Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on February 04, 2004, 07:04:28 AM
-
We have subscribers to this BBS from many different countries - perhaps as many as 30-40 countries or more. This is a question only for non-Americans who live outside of the US.
- Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?
Simple question. No debates, no trolls, no flames.
A simple YES or NO answer will be adequate.
-
No.
-
No.
-
Unrestricted - no.
Licensed - yes.
-
Yes.
(I've moved back to the old country)
-
Yes
I miss my makarov
only neonazis and 3rd world criminal refugees from crappy countrys have guns here in this stupid country
-
Same as dowding..
Unrestricted - no
Licensed - yes
Would be nice to get weapons easier than currently. (needs reasons to have a gun and even then it is up to the mood of local police whether they do or not grant a license!)
-
When you guys say "licensed", do you mean similiar to what we have in WA state?:
~Serial number recorded by Law enforcement upon purchase
~No felony convictions or 4th deg. assault (Misdemeanor)
~Must have a Concealed Weapons permit if you are going to wear it on your body.
We don't actually have a license, per se, but the firearm has a serial number telling law enforcement agencies who the firearm belongs too.
-
Stay out of this rip, this is for foreigners :aok
-
So you guys who said no don't think a guy should be able to go buy a new shotgun for hunting???
Should not be allowed to buy a .22 rifle for varmint control, plinking, teaching your son how to shoot safely?
Really.
-
No.....................under any circumstances
-
Licensed: yes
Unrestricted: No.
In order to obtain a license for a firearm the applicant should be able to provide a very good reason in support.
I would consider a farmer applying for a shotgun to kill foxes as a good reason.
I cannot think of a good reason as to why anyone in an urban area should be allowed to own a gun unless it was confined to a shooting range.
Ravs
-
1) Some kind of proof of training
2) Like you say, no serious criminal convictions and none involving violence
3) Registration of firearm with some kind of central database
4) Perhaps some kind of check that your storage arrangements are up to scratch
5) Weapons must only be used at licensed gun clubs - can't carry the weapon loaded in public
Something like that. The current laws are a bit over the top, whereas I see American laws are bit too lax. A happy compromise could be reached, I believe without the sky falling in.
-
Mark the one who say no, they will be the next country we invade. A lot easier if the people don't have guns. :rofl
dago
-
Ghosth,
Just where and what would I be hunting? This island is 22 square miles, with no "huntable" animals.
Varmit control? lol There is a cat who I feed in exchange for his services in this regard that lives in our neighborhood.
Plinking? Where? Too many people would get hurt from stray bullets.
Gun saftey? Hasn't been one incident reported of accidental injury caused by guns here since they were banned in 1971.
If you want to shoot guns you merely have to join the gun-club. Then you can fire away to your hearts content - in a supervised safe area designated for this purpose.
-
What if your crime went down. What if your homicides stayed the same but more were committed by guns? What if you weren't neurotic about firearms? What if you were capable of alowing your fellow citizen the right to personal freedom?
lazs
-
Ghosth, what are you going to hunt in Britain? We don't have expanses of forest populated by wild deer etc. It's all privately owned by toffs in patched-elbow jackets. On that land, you can shoot grouse and you can shoot deer, but you pay dearly for the priviledge. There is no public land to hunt on, AFAIK.
-
What if you lend us that crystal ball of yours Lazs? Don't pretend you have a better idea than everybody else on the consequences of relaxed gun control. You don't.
-
dowding.. I think you are being fairly open minded about the thing but... I think you are wrong. I think U.S. gun laws are too restrictive in most areas. "Must issue" states (concealed carry) are the ones where guns do the most good. they prevent crime and protect the average citizen. Having the government know where all the firearms are does nothing for preventing crime but defeats the purpose of firearms in the hands of citizens as it applies to tyranny. Hunting is not an issue. Shooting your own firearms on private property out of the city limits (in a safe manor) hurts no one... "gun clubs" are just a needless expense.
I agree with you on the training thing. The NRA has excellent training programs but they have been banned from American schools... did that help anything?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Plinking? Where? Too many people would get hurt from stray bullets.
You don't have shooting ranges in Bermuda?
-
Seems that using the whole frigging ocean on all sides of you as a bullet trap would be plenty safe.
lazs
-
Dowding, when you buy a gun in the U.S., there is an FBI background check done. Sometimes it may take up to 3 days, but usually they're pretty fast about it.
-
No
-
Originally posted by Curval
If you want to shoot guns you merely have to join the gun-club. Then you can fire away to your hearts content - in a supervised safe area designated for this purpose.
Rip,
The gun range is situated at the Regiment (our wee little "army"). Only one...as it is such a small place, with very low demand for such activity.
Also...that hotel is located in Brunai, Darussalam. The golf course does, however, have Bermuda grass. :)
-
I am open-minded about guns. I think banning them outright went too far and had no measurable impact on crime (positive or negative), since it wasn't as if many people had them anyway - they were a rarity. I'm not just saying that, it is the honest truth.
It boils down to whether you see guns as some sort of obstacle to 'tyranny' as you put it or a hobby or a deterrent to crime. The latter two I can understand, the former is something based in the American culture which I will never share or understand. I think there are greater threats to the liberty of British people than the government going totalitarian. So far, history supports my viewpoint. Civil uprisings without the support of a significant part of the military have nearly always failed. The guys with the real guns wearing uniforms end up being the revolutionaries.
And Dago, we have a well trained armed forces that takes care of defence. We don't need civilians armed with 9mm pistols to add to it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
...as it is such a small place, with very low demand for such activity.
Curval, you only need 100 feet maximum for a pistol range. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Seems that using the whole frigging ocean on all sides of you as a bullet trap would be plenty safe.
lazs
Assuming that no boats are floating by, yes. In fact when we had our shooting competitions when I was in the Regiment on the dunes behind a beach. Any round that missed high went in the water.
They had boats out in the water to stop people from getting into the firing line in their boats.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Curval, you only need 100 feet maximum for a pistol range. ;)
lol that is being generous Rip.
I actually only need 25 feet. ;)
-
LOL!
Hey, I tested out my .40 cal last friday, 50-feet. Of the first 10 shots, the first 2 were bullseyes, the remainder were grouped pretty good, then is was all downhill from there :( I'm not used to the trigger yet so more practice! :)
-
rip... u were flinching. If the firs shots grouped well and latter ones were scattered. There are charts to tell you what you are doing after looking at your target.
lazs
-
restricted: Yes
unrestricted: No
if you have the money you can have uinlicensed gun or pay for the license so... result is that i'd have a lot of troubles to get one, but this jerk who stoled my car (or his friend) can probalby have it.
Result is that i can lost carn + life and can't do nithing about it. Of course it's a hardcore example, not any far from being common here... but still i can't defent once they can attack. don't like it at all
-
No to freely available, yes to licenced.
When you guys say "licensed", do you mean similiar to what we have in WA state?:
~Serial number recorded by Law enforcement upon purchase
~No felony convictions or 4th deg. assault (Misdemeanor)
~Must have a Concealed Weapons permit if you are going to wear it on your body.
We don't actually have a license, per se, but the firearm has a serial number telling law enforcement agencies who the firearm belongs too.
The British system is
Must have a firearms certificate.
Firearms certificate must be granted if you have
No criminal record (doesn't include very old or minor offences eg speeding)
Secure storage for guns
Valid reason for owning gun eg member of gun club, hunting, vermin control, collector etc
No major mental instability
All guns you buy are put on your firearms certificate. They have to remain in your possesion, or be transferred to another person's firearms certificate. Guns cannot just disappear.
I think the last part is the most important. What's to stop you filing the serial off your gun and selling it to someone you know has felony convictions? I know it's probably illegal, but what procedures are in place to actually stop it?
There's not much point in having background checks etc in place in the new market if the secondhand market isn't properly regulated.
-
Does California count as a foreign nation?
-
No
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
I'm very unlikely to shoot or get shot by anyone. I like it that way.
-
40 years and I havent been shot yet.
-
so... some of you euros feel that only a certain class of people should have firearms?
not surprised.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so... some of you euros feel that only a certain class of people should have firearms?
not surprised.
lazs
Huh?
Where did you see that? All I saw was the fact that there are no public lands for hunting.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so... some of you euros feel that only a certain class of people should have firearms?
not surprised.
lazs
Of course you dumb american! Should you come here, you wouldn't be allowed to even possess a knife. Without blade.
Show us some proof of your aristocratic ancestors and you may clean our weapons.
(Where's a snotty pompous smiley when you need one?)
Daniel Ventura Gonzalez de Alonso, Baron de la provincia de Santa Susana de la Huerta, Conde de la Zanahoria, y Caballero de la Orden de Alfredito V el desconocido.
-
NO.
-
Daniel Ventura Gonzalez de Alonso, Baron de la provincia de Santa Susana de la Huerta, Conde de la Zanahoria, y Caballero de la Orden de Alfredito V el desconocido.
lol
-
Show us some proof of your aristocratic ancestors and you may clean our weapons.
(Where's a snotty pompous smiley when you need one?)
Daniel Ventura Gonzalez de Alonso, Baron de la provincia de Santa Susana de la Huerta, Conde de la Zanahoria, y Caballero de la Orden de Alfredito V el desconocido.
Lololol that was too funny.
Ravs
-
NO
-
Unrestricted - no
Licensed - yes
And really no pistols except for the law enforcement forces.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Daniel Ventura Gonzalez de Alonso, Baron de la provincia de Santa Susana de la Huerta, Conde de la Zanahoria, y Caballero de la Orden de Alfredito V el desconocido.
Hello ... this is Madame Guillotine calling may we have an appointement tomorrow ?
:D
-
Originally posted by straffo
Hello ... this is Madame Guillotine calling may we have an appointement tomorrow ?
:D
Talk to my chamberlain. I am a busy man you know.
-
No hunting here, so its a No from me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rip... u were flinching. If the firs shots grouped well and latter ones were scattered. There are charts to tell you what you are doing after looking at your target.
lazs
Heh, I was probably flinchin' because of the damn .50 Cal Desert Eagle in the stall next to me! :mad: ;)
-
No to unrestricted.
In NZ you must get licensed. Licensing involves: a theory exam on gun safety; background check by the police; two referees of good standing; suitable reason for owning (ie hunting); and finally proof and sometimes an inspection that you have a suitably safe storage place for any rifles and ammo. Automatic weapons are illegal, pistols are only ownable by collectors who have to jump through a few extra hoops.
-
Exactly the same law as we have on the other end of the globe, Iceland!
It works. In the criminal world here there seem to be very little firearms around, and conceilable weapons are practically none existent.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Exactly the same law as we have on the other end of the globe, Iceland!
It works. In the criminal world here there seem to be very little firearms around, and conceilable weapons are practically none existent.
Iceland! Enough said. Put 5 million people in a city then tell me about the crime world having little access to weapons (See NY state and its tough gun laws) :rolleyes:
-
Curval
Ok 22 square miles is small. You made your point.
I am lucky, I live in North Dakota where there is a LOT of public land available.
Some of it forested, some wetlands, some upland. As a result there is a LOT of hunting available.
As for the english blokes. Well if you guys let your king take all the good land, & all the cirtters & you've not had the gumption to take the land back, well thats your choice then eh mate?
Let me ask you this. Are all your descendants living in the big wide open Australian lands feeling the same about guns as you do?
I'm willing to bet not. There having a gun would be as vital as it was in this country.
So IMO the question should not be one of country, but of population density.
If its less than 5 people per square mile it should be unregulated. With tighter restrictions going up as the population gets shoved closer together.
Last but not least, a gun never killed anyone. People kill people, if they don't have guns they'll use cars, knives, shovels or whatever else is handy.
