 years in federal prison. In three years, the murder rate in Richmond dropped 65%. It's a different city.

Just don't rob me of the right to defend my life and property.

Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but one of the issues for gun control that people face is their own survival. What I mean is that the basic human instinct for self-preservation is in all of us to some degree or other.
Here's my thought: maybe some people feel that their self-preservation is being threatened by people who would say "let's control firearms in the United States." I know it's a bit off topic (I think) but it's just a thought.
What do you guys think? is this perhaps relevant in this debate?

Ragusa
I never intented to make you or any German citizen defend themselves for the actions of the Nazis.That would not be fair.Germany has come a long way since World War II (who would have thought the wall would come down in our lifetimes).
Contrary to your belief I do think an armed population can deter dictatorship.I am a peaceful person and woul not want to see armed conflict in any country.However it happens almost everyday.
You have valid points for your beleifs and I think I do as well.Trying to insult my intelligence because we do not see eye to eye on this subject is pretty sad though.
You seem well informed on world events and should know I am as well.Even if we dont agree it is no reason to hurl insults at each other thats just foolish.
The reason for my Nazi referance was just to show an extreme case of gun control and how it may affect a country.In no way was it inteded to put you on the defensive for crimes you and most of the german population had nothing to with.

Hey, my British friends...

enjoy.

http://www.nraila.org/images/Sendagun.GIF

I'd just like to reply on something Ritwingr said about the guns beeing used in a crime beeing illegal guns.

If you checked I think you would find that many of those guns started out as legal guns, but got stolen, sold or whatever an ended up illegal guns...

I mean it's just Murpy's Law: The more you have, the more you spend.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that the more guns there are, the more crimes involving guns there will be.

Hmmm. I completely missed any salient points Ragusa made that were not answered by my pointing out that the fear and intimidation he mentioned were caused by the ability to bring superior force to bear.

At any rate, yes, I think we need to preserve the right to be armed against government, including ours. No, I don't think it's necessary right now (or I would own a gun). Our government isn't that corrupt... at least not everywhere in the nation. But will it be a free nation in 100 years? I don't know. And I don't want to be responsible for disarming the population that might need to defend itself in my grandchildren's generation.

And regardless of the effectiveness of a police force, it cannot be everywhere at all times. Nor do I want a police force that is.

Just remember: Guns don't kill people...People kill people! :grin: :spin: :roll: :p :rolleyes:

A few questions Shralp:
Hmmm. I completely missed any salient points Ragusa made that were not answered by my pointing out that the fear and intimidation he mentioned were caused by the ability to bring superior force to bear.Interesting statement, yet no argument or proof. Could you perhaps find a historical example where your concept of deterrence worked and try to elaborate to find points to underline that thesis? At any rate, yes, I think we need to preserve the right to be armed against government, including ours. No, I don't think it's necessary right now (or I would own a gun). Our government isn't that corrupt... at least not everywhere in the nation. But will it be a free nation in 100 years? I don't know. And I don't want to be responsible for disarming the population that might need to defend itself in my grandchildren's generation.Since you cannot know the future you can try to justify about anything with that argument. Like shooting the president, sure he isn't mad now, but who knows - maybe tomorrow ... better safe than sorry ... :rolleyes: Don't you have something more convincing to offer? And regardless of the effectiveness of a police force, it cannot be everywhere at all times.Definitely. However, even though I don't share your point of view I understand the desire to be able to defend yourself. However, that still leaves open the questions which weapons you need for that purpose, more clearly: Doesn't this usually include short-range weapons like pistols and shotguns - ruling out the ever popular semi-automatic rifles? Since they are just as useless for hunting (there is a reason why the military uses bolt actions for sniping) - is there a need to own such weapons? Do you think a restriction to certain weapon types for civvies would make sense?

[ October 18, 2002, 18:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Hey, my British friends...

enjoy.

http://www.nraila.org/images/Sendagun.GIF You must remember one thing. We are not like you. We don't have maniacs running around with guns, forcing themselves into people's homes... :cool: :rolleyes:

We don't NEED to own guns. You apparently do. What does that say to you?... :toofar:

Actually, the UK violent crime rate is higher than that in the US. I provided an article to that effect some time ago in Whatnots.

