guess who is selling those guns

[_Schadenfreude_]

As someone peering over the hedge, well pond anyway and having come from a VERY violent, crime ridden society - ie South Africa and now living in the UK I feel much safer in a country where gun ownership is strictly controlled to the extent it is mostly illegal.

Having said that if American's wish to arm themselves to the teeth against whatever threat they feel is out there, ie their own gov, next door neighbour or the blob from Mars then good luck to them - it doesn't have anything to do with me, doesn't effect me and I couldn't care less.

If I lived in the US then it would be different - since it would effect me I'd say ALL hand guns and ALL automatic weapons should be banned and made illegal, shotguns and bolt action rifles are fine, course the old founding father's wanted everyone to have single shot, black powder flintlocks - which if made mandatory today would be way cool! Those Kentucky rifles are awesome but difficult to hold up a bank ( concealment) attack co-workers or arrange a school massacre with. Drive by shootings would be tough and you'd actually need some training and skill to use it effectively.

[lazs2]

beetle... yes it is a lot like the freedom to own a microwave... or a.... TV set.... without restrictions that could land you in jail.  Oh, and beetle... the reason I felt safe in London wasn't the lack of firearms... I found it hard to be frightened by whitebread punkers with effeminate accents was all.   And... I wasn't a woman or a cripple and didn't have a purse to be snatched.  I was living in a Hotel where they (hopefully) don't have the "burglars rights laws"  if I lived in a house I would worry about the friggin london junkies that will break into the house day or night... I WOULD worry more about your wimpy government that would punish ME for shooting the dirtbag tho.

scholtz... yes that is better but... not good enough.   I think poor people and people who don't like organized sports should have some gun rights too.   I like to just go out to the country and plink away at stuff... I like to have a variety of handguns at my home and I like to reload ammo for them.   I can do this cheaply and without a lot of restrictions in the U.S.
lazs

[lazs2]

shade... no... the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the latest military weapons or... any weapon they wanted.  They specificaly said that the people were to be armed with modern weapons in good state of repair.  At the time that was flintlock black powder single shots.  Now it is semi and fully automatic weapons of all types.

In South Africa you needed weapons for the same reasons we do.  you had some racial conflict.  we have some porous borders and racial conflict.. In london the bobbies are wearing bulletproof vests and have fully automatic weapons in their trunk (boot).   Canada is having the same problems as the U.S.  withj third worlders taking over cities.   so long as england keeps out the third worlders they can live in their fantasy land... sorta like japan.
lazs

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by GScholz


... You do however need to have a reason to own these guns.

Gun control in Norway (unlike in the US) is not about prohibiting people from owning and enjoying the use of firearms, but to ensure that you are qualified to use the weapon safely, that you have a need for the weapon, and that the weapon is stored safely to prevent theft.

GS, old buddy!
How ya doin?

I can surely see the benefit of knowing how to use one safely, and how to store it safely.  I personally have known people shot with "unloaded" guns and I know of lots of people accidentally shot.

But what I have a problem with understanding is that if some other entity, government panel, or whatever, gets to decide if you "need" a gun, how is that freedom?  I guess that's the difference then.  In the U.S., we don't think we should have to explain to the government why we wahnt, let alone need, a gun.  Although I personally don't own any weapons, I have in the past enjoyed hunting, and target shoorting.  I got an Expert Pistol rating in the Navy first time on the course.  But, it is purely MY CHOICE as to whether or not I own a gun.  Nobody, and especially the government, gets to decide if my reasons for owning a gun are sufficient.  That's freedom.  Norway's system, no matter how you choose to benevolently describe it, is gun control, and is blatantly against our constitution.  

[Nashwan]

shade... no... the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the latest military weapons or... any weapon they wanted. They specificaly said that the people were to be armed with modern weapons in good state of repair. At the time that was flintlock black powder single shots. Now it is semi and fully automatic weapons of all types.

Modern weapons also covers nuclear, biological and chemical. Good luck trying to exercise your right to keep and bear those.

[Toad]

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html


I think that's the generally accepted meaning of "arms".

[Toad]

A more detailed essay here:

The Right to Keep and Bear . . . What?

BTW, is it already time for another gun control fun-fest? Man, time flies!

[Erlkonig]

Surely, we can come up with reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms. To impose these restrictions correctly and legitimately, we would need to enact a Twenty-Eighth Amendment that fleshes out the Second. Perhaps we could limit the right to keep and bear arms to those weapons with destructive power equivalent to the best heavy weapons of the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Centuries. This would permit citizens to arm themselves, but not with weapons so capable of killing vast numbers of other people that the risk would outweigh the benefit. This framework might draw the outer boundary at, say, a mid-size howitzer, a backpack sized flamethrower, a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile, or an anti-tank mine. Such weapons are destructive, to be sure, yet still comparable to the power wielded by a militiaman of two hundred years ago, standing behind an artillery piece or on the bridge of a privateer's ship, firing at a crowded enemy troop vessel. Therefore, these weapons should be suitable for private ownership.