-
NO (rway)
-
That's righ ghosth, even though I'm 25 years old, I'm directly responsible for a millenia of history that left the land the way it is. ;) Besides what you are suggesting sounds like communism to me...
Like I said, it's pay to shoot or nothing over here. As for population density, you have 60 million people living in an area the size of one of your states. It's pretty crowded almost everywhere and the wide open spaces have tended to be reserved as national parks.
-
Should the U.S. ban guns like England? (Click) (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html)
-
cyrano... so nobody here is saying that firearms should be restricted to those who can afford the fees and club memberships?
If the poor and elderly and single women are the ones who most need firearms then your (maybe not your but most of the people here) ideas are not only restrictive but backwards.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Should the U.S. ban guns like England? (Click) (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html)
I call BS on this one !
There is only some pretty choosen extract of the original document :)
contrepoint :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_33_1075991813.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_33_1075991825.jpg)
-
Originally posted by straffo
I call BS on this one !
There is only some pretty choosen extract of the original document :)
Call BS all you want. Facts still stand. (Although outdated, this is relevent to 1996)
Source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm
US Dept of Justice.
I tend to believe the US Dept of Justice for a graph then someone named "Alain Poitevin" ;)
-
I downloaded the original document http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96a.pdf
but pheeeeeeewwwwwwwww there to much to translate for a lazy scumbg like me :D
-
Hmm straffo... seems that guns are bringin our rates down while england removing guns has caused theirs to skyrocket.... Now... imagine if england had a third or fourth world country or two with porous borders surrounding them.
lazs
-
I've just done a count of the votes from the people I invited to participate - non-Americans living outside the US.
Looks like the vote against unrestricted availability of guns goes 15-2, those votes coming from about 8 different countries.
Say what you like about relative crime rates, and of guns "reducing crime". The fact is that of those sampled in countries outside the US, the vast majority do not want to see a US-style firearms proliferation in the country where they live.
So my next question is... Why do you think that is then? :confused:
-
Sky rocket? Where are you looking?
According to both those graphs I'm less likely to get murdered and my girlfriend less likely to get raped over here than over there. The sky doesn't seem to be falling either. Amazing.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So my next question is... Why do you think that is then? :confused:
Because you trust your government more than you trust yourselves.
-
Ripsnort: I guess you are right about that if some states in the US have more stricter gun laws than others, it still don't work. However, it cannot easily work, for there is enough easy-bought arsenal in other states within the same country, - i.e. plenty of guns on the market.
But about the population thingie, you are not absolutely right.
Humble Greenland with less than 50K inhabitants has many time the murder rate of my country (sometimes in the 10X region), yet we are 6 times as many, - they however do have a lot of guns.
Does London have enough inhabitants to count? Or Tokyo? Well, like it or not, those cities have a lot lower crime rate than the average goes in the US.
Straffos Graph pretty much shows this as well, sadly :(
-
License them, and allow "home defence" as a valid reason for possession. This country needs more Tony Martins.
Lazs, I see you're still asserting that the there's a causal link between a crime rate that was already going up prior to the hand-gun ban and the '96 hand-gun ban itself, despite no evidence to back this up.
The argument might fit the US model but it doesn't hold for the UK, unless you're seriously arguing that a few thousand pistol enthusiasts with their weapons either stored in guns clubs or at home in a locked safe were the only thing holding back the crime wave you seem to believe has swamped us in the years since the ban. :lol
-
Beet1e
From Argentina, answer is : "no".
-
He is actually suggesting that Momus, and has done so in the past.
-
states that enact "must issue" or, right to carry laws have large drops in crime. 37 states have adopted these laws.
beetle... hmmm... seems that "unrestricted" is one thing but...
that most seem to think that there laws are either just right or too strict. Unrestricted conjures up the image of anti aircraft guns and artillery pieces not to mention belt fed machine guns. Unrestricted is a loaded word.
My thread is much less loaded and it seems that most feel their country is too strict.
lazs
-
You dance well for a white guy Lazs, but answer the question; are you still claiming that any rise in UK crime since the '96 ban is attributable to said ban?
I am not disputing the US statistics, but you're commiting a logical fallacy by assuming that more guns=less crime in the US means less guns=more crime in the UK. Quite simply, you're not comparing like with like.
-
yes, I believe that the criminals knowing that they will not encounter armed citizens has contributed to your increase in crime. Do you claim that the gun ban has nothing to do with the increase. and....
why is it a feminine trait to point out that by banning something you feel is dangerous only if used in a dangerous way... that you are protecting yourselves from yourselves... seems that banning something for no other reason than you don't like it's "aura" or it just feels bad is the real feminine trait. knee jerk at the very least.
as for the U.S..... it is absolutely proven that violent crime goes down in states that allow concealed carry... the more permits issued the better the result.
I just don't understand it... you trust your fellow citizens to drive straight at you in a 2 ton car at 100+ mph but you dont trust your neighbor to have a gun in his house or a 1911 in a holster under his jacket. strange, fearful people in this world.
lazs
-
I edited the "femine trait" jab out as it was uncalled for. Sorry.
I think you're missing the point. I'm quite willing to accept that the '96 ban was an over-reaction. But the claim that the reason crime *continued* to rise in the post-ban period was due to a few thousand pistol enthusiasts handing-in their weapons is not supported by the evidence and fails to take into account several salient points, including:
1) Pistol enthusiasts were as likely to keep their weapons at the shooting club as at home.
2) Concealed carry was already banned prior to 1996.
3) Crime continued to rise at much the same rate as in the pre-ban period.
4) The number of pistol owners as a proportion of the population was tiny.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't deny the US stats but trying to make the US thesis fit the UK model doesn't work.
-
wasn't the laws for even shotguns at home tightened up at about the same time? I believe that burglars would be far more likely to break into old folks homes when they were present if they knew that they (the burglars) were in no danger of facing an old codger armed with a double barrel.