Ragusa asked for an example of deterrence. How about Switzerland, which up until recently required everyone to have an automatic weapon in their homes? As a result of that and its other defensive advantages, it managed to remain neutral and uninvaded through several wars.

Your parallel with shooting the president is ridiculous. I'm talking about preserving a right that may prove vitally necessary in the future. You're talking about murder.

In Switzerland there was mainly and especially the factor of a very small, restricted area to defend and a very favourable terrain for defence. However, you are referring to agression from outside. Weren't we talking about guns deterring dictators *inside* the country from commiting cruelties against their own population? I don't know any recent cases of swiss dictators even beeing in existence to be deterred by their citizen's firepower. Try again.

And as for the uncertain futures: I'm just using your own argument as a justification. Consequently - as weak as it actually is. You can use that argument to force hispanics/ chinese/ marsians to leave the country - eventually they could commit a crime, who knows? You could also use it to allow them to stay in the country - perhaps one of them will make a revolutionary invention good for your country. Who knows?
As i said before, since you can justify *anything* with it, it needs some back-up arguments or it is kinda useless. Since you don't know the future, you cannot bring it up as an argument, eventually you don't know it. It is kinda hard to find a counterargument for something even you don't know. You need a little more to make a point.

[ October 18, 2002, 19:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Hmmmm.

Remember after we (the US) started pulling troops out of Iraq? Remember when we were yanking our guys out of Somolia? Remember on CNN, right after we took a couple of planes to New York (almost like taking a brick to the head, but a little different)?

I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I saw "Baghdad, IRAQ" in the lower portion of the screen, and heard/saw an AK-47 going off whilist the selector was in the semi-auto mode. The guy was smiling, and there was some kind of Arabic prattle going on in the background.

What's the crime rate like in Iraq? Saudia Arabia? Iran, Syria?

Is the average Schmoe allowed to own weapons there?

Z you are wrong.

I'll give an example by comparison:
In Providence, R.I., where I live, I read an article about a group of 'alleged' gang members, getting pulled over after acting suspicious at a traffic light. The officer then searched the vehicle and found a bag of hands, in the car. It was discovered to be part of some gang vs. gang violence, right of passage, etc.

Pretty sick right?

I read another article, about a couple of guys that were pulled over in London, for using hand turn signals at corners. The thing is, it wasn't the drivers hand. The psyco was using a severed arm, in public, for his turn signals.

So the two countries aren't that different after all, I guess.

Edited to add a link to the English case:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_148366.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

[ October 18, 2002, 22:25: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

Rags, here's the difference:

You're talking about committing a crime NOW in order to prevent some evil in the future.

What I'm talking about is not committing a crime, harming someone else, or anything immoral, unjust, or evil. It's preserving a right.

By your argument, no one should ever plan for the future.

If you want an example of an armed uprising getting rid of a dictator, how about Ceaucescu? America's case is applicable as well. Pretty much revolutions of independence everywhere, ya know?

Yes, but this is just gang warfare. Like Shralp, you are comparing figures, without actually seeing it for yourself. I have never ever even seen a crime in progress before.All of this violence happens in the rough areas of our big cities (Like London and Liverpool). Only a select few police units ever carry guns. All the gun crime in concentrated into areas people with any money avoid.

Given the president would go mad, tomorrow, then it probably would be justified, and not a crime but ... tyrant killing ... :hmm:

Well, the president is mad but thats another issue entirly.

The question is, why do people need guns that can rip things to shreds in seconds. won't a .22 or a handgun be sufficient?

[ October 19, 2002, 13:20: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

"The question is, why do people need guns that can rip things to shreds in seconds. won't a .22 or a handgun be sufficient?"

This really, really depends on your target. If you're hunting skunks in the backyard so they don't fight with your cats, or owls in the trees so they don't swoop down and eat your cats, then yes; a small caliber firearm is all that is needed.

Let's take this to the exact opposite extreme. Let's say a "criminal" has broken into your house. He is currently dual wielding Smith&Wesson .45cal handguns. Let's say it's in Britian, so that the automatic label of "criminal" is already defined. Now, the .45cal doesn't have a whole lot of penetration power unless you're using steel rounds, long slides, and cordite. But for non-body armour wearing individuals, you don't need high penetration, you just need a lot of kinetic energy transferred, which is exactly what the .45cal is designed for.

Now, you shoot him with a .22. Center of mass, in the heart. Get this; he does not die instanteously. All of the cells in your body (excluding a few organs like the kidneys and bone marrow) have a 2-second buffer of ATP. That is, they have enough intra-cellular ATP to allow operations to continue for 2 seconds if the supply is cutoff; which is what happens when your blood stops pumping. There is, barring shock, mind you, up to and including 10seconds where that target still maintains enough reserve energy to pull the trigger of those .45cal weapons. This is due to intra-cellular ATP, the small amount of blood that is around the tissue, and the ability to go anerobic.

So, when you are "defending" your life, you want that target incapacitated instantaneously. You do not want that target to have any futher ability to harm you, or those your are "defending". This can very easily include a "knockout". But since we are using the extreme, death is the most relavent state.

You want that target dead, by any means available, as quickly as possible.

Or you die. And natural selection takes it's logical course of action, and weeds your weak strain out so that the strong rule the world.

Z - Do you really believe it's different? You think that in the US violent crime is rampant everywhere on the streets?

I live in a part of the city of LA, and even I have never been witness to a crime in progess. Does that mean LA is crime free? Far from it. It just means I live where crime is not common and/or have been lucky.

BTA, of course not, I never said that. I know it'd be the poorer areas with most of the gun crime as well. Just by the TV shows that i've seen you get guys screaming down Highways shooting out of the window. That'd never happen here... And of course this'd be rare in America, but it does happen.

Z, I lived in the city of Pittsburgh for 7 years, and I was never robbed, mugged, shot, or anything like that. There was a place up the street that got robbed a few times, and a shooting at the video store, but I never felt like I was in danger walking out of my front door. Not to say there are no crimes committed here, but it's hardly the one step from chaos in the streets that you're describing.

BTW, a woman shot a rapist in the East end last week. The guy was a serial rapist, accused of raping 8 or 9 women, and threatened this woman while she was out jogging. She went back and got her gun, then continued her jog. She ran into the same guy again, and he pulled a rifle and was threatening her with it. So she pulled her gun out and shot him. She was licensed to carry a gun.

So, if there are criminals that have guns, it will be necessary for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from them.

The real problem, IMO, is the number of criminals who own guns. Gun control is not going to help this problem. The police already confiscate illegally owned guns if they catch someone with one. There are already laws that require background checks when purchasing firearms. Many, if not most, people here who commit crimes with guns own them illegally.

Even if you passed a law right now making gun ownership illegal by anyone except the police and the millitary, it wouldn't solve a thing. There are far too many guns out there already.

Maybe, at some distant point in the past, strict gun control laws could have prevented so many guns from being in this country. But it is far too late for that at the present time.

Eh? Describing Chaos in the streets?... I never said that. I know America is a lovely place to live. Nicest place in the world in alot of areas. It's just you do get alot of gun crime on account of the amount of guns in the country.

I just want to sat that from a hunter in the " old west " of America that the only .50 ( the proper way to write it ) is black powder with wad and ball. Also we are not allowed automatic weapons. But thats okay for people who don't know.

Z, try to factor in the population difference between the UK and the US. You're comparing the amount of crime in the UK with a population of about 60,000,000 people to the US at approximately 285,000,000 people. Ofcourse there is a lot more gun crime in the US. There are a lot more people.

[ October 19, 2002, 23:29: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

AHHHHHH!!!! No i'm not!!! :wail: I'm going by monthly proportion. I'm not so stupid as to count the number of crimes in each country.

Monthly proportion? I don't understand what you mean by that. Elaborate please.

[ October 20, 2002, 02:29: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

Look at the number of violent crimes in each country in one month. Then scale them down based on the population till it's fair.

Ragusa,

Once again, I think you used the term "assault" weapon.

May I ask what, exactly, you think that means?

Please don't describe a weapons use - as that's not definitional.

Rag's in Germany, and I have no idea what their deal is over there. I think if it propels a projectile, it's an assault weapon; over there.

Over here, there's been several different "definations". I'm not sure which ones are federal now, and which ones are still state.

The original def. came directly from the Attorney General. He literally came out with a list of all weapons that carried the designation "assault weapon". This was all through the 80's.

