68 replies to this topic

[Athena]

Hmm I don't know..
destroy all f*cking guns in the US ?
You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself when there's no one else walking around with one. Not behind every corner is a thief .
Here it is forbidden to own a gun. The criminality rates are about eight times as low as in the US. You don't need to be scared every time you walk on the street on a sunny afternoon, that there'll be ten people with guns standing behind every corner.

[Tom]

I use to be against guns but currently i'm for them. Why? Because i think shits gunna fly and they might be needed. We created guns, so they must be made from love right?

[Silent_Killa]

Destroy all the guns in the US... right... you wanna try to take away my gun or anyone elses around here? Not as easy as it sounds, and even harder to take away criminals guns as they're not registered in any way. I guarantee you that if the government tries to disarm it's citizens (especially with the current regime) I will fight it, and I mean that in a very literal sense.

Blaat, you have to understand that the United States and the Netherlands are two very, very different places. I mean, lets be serious, the netherlands has a population of what, 16 million? The US has 300 million, that's nearly 20x as many people. Added to the fact that the Netherlands, while not being an economical powerhouse like the US, has a very small lower class.

[duke_Qa]

eh, topics evolve around here, nothing much you can do about it

I still don't see an answer to my major points though...
a) Illegal guns are in existance, you cannot stop this, especially not in a country the size of America. How are law abiding citizens supposed to defend themselves against this?
b) Disarming the masses can, quite easily lead to totalitarianism, and is that something you really want in a world superpower?

mkay, lets just focus on the american gun philosophy until we're forced to start a new thread on it

A) illegal guns used to be legal. most illegal guns in america i presume are guns stolen from people who bought it for protection, but didnt hide it well enough when they got a thief dropping by.
Thus the more guns there are in America, the bigger the chance is that someone steals a gun, the bigger the chance there are illegal guns around, which brings the circle back to its start, where people buy guns for protection because there are alot of illegal guns around...


b) naturally you might expect something like that to happen, but its mostly propaganda from the NRA and other pro-gun people. i don't see alot of dictatorships in western europe, and i don't see alot of weapons around either. the places that has dictatorship usually has alot of guns though... the entire middle east is full of them, insurgents in russia and the likes. they all got guns, but it ain't exactly helping...

I guarantee you that if the government tries to disarm it's citizens (especially with the current regime) I will fight it, and I mean that in a very literal sense.

i wouldnt say anything about the current regime, you can't take a hundred year old tradition away in 3 years, perhaps not even in 10, but one should work for it.

[Silent_Killa]

A) illegal guns used to be legal. most illegal guns in america i presume are guns stolen from people who bought it for protection, but didnt hide it well enough when they got a thief dropping by.
Thus the more guns there are in America, the bigger the chance is that someone steals a gun, the bigger the chance there are illegal guns around, which brings the circle back to its start, where people buy guns for protection because there are alot of illegal guns around...

Not necessarily, a lot of those guns were never legal in the US... stealing one gun at a time from homes is just too slow. Dealing guns is a bussiness, and the demand is high, smuggling is just more logical.

b) naturally you might expect something like that to happen, but its mostly propaganda from the NRA and other pro-gun people. i don't see alot of dictatorships in western europe, and i don't see alot of weapons around either. the places that has dictatorship usually has alot of guns though... the entire middle east is full of them, insurgents in russia and the likes. they all got guns, but it ain't exactly helping...

You're being short sighted, go back 50 years. Europe is on a leash, dictatorship comes in, the US comes in, the Middle East on the other hand, we have no interest in beyond oil. Not to mention that the Middle Eastern people pretty much share the same views as their dictatorship... look at Iran, they're allowed to vote, and they still choose the same islamic fundamentalists.

[duke_Qa]

Not necessarily, a lot of those guns were never legal in the US... stealing one gun at a time from homes is just too slow. Dealing guns is a bussiness, and the demand is high, smuggling is just more logical.

naturally, because the amount of guns are so large that the demand for illegal guns has come to such a level. you buy a knife, the burglar buys a knife, you buy a pistol, burglar buys a pistol, you buy a mp5, burglar gets his hands on a AK. its like the immunity system fighting bacterias, there is always change to trick the enemy.
and the more guns the lawful people buy to protect themselves, the more guns the criminals will get their hands on to "protect" themselves. the only way to stop it is to make it alot harder for all to have guns imo. if you were able to get rid of like 50% ofall the guns in america over a certain period of time, i claim that firearm-related crimes also would be reduced with 50%. compared to most european countries thats still way over our statistics, but for you it would be a totally different world...

You're being short sighted, go back 50 years. Europe is on a leash, dictatorship comes in, the US comes in, the Middle East on the other hand, we have no interest in beyond oil. Not to mention that the Middle Eastern people pretty much share the same views as their dictatorship... look at Iran, they're allowed to vote, and they still choose the same islamic fundamentalists.

what happened in europe has little to do with your philosophy on guns i believe. most of germanys success came with its blitzkrieg tactics. air raids, tanks and rushing the enemy before he really could get up a second line of defense. are you using bombers and tanks to take out criminals in america?

naturally the war would have looked differently if USA didnt finally agree to come over and do something, but it wouldnt have helped at all if it wasnt for the russians who gave the germans a fight that they weren't up to.

The eastern front was by far the deadliest single front in World War II, with over 4 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet battle deaths were about 7 to 8 million, and civilian deaths were about 14 million.

if the russians didnt keep the germans busy through all those years, it seems highly unlikely to me that the american forces would have any chance at all to punch into europe and defeat the germans from the west. as a matter of fact, i can barely believe that the american forces would have been able to stop the germans from invading britain aswell.


anyway, i digress too easily. how did it help the americans to liberate europe that they can have a gun in their homes? you got guns from the army after what i know when you went over here. Garands, Bar's and Tommy's wasnt exactly something you had in your bedroom closet in those days either...

why people in Iran vote as they do? because there probably isnt any real opposition, so there is no problem having a little charade of a vote now and then. sounds familiar?

[Silent_Killa]

naturally, because the amount of guns are so large that the demand for illegal guns has come to such a level. you buy a knife, the burglar buys a knife, you buy a pistol, burglar buys a pistol, you buy a mp5, burglar gets his hands on a AK. its like the immunity system fighting bacterias, there is always change to trick the enemy.
and the more guns the lawful people buy to protect themselves, the more guns the criminals will get their hands on to "protect" themselves. the only way to stop it is to make it alot harder for all to have guns imo. if you were able to get rid of like 50% ofall the guns in america over a certain period of time, i claim that firearm-related crimes also would be reduced with 50%. compared to most european countries thats still way over our statistics, but for you it would be a totally different world...

Criminals aren't criminals because they decided to play fair. What you're talking about was very much the other way around, honestly, until recently cops didn't even have armour piercing rounds, up until a couple of psychopaths loaded themselves up with a bunch of kevlar, grabbed a couple of AK's (Not legal without a special permit in the US at the time, and somehow I doubt these were stolen) and started mowing people down. Before cops had pistols, and some didn't even have that, now they carry assault rifles because they didn't stand a chance against the uzis and ak-47's that were being smuggled in. In America, there will be guns so long as the criminal underworld exists.

what happened in europe has little to do with your philosophy on guns i believe. most of germanys success came with its blitzkrieg tactics. air raids, tanks and rushing the enemy before he really could get up a second line of defense. are you using bombers and tanks to take out criminals in america? tongue.gif

naturally the war would have looked differently if USA didnt finally agree to come over and do something, but it wouldnt have helped at all if it wasnt for the russians who gave the germans a fight that they weren't up to.

No no, I think you've misunderstood me, Hitler's first step to bring his own people into submission was to disarm the masses. Surely most saw Hitler as the savior of Germany in the beggining, but understand that he took one small step at a time, and by the time the German people (and the others forced under a Nazi flag) realized the atrocities that were occuring, there was nothing left they could do.

if the russians didnt keep the germans busy through all those years, it seems highly unlikely to me that the american forces would have any chance at all to punch into europe and defeat the germans from the west. as a matter of fact, i can barely believe that the american forces would have been able to stop the germans from invading britain aswell.


anyway, i digress too easily. how did it help the americans to liberate europe that they can have a gun in their homes? you got guns from the army after what i know when you went over here. Garands, Bar's and Tommy's wasnt exactly something you had in your bedroom closet in those days either...

Yes, we couldn't have won the war without the Soviets, and it's unlikely they could have done so without the US, but like I said, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say.

[duke_Qa]

yeah i concur on that. but weapons never really was something there was an abundance of in Germany i believe. and besides, hitler got himself voted into his position through promising work and a normal life for the people, because the depression had made things messy over there. they were blinded from the facts by the basic needs of having a job and making money, and basically get what you needed for life on a general scale.
its very hard for those 1-5% who actually would do any resistance against the government to do something destructive. they would just get hunted down by the military. it was better for them to use other tactics...

Criminals aren't criminals because they decided to play fair. What you're talking about was very much the other way around, honestly, until recently cops didn't even have armour piercing rounds, up until a couple of psychopaths loaded themselves up with a bunch of kevlar, grabbed a couple of AK's (Not legal without a special permit in the US at the time, and somehow I doubt these were stolen) and started mowing people down. Before cops had pistols, and some didn't even have that, now they carry assault rifles because they didn't stand a chance against the uzis and ak-47's that were being smuggled in. In America, there will be guns so long as the criminal underworld exists.

yes, but that doesnt mean that a general change of philosophy wouldnt reduce the amount of guns around. as i said earlier, AK's and other more hi-tech weapons are not used by your average criminal joe. those guys with the ak's werent exactly the kind of people that you would call normal criminals.
after what i remember of the stuff i've seen they had done something typic (robbing a bank most likely, don't remember what was the beginning, it could have been that they just wanted to die too if i am not mistaken). but then they had been cornered by the cops, and hell broke loose.

what i am saying is that there is a difference on a burglar who wants a pistol to "protect" himself if he meets a angry houseowner while visiting, and a bankrobber with kevlar and AK's. im pretty sure its the former which would be the cause of most deaths, because of the quantity.

[Silent_Killa]

Of course the average criminal doesn't carry an AK, most don't carry a weapon at all, most only hit houses when they're unoccupied. Honestly, why bother breaking into an occupied house when you could hit the one across the street who's owner is at work? There's a difference between crimes of oportunity, and planned crimes such as armed robberies.

You have to understand though, that running into a "hardened" criminal can get you killed whether or not he has a gun, these guys didn't grow up in the suburbs, they can take a punch, and dish it out as well, try and take them with a baseball bat, and they'll most likely take it away from you. The average working man usually gets past his days of fighting in high school, obviously, he could use a gun in the situation against a guy who could kill him with any blunt object around the house, or maybe even with his bare hands. Although our male ego likes to tell us we can take anyone who's unarmed, in real life it doesn't work that way.