I don't believe that you can take what works in the U.S. and apply it to the U.K. either (nor the reverse) but there are some studies about england that I find interesting. At the very least, the studies seem to point out that citizens in england owning guns does no harm.
lazs
-
AFAIK shotguns aren't banned but you need a good reason to own one - this doesn't include home defence.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't deny the US stats but trying to make the US thesis fit the UK model doesn't work.
LOL Momus! Yep, that's Lazs all over, bless him. :)
Lazs - beetle... hmmm... seems that "unrestricted" is one thing but... that most seem to think that there laws are either just right or too strict. Unrestricted conjures up the image of anti aircraft guns and artillery pieces not to mention belt fed machine guns. Unrestricted is a loaded word.
I think that most people will have realised that I meant "unrestricted" in terms of quantity available, and not unrestricted type of weapons. Certainly, that is how I meant it. Very few people I know of have aspirations to own anti aircraft guns or belt fed machine guns.
:rolleyes:;)
Tarmac Because you trust your government more than you trust yourselves.
No mate. That's not the reason. That is one of the reasons you justify your own gun ownership in the US - in case the government loses its marbles. But I ask you - what use would a .45 semi auto be against cluster bombs and cruise missiles?
Keeping guns for use in defence in case the government flips its lid is not going to work. Just look at Zimbabwe in southern Africa. It is run by a corrupt regime headed by Robert Mugabe, himself a criminal who has siphoned off millions of $ of his country's wealth to fund an empire of hotel chains.
My girlfriend, Tomato, is from Zimbabwe originally. Here she is with Lazs, shooting off his .45 semi auto. Guns are allowed in Zimbabwe. Tomato could have bought one to keep in the car or in the house, but didn't. And most of the (white) farmers there had guns. But what's the use of that when Mugagbe sends a possé of about 25 guys to forcibly evict you from your farm? You think that maintaining a siege situation with a shotgun and a semi auto is going to make it so that you get to keep your farm if you're a white Zimbabwean farmer? You think the situation would be any different in Michigan if your government were to flip its lid?
Keeping guns "just in case" your government flips its lid is a concept based in the 18th century, and has no basis in the world of today.
Lazs & Tomato, Oct.2003
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lazs06a.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You think the situation would be any different in Michigan if your government were to flip its lid?
Hey! Why you picking on me? :)
-
Guns are not banned in the UK and never have been. Handguns were banned (at least breach loading ones) after 1996 but Momus makes the right point: the ban effected very few people: pistol owners were the minority of firearms owners before 1996. Firearms owners have always been a tiny minority of people: less than 1 in 100 I would guess.
The rules for shotgun ownership and licensing were not changed in any practical way at all.
Most farmers will have a shotgun license: it's pretty normal in the country.
The figures show three things:
1) The change in UK law in 96 had no effect on the crime rate.
2) The UK: a country with low gun ownership has significantly lower crime rate than the US with high gun ownership.
3) UK crime continues to rise at a steady rate, while US crime is dropping (this may or may not have anything to do with the introduction of concealed carry laws).
Guns have never had a great effect on UK crime: the number of guns in the population is so low that the have never been a major factor.
Is it possible to have lots of guns around and a low crime rate? Yes: look at Switzerland where almost every house has a gun (because the men of the house are required to serve in the army). But I would suggest that has more to do with cultural factors.
In short don't use the UK as comparison for gun law and crim rate: there is no comparison.
Point 2 above means I don't support liberalization of the gun laws in my own country.
As to the point about how Australians feel about guns (I can answer this because I currently live there). Aussies tend to feel the same way as the Brits: in country areas people accept gun ownership as necessary for the purposes of hunting and pest control. Handguns are not normal because they are not seen as having legitimate uses (though they are not banned).
The Aussie laws tend to be a bit more liberal probably because there are more rural and remote areas and there have been no incidents like Dunblane to cause a change in the law.
Both Brits and Aussies do not generaly accept the ownership of guns for self defence: we prefer to have few guns in society instead. Both Aussies and Brits tend to find the US attitude to guns very strange.
[EDITED for numerous typos]
-
Originally posted by Pei
Is it possible to have lots of guns around and a low crime rate? Yes: look at Switzerland where almost every house has a gun (because the men of the house are required to serve in the army). But I would suggest that has more to do with cultural factors.
wow..Great post Pei. Even for a rugby lover like yourself. ;)
Just an observation on the above:
The Swiss don't take crime lightly and perhaps the presence of guns in every home does prevent burgalries. But, I remember a bank robbery that occured there a few years ago. The cops followed the getaway car until they had a good clean shot at it, and just simply opened up on the car with automatic weapons. No questions, no mercy.
The Swiss are calm gentle folk...right up until you piss them off.
Hey...just ask the Vatican.
-
This for me has been an interesting thread. Dowding might be amused to know that I got the idea for this thread from an interview between Robin Day and Arthur Scargill many years ago. Day asked Scargill (miners’ president) to describe his vision of utopia. And then, turning to his audience of several hundred, asked who would like to live in Scargill’s utopia. I think only one or maybe two said they would.
We’re all aware of crime levels in various countries, and we’ve all seen what happens in countries like America when guns are made freely available. A homicide tally of over 10,000 some years – 13,000+ in 1992 – with the vast majority of these homicides being carried out with handguns. (I appreciate that shovels/cars/knives could also be used, but a gun is just so much more effective and convenient, and can achieve results at long range.) That compares with fewer than 100 in any year in Britain, where we have the same social/ethnic difficulties as America, and drugs/gangsters to go with it. But we have relatively few guns – hence the disparity in our homicide stats.
A lot of people in the US crow about being able to get guns when folks in other countries cannot, so I wanted to know who would if they could. I got a couple of YES votes from Germany, but ALL the other voters were against unrestricted gun sales in their country, whether that be by quantity or type of weapon.
List of countries with people who voted NO to an unrestricted supply of guns - Bermuda
- France
- England (and Wales)
- Finland
- Spain
- Poland
- The Netherlands
- Italy
- Iceland
- Germany
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Argentina
- Australia
- Belgium
There’s also a vote from Takeda – not sure which European country he is from.
What’s almost as interesting is that in a thread that was clearly intended for non-Americans and people living outside the US, two of the three people who posted the most times in this thread are diehard pro-gun Americans. Wonder why that is. :lol;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/posts.jpg)
-
Like Dowding:
Unrestricted - no.
Licensed - yes. (we already have that)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It's all privately owned by toffs in patched-elbow jackets.
LOL
-
Pei said it all....
No for the record on unrestricted (totally agreeable with dowding's no/yes)
Tronsky
-
beetle... the whole pole is silly beyond words....
I don't believe that you will find anyone who would want totally unrestricted ANYTHING including firearms, or sex or drinking rights or anything.
I for instance would not like to see mentally unfit people or unsupervised children have "unrestricted" firearms rights so... by your defenition I would also be in your camp.
When I read the results I see that most people want to have some, and in a lot of cases, even more gun rights.
My poll asks if you would like more or less restrictions in your country and is by far a more fair poll.
lazs
-
Lazs - if my poll is so silly, then why have you posted in this thread more times than anyone else?
Seems clear to me that everyone understood the question I was asking. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer. I got the information I was asking for. What's silly about that? You're the only one who's had to resort (twice) to a discussion which boils down to semantics.
-
No...but have a couple of buts to add though...
-
lol Lazs.
Your poll thread has more Americans posting about gun-show "loopholes" than non-US responses.
Nothing but Americans slapping each other on the back and praising each other for their posts.
Bettle's post almost stayed right on track. It would have been precisely on track, but you and Rip (and a few others) had to stick your noses in and tell those of us who were supposed to reply that less guns equals more crime.
-
one more american texan for unrestricted gun ownership.
and right to conceal carry.
the reasons and motivations are many and complex.
first people shoot each other all the time here, always have, there are so many guns here you could never get them all in 100 years.(a firearm basicly lasts forever if cared for and maintained) it would be pointless to try.
also americans will not give arms up. i would resist with deadly force as would alot of people both liberal and conservative. we were raised to believe this was both our right and responsibility. remember tirants are inevetable, history teaches us that and i will not leave my children a legacy of freedom or not live at all.
the cold dead hands thing is no joke, im a left wing buddist and id kill to protect my freedom overrides all think about that for a second. dosent seem incongruous at all to me.
-
LDV...no one is asking you to give up anything.
Check the title of the thread again.
-
i understand that i was just trying to give you guys an incite to the way we think. sorry i know it is out of the scope of the thread but 40 posts into it and it has wandered all over hell anyway.
ill butt out. but will point out there has never been one totaly on topic thread on this board ever.i mean ever... why the constant attempts ill never understand. its unnatural.
-
True enough mate...I guess my post sounded more agressive than it was meant to be.
Thing is...you didn't really say anything we non-Americans don't already know.
Beetle may have his own agenda to try and convert your opinion to his on this issue...I don't know. Not so with me though. I just don't particularly like being called "woman-like" or my government called a "Nanny" government and will argue my country's case against gun ownership.
Of course this immediately gets me labelled anti-gun.
As a result I have been called many things...including "snotty" and irrelavent by some very moral upstanding American citizens. Funny, because I am not trying to tell anyone how they should act or feel...but I am constantly told I am wrong...or worse.
That is hypocritical.
-
Curval, you over-nannied woman! Go buy a gun!
;)
-
im a left wing buddist and id kill to protect my freedom
Is it just me?
-
LOL Toad.
-
expaliain to me please the "semantics" of "unrestricted". I will settle for a defenition.
lazs
-
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Should the U.S. ban guns like England? (Click) (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html)
well i hope you realize that you compare america to country whitch have most % of people whitch cant read and write in Europe
by the way...
-
as far as im concerned guns should be
-available at a gun shop in any town
-background checks if you want a gun
-waiting period
-limit on how much ammunition you can own for pistols
-no automatic/semi automatic (you dont need em for plinking self defence or hunting)
-no concealing weapons over a certain amount of power
other than that i dont have a problem with using them for any reason...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
expaliain to me please the "semantics" of "unrestricted". I will settle for a defenition.
lazs
No I'm not going to do that. The people to whom this thread was directed know full well what I mean. You are not one of those people. You can go and play in Sox62's thread about concealed carry. Sox doesn't want to hear from folks against guns, and in this thread I'm not interested in the opinions of Americans. Let me paraphrase Sox 62...
"Oh, and American people need not post. This topic is about what non-Americans feel about the introduction of guns into their societies,and quite frankly I don't give a rat's bellybutton what Americans' opinions on firearms happen to be."
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We have subscribers to this BBS from many different countries - perhaps as many as 30-40 countries or more. This is a question only for non-Americans who live outside of the US. - Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?
Simple question. No debates, no trolls, no flames.
A simple YES or NO answer will be adequate. [/B]
No.
-
toad you believe buddists dont kill? or was it just another jab about the you got caught lieing thing?
-
Licensed - yes
Unlicensed - no
The law in Croatia allows you to own a gun (both handgun or rifle) if you don't have a criminal record, are psychogically stable and have a reason (self defense at home counts as well). To carry a handgun, however, requires a different kind of permit, far harder to obtain.
As for illegal guns, there are plenty of them around here, left from the war 10-15 yrs ago. It is not uncommon to go to the woods and hear automatic fire, even hand grenades. The most usual victims are kids, who usually find daddy's Kalashnikov. Criminals use AKs and RPGs, on extreme occassions openly in the streets. Rarely, AKs are used in barfights, and then it is very bad.
Automatic weapons are illegal. All other weapons can be registered, even though you don't have a proof where you bought it or even a serial number, as long as it is not automatic. This regulation is because there is many illegal stuff from the war.
Every now and then we have police actions to surrender illegal weapons - no questions asked. Surrendered my AKs few years ago.
Generally, the crime isn't high, at least not the one which involves shooting. Strange, with so many guns around.
-
beetle... i do not speak for sox.. I myself have never started a thread where I told some people they couldn't post.
as for the other people "knowing what you mean" by unrestricted... I beg to differ... you changed in mid stream... you didn't start out asking about totaly unrestricted... further.... I see few people who don't want gun ownership by private citizens..I see few people who would want children and mental cases to have firearms so I can't imagine that anyone with any sense wants "unrestricted" firearms ownership.
your poll is loaded and misleading and you keep changing what you are asking.
my poll is much more fair.. I ask if you think your countries laws are too strict or not strict enough. I am not out to play word games like you are.
also... I am probly one of the few that will respond to your thread (if we use your restrictions) that has any clue about firearms... most of the people who you are "polling" well..... it is like asking monkeys if they think it is better to rent or to buy a tuxedo.
lazs
-
Lazs
You should become a ventriloquist. You could speak without moving your lips. All you'd have to do is talk out of your arse - you're good at that.
I never said you couldn't talk in any thread; what I did make abundantly clear in this thread is that I was interested only in the opinions of non-American folks living outside the US. You're disqualified on both counts. as for the other people "knowing what you mean" by unrestricted... I beg to differ... you changed in mid stream...
Bollocks. I didn't change at all. I asked a very simple question. And everyone to whom it was directed understood it perfectly. Seems like of the 40-odd people who replied, you are the only person who didn't. But that doesn't matter. I wasn't asking you anyway, so no need to discuss that.your poll is loaded and misleading and you keep changing what you are asking.
More bollocks from Lazs. In point of fact, I asked only two separate questions: I asked my original and very simple question. After about 24 hours when most people had had a chance to respond, and it was clear that the VAST MAJORITY of folks don't want an unrestricted supply of guns where they live, I asked why they thought that was. I then presented a list of 16 countries represented by those folks. I also answered Tarmac's point. My only other posts have been to refute your BS.
Look, Lazs. You're not in here in search of an "unloaded" poll. The only reason you're in here is because you've got an axe to grind. You can't stand the fact that people from 16 countries can stand up and say NO to an unrestricted supply of guns where they live. So then you have to use semantics to interpret the word "unrestricted" in an attempt to skew the poll. And it's BS. No-one here for a minute thinks I'm asking if the general population should be armed with anti-aircraft guns and/or belt fed machine guns. But the mere suggestion of that from you provides an indication of how desperate you are to force this poll to go according to your own agenda. also... I am probly one of the few that will respond to your thread (if we use your restrictions) that has any clue about firearms... most of the people who you are "polling" well..... it is like asking monkeys if they think it is better to rent or to buy a tuxedo.
Ah yes, we're almost getting to the point where you start ranting about womanly men, and women's voting rights. I don't think the people from the 16 countries who voted NO in my poll would take kindly to the fact that you're insulting all of them. But then again, as it's you, they might have had a good larf. :lol As I've said before, you don't need to be a smoker to understand the dangers of tobacco usage, just as you don't need to know anything about guns to understand the folly of doing what America has done in creating a guns free for all.
But, as it happens, we have Curval who, if I read it right, has been a firearms instructor, and farmers like Angus, and FOGOLD (in your thread) who own guns themselves but can see the total folly of guns for all as in the US, and have expressed their views on this BBS.
-
Before Ripsnort, Swoop, Puck and whoever else was there to witness my lousy performance at the range in Texas chimes in on how sorry a state our regiment must be in if I was teaching people how to shoot....I never received any training on handguns. They were reserved for officers.
We had Mini Rugers as our issued weapon (we used to have SLRs but they were deemed too powerful for the needs of this little place) and we taught guys based upon the British army techniques. Once you learned the lesson plans anyone could teach them and make themselves understood.
I certainly don't hold myself out to be a gun expert..but it is true I was a firearms instructor.
LOL
:)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No I'm not going to do that. The people to whom this thread was directed know full well what I mean. You are not one of those people. You can go and play in Sox62's thread about concealed carry. Sox doesn't want to hear from folks against guns, and in this thread I'm not interested in the opinions of Americans. Let me paraphrase Sox 62...
"Oh, and American people need not post. This topic is about what non-Americans feel about the introduction of guns into their societies,and quite frankly I don't give a rat's bellybutton what Americans' opinions on firearms happen to be."
:rolleyes:
Beetle,the main reason I stated that,is that I knew the thread would turn into a gun debate if I didn't,and that's not why I posted the topic.We all have our own opinion,and nothing either side says is going to change anyone's mind.
-
sox62 - that's fair enough. I had no wish to piss on your thread.
Maybe I was a little hard on Lazs. But the votes are in, the people have voted, and this thread is done.
Q.E.D.
-
Beetle, you said that there must be people from 30 or 40 countries here, yet we only heard from about 15 people out of all those people from all those 30-40 countries.
What does this thread prove? Out of all those people, a lot said they would like guns allowed anyway as long as they were regulated.
Let's open a thread that askes how many people from countries that allow guns if they would like UK style gun control.
What would that prove?
-
NUKE, I said the total AH subscribership came from maybe 30-40 countries - maybe more. And I've always maintained that only a minority of that subscribership reads and posts to this BBS.
I've done my poll, the results are in, and I'm all done.
You do whatever poll you want - whatever gladdens your heart.
Nuke, you're an idiot, but I sort of like you. :D
-
"Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?"
ok beetle lets look at it... Not one person on this board answered your loaded questions...
And they were quesrtions. What kind of poll asks four questions at once? Not one person answered your questions in order or even addressed each one.
"Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, and
" and for gun ownership by private citizens to be ALL BUT UNRESTICTED, and guaranteed by contitutional right?" are questions that are completely different and should have seperate questions...
you ask about having guns available at retail outlets but don't detail how they will be sold... "unresticted"? Even beer isn't unrestricted...
who would want unrestricted? flawed poll. leading and asks more than one question.... questions are at odds with each other and cover entirely different subjects.
How could anyone answer? Well.... they could but they would have to answer each part seperately... fact is.... no one did... the answers you got were emotional.... worthless.
oh... didn't you use the ventriloquist bit on toad and a couple of other guys a while back? I should be worth a fresh insult!
lazs
-
LOL Lazs!
Look, dude, I'm not interested - OK? I did my poll, I asked questions and got answers. Job done. If you have a problem with that, do your own poll.
-
lazs...I understood his questions and answered honestly.
Keep trying to turn this into a semantics debate though...you don't look silly at all.
-
Theres nothing more entertaining than a thread that boils down to the "Have" s and "Have not" s.
:)
-
NO
-
Not disputing that you got answers.... just that the poll was loaded. I think anyone who knows anything about polls would agree that you formed the poll based on getting the answers you wanted. Even so... I don't think it worked out quite as well as you planned even with the loaded questions. seems most wanted some gun ownership by private citizens.
my poll was much fairer. I simply asked if people thought that their gun restrictions in their country were too strict or not strict enough.
lazs
-
Lazs, you're a banana.
Do you really think you're going to get an objective analysis on a board linked to a game like Aces High? Many of the people drawn here are interested in combat/WW2/shooting. So any poll is going to be "loaded".
You are free to ask whatever questions you like in your poll. Just as I am free to ask whatever questions I like in my poll. Or are you trying to deny me that right? You're beginning to sound like you're an agent of the thought police. Fortunately, I know you better. :D
-
Theres nothing more entertaining than a thread that boils down to the "Have" s and "Have not" s.
Is not!
Ravs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We have subscribers to this BBS from many different countries - perhaps as many as 30-40 countries or more. This is a question only for non-Americans who live outside of the US. - Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?
Simple question. No debates, no trolls, no flames.
A simple YES or NO answer will be adequate. [/B]
NO
The regulation is good enough as it is now.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I've just done a count of the votes from the people I invited to participate - non-Americans living outside the US.
Looks like the vote against unrestricted availability of guns goes 15-2, those votes coming from about 8 different countries.
Say what you like about relative crime rates, and of guns "reducing crime". The fact is that of those sampled in countries outside the US, the vast majority do not want to see a US-style firearms proliferation in the country where they live.
So my next question is... Why do you think that is then? :confused:
No need for a substitute of the noodle?
:D
Ok, ok, was a joke.
(flamesuit on)
;)
-
Darkglam, Naso - welcome to my thread. Another two NO votes. :D That'll piss Lazs off a bit more. :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Darkglam, Naso - welcome to my thread. Another two NO votes. :D That'll piss Lazs off a bit more. :lol
{Freudian voice} "Ah, so now we come down to the reason for the troll, er post. To piss off Mr. Lazs...ve vill schedule you an appointment for you're U.S.A. envy tomorrow!"
-
So continues, Beet1e's crusade to tell the US why they shouldn't have guns. Carry on, tool.
-
Originally posted by SOB
So continues, Beet1e's crusade to tell the US why they shouldn't have guns. Carry on, tool.
No need for a substitute of the noodle?
:D
-
Originally posted by SOB
So continues, Beet1e's crusade to tell the US why they shouldn't have guns. Carry on, tool.
Read the thread title. The only thing this has to do with the US is the fact that US people keep trying to tell the rest of the world why they should have gun laws (or lack thereof) like the US.
I personally don't care what the law in US is: I no longer live there and rarely visit anymore: it doesn't effect me. What I don't want is to see the UK or Australia with the kind of gun culture that prevails in the US: I believe this would lead to more crime and make me and my family less safe and the figures are there to backup that opinion. Lasz and co. continually recommend US gun culture to the rest of us. This thread points out that most of us prefer the status quo in our countries.
-
Pei, yours is certainly an opinion I can respect. However, to think that Beet1e didn't have the US specifically in mind when he started this thread, is naive. Either you haven't seen his previous posts are you're ignoring the obvious. He started it in hopes of "proving" his opinion that the US has too many guns and blahblahblah, and no doubt with the hope of baiting out Lazs and Rip ... I hope he gets a special feeling in his nether regions for my two posts too. OTOH, Had you started this thread, I wouldn't have had a second thought about its intent.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Pei, yours is certainly an opinion I can respect. However, to think that Beet1e didn't have the US specifically in mind when he started this thread, is naive. Either you haven't seen his previous posts are you're ignoring the obvious. He started it in hopes of "proving" his opinion that the US has too many guns and blahblahblah, and no doubt with the hope of baiting out Lazs and Rip ... I hope he gets a special feeling in his nether regions for my two posts too. OTOH, Had you started this thread, I wouldn't have had a second thought about its intent.
I have to agree that I believe that beet1e is making a point about the US (or at least in his ongoing courtship with Lazs). However I think it is a bit rich for the likes of you and Rip to complain about it when the likes or Lazs, Rip and friends keep trying to tell the rest of the world that they should be just like the US: they are doing exactly what beet1e is doing (in the other direction).
-
Rip I can't help you with, he's special - in that short bus kinda way. Lazs, I think is simply reactionary on this subject...he's passionite about it, but were it not for prodding, I doubt he'd be weighing in on the subjet of other country's gun laws. I could be wrong though, it has happened before...at least once, maybe twice. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
{Freudian voice} "Ah, so now we come down to the reason for the troll, er post. To piss off Mr. Lazs...ve vill schedule you an appointment for you're U.S.A. envy tomorrow!"
LOL! No, that was not the point of the thread. As I said in the title, I was interested in hearing from only non-Americans on this issue. And my question, which was "Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?". Nowhere in that question do I mention America in any way.
But the diehard pro-gun yanks just couldn't stay out of it. :rolleyes:
SOB - same goes for you when you said "So continues, Beet1e's crusade to tell the US why they shouldn't have guns." Erm... no - wrong on two counts. 1)There was no mention of the US in my initial post - except to say I was interested in only the views of those outside of it. 2)And I've never said that America should give up its guns. Read my comments on unilateral disarmament in Lazs's post.
-
even pei didn't understand your poll beetle... he thinks it is a poll to see if you are happy with your countries current firearms laws...
my poll actually asks the question he is answering not yours.
Justify giving up your rights any way you want but it all boils down to..... you gave em up for nothing and probly made things worse in the bargin.
lazs
-
YES
-
would that be yes to all 4 questions monk?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even pei didn't understand your poll beetle... he thinks it is a poll to see if you are happy with your countries current firearms laws...
Pei is not as stupid as you'd like to think he is, Lazs. He gave a perfectly valid answer to my original question in his first post. I had said that a YES/NO answer would have been adequate. Pei chose to expound a little, but that in no way invalidates his answer. I kept the question simple and invited a YES/NO response because I knew that the respondents would come from many different countries and that in many cases, English would not be the first langauge. So I tried to keep it simple! Were it not for all the unsolicited US responses, my contribution to this thread would have been limited to the first two posts in which I asked the questions, and then the summary post.
Hey Monk, thanks for reading. I'm afraid I must discount your vote on account of your nationality. I'm not sure what Lazs's comment was about; there were only two questions. Lazs gets a bit confused sometimes, and starts seeing double.
-
"Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?"
(1) Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country,
(2) guns to be made freely available at retail outlets
(3) for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted,
(4) and guaranteed by contitutional right?
maybe I am confused but it is by your doing a poll with four seperate questions and you calling it two. Even two is one to many for a poll if they are not either/or (which none in your poll are)
#1 asks if you would like gun ownership inrtroduced in your country... #2 asks if you would like for guns to be sold at retail outlets...
#3 asks yet another question... about having gun ownership "all but unrestricted" and....
#4 asks if you would like gun ownership by citizens to be guarenteed by your countries constitution.
all completely different questions with a myriad of possible answers... a simple yes or no to all four as a group would denote some smalll to very extreme amount of fanatisism on the part of the responder or.... stupidity (if you insist).
lazs
-
Geez, Lazs - you really do have a hard on for this thread. Go and have a five knuckle shuffle or something.
That's not four questions. You're a dolt. It's a single question in which multiple conditions are linked by words like "and", "or" to describe an overall scenario. In mathematics, by the way, those links are known as Booleans - look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boolean
And don't post back till after your five knuckle shuffle. I guess that will give us all a four minute breather from your idiotic posts. :lol
As for me, I'm going to bed.
Toodle-Pip!
-
I know you don't drink, so you won't know this. But a whisky and soda is not two separate drinks. :rofl :aok
-
even you are confused it seems... first it was 2 questions to you and now it is a "single" question?
it's four completely different questions. Not a single and not 2
lazs
-
Keep scraping away in that barrel of semantics, Lazs. You'll be in China before you know it. When you get there, don't forget to drive on the left. :lol
-
punt - for Nuke/Lasz et al, who seem intent on discussing this thread in a different thread.
-
OK Beet1e. Seemed like four questions to me.:D
Les
-
It's a loaded question..Introduce rifles/shotguns/pistols for those that like to go hunting/target range?..Why not.
Introduce semi-automatic/automatic weapons of ANY sort?....NFW.
And while your at it..introduce madnatory 5yr sentence with no chance of parole if a firearm is used in a crime,10 yrs if it is discharged.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It's a loaded question..
Thanks, Sirloin. At least you agree with me that it's a single question, and not four questions! :D
-
Sirloin, I have no problem allowing Semi-Automatics.
Fully automatics are already illegal here.
Add to your list of laws: Death sentance if a person dies due to a crime involving a firearm.
-
Why do you need semi-automatic?...Think of having to be a cop.
-
sirloin... I may or may not need a semi automatic but... there are a lot of historic and fun firearms that are semi autos so I have about half of mine in semi auto. the real question is ... why not? there is no evidence that semi auto bans help anyone. They are merely feel good incrementalism by people who hate firearms.
glad you were honest enough to say the poll was loaded tho.
lazs
-
Ok..Point taken...Freedom of oneself to express and and have fun...All for it.
But define a "gun"...or it's ability to discharge?
And should there be any controls?
I say yes.
-
sirloin... I would be glad to discuss it with you but it is getting cumbersome here... although beetle will probly take both our posts as "yes"..
I see no real reason for restrictions of non explosive projectiles. I would restrict exploseive projectiles to areas that had enough room and were secure. No reason to restrict other types of firearms for sane adults. Penalties for misuse should be high tho.
lazs
-
I agree that penalties should be high.
Large game on the run is one reason I can think of for semi auto, but like you I see no need for full auto. As a law abiding citizen and licenced firearm owner, the police have nothing to fear from me if I chose to own a s/a hunting rifle. If they were to respond to a call at my house they would know that I have firearms and can take the appropriate actions.
A criminal on the other hand is quite possibly able to get a hold of a fully automatic weapon and they are already illegal.
-
Should someone have, say a "semi-automatic" Ak47, and I have my bolt action single shot .50 cal precision rifle, who do you think is more likely to survive if we engage each other from 1000 meters?
Flip that around, who will survive if we bump into each other at a corner?
Lethality of certain type of firearms is dependant on many factors, as each type have advantages and disadvantages if you wish to think of firearms with a "how many people can they kill" mentality.
FYI nearly all pistols are "semi automatic" sirloin, so your points were a bit conflictory, but no big deal.
I introduce thousands of first time shooters in Calgary to everything under the sun, pistols, shotguns, "assualt rifles", etc. Any firearm can be incredibly dangerous in the right/wrong hands. Trying to divide firearms into more or less lethal types is the mistake of the misinformed generally.
Regarding the penalties Sirloin, I'm in COMPLETE agreement.