There's another one now, and I think this one has actually been signed into federal law, that defines an "assault weapon" as having at least 3 of 5 different characteristics. At least semi-automatic fire, pistol grip, magazine capactiy over 14 rounds, and some others that I don't remember anymore. All full-auto capable weapons automatically qualify, period.

So, there actually has been laws passed that define an "assault weapon", in the US.

I use the term assault rifle in the same way as Ragusa does even though I am quite aware that the term isnt completely correct. But I have yet to find a good english word for what AK stands for as atleast in swedish AK is 'automat karbin' I could perhaps translate that to some english word like automatic carbine or something but as I have never heard it spoken or written I have never wanted to do so. My definition of an AK and thus assault rifle are weapons primarly used by the military and then by footsoldiers like the american M-16, the famous AK-47 Kalashnikov the swedish AK-5 and AK-4 those kind of weapons. I am not an expert on most of these firearms but I did use the AK-5 while I was in the army and I know the devastating power that humblelooking little rifle has. 5,56mm calibre and I dont remember the exact speed of the bullet as it leaves the barrel but it was just below what is allowed by international treaties so as to not make it a highpseed weapon which are illegal. The point is that the AK-5 is designed as a more or less perfect antipersonell weapon and is usable by any fool as it is extremely simple in its design but have an awesome firepower. You dont need to aim very much as long as you hit somewhere on the target he is dead, arms get torn off, huge holes in your legs which make you to bleed to death quite quickly and thats when you miss so to speak, if you hit in the chest or in the head the target is dead before he hits the ground. The bullets are designed to not take the straight way out of the body but to go in 'zic-zac' so they make the most damage. So when I say assault rifle and I think I can be presumptios to the say that Ragusa says the same so am I talking about weapons that are designed to kill their target in one hit and at the same time being very simple to use so any idiot soldier can pick one up and start killing with little or no training. That is not weapons I think should be out among the general populace. The difference between any handgun and a AK (assault rifle) is like the difference between a slingshot and a normal pistol. That was what I learnt when I was in the army I dont know about all them other 'assault rifles' as I didnt get any education of them but I cant imagine that they have much less firepower than the one I used.

In Germany we have the weapons-law. It prohibits - IMO for good reasons - to own:
firearms other than pistols/ revolvers shorter than 60cm (=2 feet; since they are easily concealed, folding weapons are prohibited as well),
bipods and tripods (since they are only useful for distances not useful for hunting),
silencers,
concealed weapons like a pencil gun,
night vision devices,
gun lights,
full automatic weapons such as submachine guns, mashine guns and automatic rifles with a magazine capacity higher than 3 rounds,
eventually there are thoughts to ban pump-action shotguns since their high rate of fire comes so close to an automatic weapon, probably there will be a magazine capacity limit of 4 rounds or so.
But that was just colorandi causa.
Assault weapon does not mean a weapon which can be used to assault someone with but as a weapon close to an assault rifle (deriving form the grandmother of all assault rifles, the german Sturmgewehr-44) as Joaqin rightly pointed out - like the M-16, the AK-47 or the G-3 or AUG, and it should IMO include semi-automatic carbines like the popular Ruger since they can be too easily (yet, depending on state, illegally) converted to full auto - which seems rather popular since I have seen advertisements in US magazines for that. IMO no civvie needs a weapon like the ones I listed before. It must be a silly hunter to need a 40r-magazine capacity for hunting ... anything, if he does he's inconsequent: why not hunting with a claymore mine (highly efficient for home defense as well ...) ?
.
PS: There is absolutely no problem with the government restricting gun ownership on certain weapon types suitable only for hunting, sports and self defense - eventually these are the only fields where civvies are allowed to use them.
If someone thinks that firing a minigun or a .50 cal rifle is the espression of his constitutional freedom to own guns he's wrong. Maybe it's silly for him if he has to give away his favourite toy, but that's not even `disarmamament´ since he would be allowed to keep is venerable .45 colt and his hunting rifles. He would still be able to defend himself, to sport and to hunt, just a little different, with common sense. So what?
There can't really be a doubt about the right of the government to restrict the gun ownership to certain types of firearms. That would even be conform with the 2nd amendment (how obsolete that however may be :rolleyes:

[ October 22, 2002, 22:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ah, Rag - thanks for the post. So many things to respond to.

Tell me, how many crimes have been committed with a .50 caliber rifle in private hands?

I ask because with so many that oppose the private ownership of a broad range of firearms, you seem to do so because you think it's "silly" or because of how it makes you feel, or your opinion. So...with the specter of stupid legislation passed to make people "feel good" in the background (something I hope you and I can agree is a waste of time and money), why not focus on the data?

BTW, you're fundamentally missing a major point in analyzing crime. Interested in a fully automatic H&K MP5? Try $15,000. If you can afford that, you think you're doing petty robbery? A .50 cal? Way too expensive and rare for someone to use it to knock over a liquor store.

And finally - "bipods and tripods (since they are only useful for distances not useful for hunting),"

Forgive me from being dumbfounded and the absurdity of this statement, since I suppose Germans wait for the deer to fall asleep and then beat it to death with the butt of an (obviously) unloaded rifle.

I'm kinda a bit confused over that post.

So, if I'm guessing right, you guys can have rifles?

Like say, a 30-06 or 30-30, semi-automatic, with a 6 or 8 round clip?

That's cool. I could deal with that.

Personally, rather than ban any kind of firearm, I'd rather start enforcing the "Well Regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment. It'd be some work, but then you could have the militia take care of their own, so it wouldn't be a problem in the end...

Rightwinger, you're a beancounter, and a dimwit too - is there a difference between a costly MP-5 and cheap Mac-10 (or any other SMG)? All SMGs offer way too much firepower for a civvy to hold. 300-800rpm are a little bit too much for home defence, the SMGs accuracy is unsuited for sporting unless you like your target to look like a pollock paining and as for hunting - if you like minced meat (if you hit your target at all beyond 50 metres ...) ... Tell me rightwinger, for what purpose does a civilian *need* a submashine gun?

No crimes commited with a .50 cal? Who cares. Would you give a 155mm howizer even to a well reputed, law abiding citizen? How about a 40mm Bofors? Or a bazooka? Or a handgrenade? Where is the problem - look in the crime statistics - no crimes with 155mm howizers, handgrenades and bazookas ... :) :rolleyes: How do you read a statistic? That there are no crimes with .50 cal rifles does not mean that there is a point in giving it to a civilian, much less a right of the civilian to own it.
You have to understand that somewhere you have to draw a line: The formidable performance of a .50 cal round (the munition basically is armour piercing) is, that much at least, definitely too much punch in the hands of a civilian, how law abiding he however may be. That's a pretty good reason and a strong argument IMO.

There is a big difference between the (and please, that's generously understood) needs of the population for sports, hunting and self-defence and the private ownerships of weapons made for the military. No reason to allow a civilian to own a such a weapon. There are weapons in civvies hands in the US no sane person needs - for the three fields I pointed out: Sports, hunting and self-defence. And everything that's larger or has a higher firepower is just that: Too much.

As for hunting and bipods: Hunting is generally meant to kill the animal at first shot - to minimize the suffering for the poor beast. That means hitting the neck or the heart with first shot. A hunter with a good rifle, even more with scopes, should be able to do that on a distance of up to 400 metres. On larger distances you's need a bipod or tripod to stabilize your gun to be able to get a safe, precise shot ... with the accuracy of your gun dropping and the chance of a good hit decreasing. Sure, a tripod and a bipod would help to increase accuracy, but they would also enable every hunter to be a longer range sniper - and that was not wanted - for reasons you can actually watch in Washington .... and eventually there is the romantic thought of hunting as an art and that the game needs a chance, otherwise it would be like hunting tigers in the zoo ...

[ October 22, 2002, 10:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa,

I can thank my lucky stars that you're not involved in formulating public policy. Again, it's emotional driven speculation that you seem to place much stock in.

Why aren't there crimes with howitzers? Umm..perhaps cause no one has them.

But we do have .50 caliber rifles, and a lot of 'em. Matter of fact, the vast majority of muzzle-loading rifles are .50 caliber - and I'll be damned if you can produce a rampant muzzleloading crime spree.

I'm also glad you don't seem to know much about firearms. Rates of fire are nearly meaningless - even counterproductive in many cases when it comes to the destructive force of a weapon. Considering that you're not going to see anyone with 4000-5000 rounds to fire at a given time unless they go through about 3-400 clips, not sure how that's relevant.

The crux is this: "And everything that's larger or has a higher firepower is just that: Too much."

