Gun Rights

Señor He, there is nothing particularly difficult or magical about firearms training, either for safety (a few hours suffices – keep it locked up, don’t point it at the cat) or marksmanship (a few hours at a time, here and there, to reinforce the basics of grip and trigger control). A gun is perhaps the oldest point-and-click interface; wherever the muzzle is pointed, that’s what will get destroyed.

How much of that “nine months military training” in Denmark is directly related to guns? Most of it, I am sure, is marching, tactics, calisthenics, communications procedures, how to dig a latrine, following orders, KP. . . .

As for safe storage, many parts of the U.S. have those laws too. Whether they are actually followed is another question, as is whether the laws are written fairly. Most people store their firearms in gunsafes, though, whether their area requires it or not – nobody wants to find out they’ve been robbed and their guns are in the hands of criminals, at the very least.

A shotgun is a very inefficient instrument for killing people. On the other hand, a perfectly legal and licence-free crossbolt aimed at the head…

Gays and guns…

pinkpistols.com/

The pump shotgun has been the weapon of choice for close quarter combat for 100 years.

geocities.com/commande1/vnshotguns.html

mst2-vietnam.info/Stoner_ord … hotgun.htm

gunsaregood.com/jb.htm

[quote=“sandman”]

Like cars, they’re neither designed nor sold for killing people.[/quote]

So, then, you just enjoy fondling it?

I remember Michael Moore jumping over Charlton Heston for making a similar comment as regards the US in “Bowling for Columbine.”

For those interested in the stats… economist Oct 11-17th 2003, p 54. sweden 10 deaths per 100,000, ahead of Angola (just) and the US on about 6 deaths per 100,000.

Late (somewhat cheeky) addition to the post: if gun ownership has little to do with the overall murder rate, but may increase the gun-murder rate, then perhaps all the US is doing with gun rights is making murder more humane?

If you combine training with vigorous enforcement, you get a situation, where nearly no firearms make it to the criminals. Vigorous enforcement and more than just a few hours of training, and you get a situation, where free citizens can take their M-76 out of the closet and start firing away, when the enemy attacks (Not that we have other enemies than the Swedes, but it never hurts). That’s as 2 amendment as it gets.

Running around on the streets of NY with a piece? Not that I think that it will help much on the crime rate. I don’t think it will protect the free state either.

Malmo is a tough place. My best friend lived there. They had guards in their building. I have yet to see that anywhere in Denmark.

[quote=“Mr He”]
Running around on the streets of NY with a piece? Not that I think that it will help much on the crime rate. I don’t think it will protect the free state either.[/quote]

It would make NYC a much more polite city in which to live…most of the rude SOBs would be blown away the first week…wait a minute! That would take care of 90% of all New Yorkers!

Oh well, no great loss. :smiling_imp: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Never been a fan of having guns freely available and always thought gun control a mighty good idea. I stll do, but I’m a little surprised by what’s happening in Australia right now. They tightened up gun ownership rather heavily after a nutter did his nana down in Tasmania killing twenty something people. Despite this there’s been a rash of shootings in Sydney over the past few months that makes the likes of Capone’s Chicago look like a nice place for a boy scout jambouree

Odd.

HG

Guns are made for killing.
Some for people, some for animals, but they are still made for killing.

Cars are make for transportation.
Some are used as status symbols, toys, penis enhancers etc.

It is not the speed that kills, it is the sudden stops caused by hitting other objects.

I can’t argue with that. As always, the so-called devil is in the details. The question for me is “how much control” is sufficient.

But apparently, not so Sweden.

This looks like a screw-up by The Economist. A bit of googling and you soon find out that they copied down the numbers wrong.

Sweden’s murder rate appears to be 1.87 per 100,000 and that compares to 5.61 per 100,000 for the US.

[quote=“Alien”][quote=“sandman”]

Like cars, they’re neither designed nor sold for killing people.[/quote]

So, then, you just enjoy fondling it?[/quote]
The over & under 12-bore is for skeet, the side-by-side is for pheasant, grouse & inland wildfowling, the 8-bore is for coastal wildfowling, the .300 is for deerstalking and the suppressed .22 is for vermin control – lamping rabbits and such.
I’ve hardly ever pointed any of them at a person.

What do you recommend for the:

  1. Pine Martin
  2. Sloth
  3. Platypus
  4. Koala

and…

errr…

  1. Panda…?

First I said “next time” so I will let you get away with it, but my statement was about speeding, so the title of this thread does not related at all to what I said. You may quote me of course but next time open the thread under your name please and I would appreciate if you make it clear why you do so (when/if quoting me so that I don’t wrongly assume bad intentions by you. :wink: ).

That’s cool, too, but it wasn’t immediately obvious to me that you wanted to treat this as an entirely different topic (or if you still did relate it to the death penalty discussion).
I didn’t expect any response since it was a ‘factual statement’ (right word?), without giving a position or the intention to involve myself into the part of the discussion about speeding (I didn’t even acknowledge that speeding had it’s place in the discussion about capital punishment).