WTF

[Dowding]

You've got to admit that Erlkonig's quote is pretty funny.

[Nashwan]

I think that's the generally accepted meaning of "arms".

Toad, from the second link you posted:

"Great Britain ought not to complain: for, since the date of the order forbidding that any of the belligerent powers should equip themselves in our ports with our arms, these two cannon are all that have escaped the vigilance of our officers, on the part of their enemies."
Thomas Jefferson

"It seems fairly clear that the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood the term "arms" to be synonymous with what we call "weapons." They did not use that overarching meaning at all times, sometimes referring to particular types of weapons like small arms as simply "arms." But the Founders' generation were certainly willing to apply the term to more powerful and traditionally "military-only" weapons. This is evident in the writings that prove they thought it very important to have an armed populace capable of resisting foreign invasion and domestic tyranny alike."

"If we take a textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution, we find that all military weapons are considered "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment. Although recognizing the keeping and bearing of arms as a fundamental individual right can rein in judges intent on eroding our constitutional freedoms, it also causes huge problems if we let the right run wild."

The thrust of that article is that even nukes are allowed by the second amendment, but:

" I think the preamble supports the idea that we the people can rein in someone's claim to a "right" if that right presents enough of a threat to our domestic tranquility, and if the general welfare of our people is in enough danger. The danger posed by powerful weapons controlled by incompetent, careless, or malevolent individuals obviously qualifies."

In other words, the only difference between your "freedoms" and ours as far as guns go is a measure of degree.

[straffo]

Arms
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

To bad they don't use this definition to restrict gun owner to one shot black powder gun with muzzle reload

[Vulcan]

What are those percentages of? Doesn't really say much.

And where are the exports going too? Does the sale of a gun from Germany to England get classed as an internal EU sale or an 'export'.

[hazed-]

Almost every country in the world make one sort of weapon or another.

This is the biggest pile of crap ive ever heard. If you americans decided to buy YOUR OWN guns then there wouldnt be this statistic would there?

The point that we (europeans) CHOOSE not to arm ourselves and you CHOOSE to buy a german or french weapon rather than an american one has no bearing on anything other than which company makes some money.

I really want to know what the poiint of this rediculous post is.

are you saying its hypocritical of europeans to sell firearms?

are you saying its our fault theres so many guns in the USA?

are you saying we should arm ourselves as well ?


oh btw I dont care if US citizens own guns. I merely like the way it is in the UK where im not likely to be shot by a drunk neighbour. I dont want a gun and as i live in the UK thats pretty lucky isnt it. If i lived in the US I'd buy one for protection and maybe hunting or sport shooting but thats only because in that society its the norm. Whats wrong with not wanting a gun when you live in a country where they just arent that common?

If you took 2 mintes to think about weapons you would know for one thing its the people who kill not the weapons alone. If someone wants to live in a place where there is less chance of getting shot then they go to a country with less people who own guns or they just try to avoid them if they are there.

I dont think ive ever seen a more poinless statistic than the one at the top of this thread in my life.

so what if countries manufacture weapons? so what if they sell them to the US? the country allows its people to have them so its no crime is it.

Perhaps we should find out how many AMERICAN made firearms make their way illegally to countries where owning them IS illegal eh? that would be a statistic that actually means something.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Yeager
So our friendly Euros, who do not as a general rule arm themselves (something about being more evolved.....), are manufacturing more firearms than the most heavily and well armed civilian populace in the western (aka evolved) world, the US.

No surprize there.

and how do you know they sell more than the US?

those stats merely say the percentage of the firearms manufactured that are exported/imported not the actual number of weapons made.

for all you know that 42% exports could be 42 pistols from 100 made and the US figure of 30% could be 30,000,000 out of 100,000,000. ok so its an exageration but the points the same.
Yeager surely you must agree the world has its fair share of idiots.Basically if those idiots cant go and buy a gun and are too thick to aquire one illegally you are less likely to be killed by one. More evolved? who said that? they are probably one of these idiots im talking about. I like guns, they look good, they do their job well and they make you feel quite good when you fire them but I just dont desire to own one.If i did id move to the US

[lazs2]

I will settle for any restriction that is over and above modern hand held weapons.  

still... I find it funny that so many euros are upset about what we do in the U.S. but they don't condem the manufaturers of pistols and longarms in their own countries.

hazed... you should move to japan if people not shooting each other is your prime concern.. or.... you could move to the U.S. and stay out of ghettos and big cities and be every bit as safe as in your little country.   You and the japs have something in common... you realize that the less diversity of race and economics you have the less violence.  That is fine but I will take my chances in the more interesting U.S.
lazs