Too much for what? Your sensibilities? Perhaps. I tend to value the fact that we trust our law-abiding citizens who, by definition, abide the law. They are able to enjoy the pastime/hobby/whatever you call it of shooting, whether for leisure/competition/actual defense with a wide variety of weapons. While I don't own a rifle semi-automatic or otherwise, it's very fun and very challenging to become proficient with it.

As for those who would misuse it? Attach and deliver penalties that severely outweigh the usefulness of such weapons. It's worked in Richmond, VA as I mentioned before that no one responded to.

I was clearly referring to the calibre .50 BMG (aka 12,7 x 99 NATO), and I think I made that pretty clear. Besides, I've had opportunity to shoot the weapons I'm talking about in the army and I am very well aware of the effects of their use. I'm a pretty good shooter and I actually enjoyed shooting. However, despite all the fun I had with it (except for cleaning) I cannot see a reason why I should have an assault rifle in my home.

Guns are deadly weapons, meant to kill people. Military weapons such as SMGs, assault rifles and mashineguns are even more efficient for that purpose. You fail to recognize the difference between the firepower *needed* for sports, hunting or home defence and the firepower full automatic weapons offer - more, since you instead believe in an inherent right to own whatever-you-like I can't see a real point in explaining it to you again and again. You're perception of gun ownership and the types is emotional and clearly not based on rational considerations. Besides, you're aware you haven't answered any of the questions I threw up in this thread, spitting out nonsense instead? :)

You still haven't told me why a civilian, how law abiding however, needs a full automatic firearm, any full automatic weapon. That's a completely non-technical question. I only ask for some common sense for a change. That btw has nothing to do with how law abiding he is or what the crime statistics say. So why does a civilian need such an amount of firepower?

[ October 22, 2002, 23:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I've not advocated the right of civilians to own fully automatic weapons. In fact, it's not possible here. (ok, it's possible - but very, very rare)

I just believe in that inherent right, and if you plan on infringing on it - you better have a damn good reason to do so, and evidence to back it up.

That is no reply.

Heh. This is an impasse I've discovered before with Euro v. American debates. A good number of citizens of European countries want to know why someone should be allowed to do something.

Americans instead assume that they are free to do as they choose and that government has to have a reason for restricting them.

In my opinion, the American version is far superior. I never understand why people whose governments (e.g., Germany) have in the past terrorized the people tend to trust their governments while people in America, where we've never had anything approaching a Stalin, Hitler, Franco, etc., don't trust the government to do squat.

Up until Shralps last post I didn't see anyone here really begin to talk about the nature of a right. Shralp hinted at it.

So, lets take this off on a bit of a philosophical bent. The U.S. was founded with the philosophy of John Locke as a guide. (Jefferson wrote and conversed with Locke, Locke wrote all men had the right to life, liberty, and property while Locke changed it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness etc.)

Locke and the U.S. was born out of a libertarian ideal. That's not libertarian in the modern sense, but libertarian in a classical sense.

Distilled to its essence, the libertarian/American way of thinking about things began as : "I should be able to do whatever I like so long as I don't do direct harm to another." The idea behind this is all men are equal, and your judgment of what I may or may not do is no better than mine, and since I'm an autonomous being I should be allowed to do what I please as long as I don't cause direct harm to another. Since we're all equal you don't have a right to tell me what I'm doing is wrong if I'm not causing direct harm.

So, I have the right to own a gun. I don't have a right to shoot someone with it. I have a right to own and use heroin. I don't have the right to force it into someone else. etc.

It is crucial to differentiate between direct and indirect harm. Shooting heroin doesn't directly hurt anyone other than myself. Now, my family may be saddened etc but that is indirect harm. I may neglect my family if I'm high, not providing for the welfare of an infant, but that isn't the direct result of shooting heroin. In other words, it is not a necessary consequence of shooting heroin that someone else be harmed.

Likewise, it is not a necessary consequence of owning a gun that someone else be harmed.

Therefore, I have the right to posess heroin and own a gun. I don't have the right to harm others.

So far, the argument has been utilitarian based. People have been saying, "why do you need a gun?"

In order to convince Americans they don't have the right to own a gun, you'll need to come up with an argument for why they don't have that right, not tell them other people with guns hurt people. That doesn't address the question.

I can think of some ways to do that, but I've gone on long enough.

Oh, I do admit to using the heroin/gun analogy on purpose.

You can't force heroin to someone without his permission (I mean that he must be willing to do it). On the other hand you don't need somebody's permission in order to shoot him.

Sure you can, strap em down and shoot em up.

Uhhhhh.

Man.

I'm speechless after that analogy. Maybe I just need a couple of extra beers.

Anyway, the issue has never been weapons of the nature you're talking about. We cannot buy them; no one will even sell those.

The issue boils down to the limited few that we can buy. And that only with a Class3 permit. Basically (for those of you who have never looked into it), the actual cost of getting the permit is literally $10,000. There's a $2000 fee for the actual permit. The background check through the SBI and FBI runs right at $8000.

The level of background check you go through is akin to a "Secret" clearance. They don't "interview" anyone else, but they pull up records and pictures you never knew existed, and ask about them. Then there's a waiting period, and they check everything else. Credit card balances, late payments to your electric company, misdialed phone numbers on your house phone, grades in school, domestic reports in your home town. The whole works. They will deny you a permit if the crime in your area is too high.

Now, that's legally. Of course, there's the illegal version of everything, but then that's no different from Germany or Britian.

Americans instead assume that they are free to do as they choose and that government has to have a reason for restricting them.Shralp, do you read my posts???!

After pointing out a number of good reasons why civilians should not to own full autos I asked for a single good and rational reason why to allow to have them. Since rightwinger failed so badly to do so - maybe anyone of you finds a good and convincing argument able to outweigh mine to have a rational basis. And Shralp, that btw actually is the "US" method you pointed out.
But sofar nothing has changed and I still wait for a reply.

[ October 23, 2002, 10:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The reason that good citisens shouldn't have a right to own super duper high powered weapons is so that they don't suddenly decide to stop been good citisens and decide to use them. After all, all criminals were 'good' citisens once, even if it was in early childhood...

Sorry, Rags. I just don't understand the grammar in your last paragraph.

As I recall (and I haven't been reading this thread for a bit) your only argument against things like .50 cal guns or automatic rifles is that we don't need them. That's the point my post above addressed. You want to know why we need them. I want to know why they should be outlawed. Saying "they should be outlawed because no one needs them" is no argument. But again, I had a hard time understanding your writing and may have missed a reason.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
http://www.kimdutoit.com/drarchive/DR200209/DR20020920.htm#Freed

[ October 23, 2002, 23:05: Message edited by: Shralp ]

I have always thought that the people who link violent video games with tragedies are idiots. I watched one of those anti-Doom things after colombine, and every single sequence from doom had shots of the player with a shotgun blowing away humans. No mention was made of

1. the fact that the humans were mindless zombies.

2. The fact that there are THREE enemies in all of Doomdom (so far) that are human. Personally, if Doom subliminally trained me to want to kill demons or brains with mechanical spider legs, that's a good thing.

3. The fact that there are other, non-rifle weapons in Doom. Harder weapons to come by. Like a Chain Gun. Or a rocket launcher. Or a plasma rif-wait, that's right! No such thing! No wonder those kids used shotguns! You can pick them up at toy stores in the US! Saw an American bank offer the other day. If you open an account, they GIVE you a pistol. stg.)

4. The fact that 99.999999999999999% of the people who play Doom didn't go out and kill. And that there are also large percentages of killers who don't play Doom.

Recently the whole thing gave a twitch of life when Grand Theft Auto III was released.

And now, just when Columbine finally died, the Sniper comes along and resurrects it, except with the poster child being Counterstrike. Sheesh.

Personally, I think everyone who says violent video games cause violent people should be taken out and shot. Okay, bad joke, bad timing. But still. Sheesh. They're wrong, is all I have to say.

Yeah well, with the graphics of doom its hard to know what your killing.

[ October 27, 2002, 07:28: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

Eh?

SoulSeekingYadaYadaYada, please tell me which American bank gives you a free pistol for signing up.

I imagine that the legal barriers would be completely insurmountable.

It's true - It was in Michigan, I think.

Besides, what's illegal about giving a weapon to someone? Presumably, the bank has enough information about you to proceed with the mandated background checks, etc.

I didn't say "illegal" now, did I?

It'd be kind of amusing if someone held up the bank with one of their own handguns.