Quickly touching on the death penalty but considering the new arguments:
Relaxing the laws about speed limits does not result in a higher death rate, as such there is no ‘disadvantage’ (for the lack of a better word).
Having lax gun laws is already a ‘disadvantage’, in the US it could help to reduce accidental and intentional killings (the latter called murder).
So looking back at the other discussion a law about capital punishment (death penality) is made to allow people to be killed, a law which allows for higher speeds (e.g. no speed limit) is not made for this purpose and I guess neither is the 2nd amendment. As such it hardly relates, only by stretching and touching on consequences like e.g. missuse (then resulting in death) it does.

But it’s cool if we are clear that this is a topic on it’s own, so let’s continue below … :sunglasses:

Guns don’t kill - gunning does

Same thing, right?[/quote]
Disagree. The only similarity is the structure of two sentences.
(see below)

I have a problem to put this into the right words, so please bare with me:

“Speed” is merely a measure of distance vs. time, it’s not a man-made thing or something I can touch, hence speed itself is not something made for killing or that can be directly used for killing - you can’t take speed and hit someone over the head with it to kill him/her.
As well it’s not possible to seize the existence of speed, you may impose a speed limit but people can still choose to ignore/violate it and speed(‘ing’) - which is far easier to do than obtaining a gun for the purpose of gunning in a place with strict laws.
Furthermore the law which imposes ‘no speed limit’ does not automatically allow speeding, after all you can also speed even there is a speed limit of 25km/h only.
So ‘Speed limit’ does not look like a solution to the problem of speeding, but preventing people from getting a gun does look like a good idea or reducing gunning.

Cars (gotta bring it back here since they are the tool and thus compare better to guns than speed), are usually obtained for other purposes and can be used for speeding, but that’s mostly not the reason why people buy one. Guns on the other hand are mostly purchased for the purpose of gunning, hence no argument along the line of “so let’s limit the cars, then people can’t speed”).

Guns were invented for killing, nothing else, even though they are also used for other things; there are those exceptions, like sport shooting as mentioned by Sandman or e.g. self-defense by policemen, but I take it we are clear and relate the above arguments to the respective situations - and none of the exceptions would be affected by tougher gun laws.
In fact I have been a sport-shooter myself for years but in a country with strict laws, as strict that it’s very difficult to impossible to aquire and own a real gun *), there are even restrictions on .22 and air-rifle/pistols (as to storage, transport and use etc.) or sport-guns.
However it was still possible to conduct my hobby but with the side effect that possible missuse is restrained (right word?) when compared to e.g. the US with it’s lax laws, where people own guns not only for sport-shooting but for ‘so-called self-defense purposes’ and in excessive amounts. As well, judging by the reports about accidental killings (e.g. during weapons cleaning or because the weapon and amonition weren’t stored safely and someone not authorized, possibly kids, ‘finding’ and using them) I have reason to believe that there are either no clear regulations on the possession, storage and handling or people are not fully capable.

:!: Appreciate if anyone could clarify the issue of storage, i.e. are there any requirements and what are those in the US?

In comparision, if you manage to be allowed to own a handgun (the amount being limited) in Germany you have to follow clear guidelines on handling, storage and transportation (the latter not allowed in all cases) and you can be sure that the authorities will check and any violation has strict and tough consequences.
Buy a soft-air pistol here in Taiwan (available as a toy) and be prepared for a hefty fine or 6 month jail if you bring it into Germany.

In short I am saying that neither speed nor speeding intents to kill, but allowing people to have guns results in a higher risk and implies an intent of using it for the purpose of killing; ‘gunning’ takes it even further, i.e. the use of the gun (= gunning) against another person is mostly done with the intention to kill.

*) ‘Real gun’ like in big caliber & guns not for the purpose of sport shooting or collection

[quote]What do you recommend for the:

  1. Pine Martin
  2. Sloth
  3. Platypus
  4. Koala

and…

errr…

  1. Panda…?[/quote]
    Only had experience with the pine marten, for which I used a Nikon FM with a 200mm telephoto. A pair of them used to visit my bird table regularly. I believe trapping is normally the only way to get them as they’re usually secretive and nocturnal.
    Sloths I don’t know, or platypus. Koala’s can be knocked out of trees with a carefully aimed tinny of XXXX (about the only thing that stuff’s good for). Pandas you can easily confuse by talking to them in mixed-up pinyin variations. Then you simply throw a sack over them.

I have an issue with this, not that I take it too seriously however:

  1. “Causing” crime is another argument than using a certain tool for killing and limiting the availibility by law, so it might not directly relate to the discussion.
    (Unless of course Tigerman wants to throw a new ball into the game again. :wink: )

  2. Arson is a crime, true, but guns are used for comitting different crimes (robbing, murder etc.). Matches can hardly be used for something else than arson (in the context of crimes).

  3. Matches were not invented for arsoning (sp?) but guns were invented for killing.

Rascal, you devil!.. I’m flattered, but I must decline… :laughing: