How I feel about guns. A friendly discourse.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Sounds about right.

That is why you will not find many republican supporters in our country. As far as we are concerned the welfare state is a success. Yes runaway capitalism has been a burden, yes we had to cut spending and accelerate spending at the same time. Yes we have to extend the pension age, but that only goes to 67 in 2021. On the whole we are hanging in there without having to give up much of our privileges. Just some extra taxes here and there, but whenever things get to harry, the gov quickly gives people a tax break. Also affordable universal healthcare, instead of the expensive affordable care act. I love universal health care in principle, but only when it actually alleviates the suffering of the population not adds to their financial woes.

Wow OP talk about of topic.

May the force be with you.

a reply to: GamleGamle

Then, you "Dutch" need to hang on to that. You obviously have some kind of a "dream" that others admire?

Wether you understand why or not. But, for all I know? You "dutch" maybe the last "holdouts" of Western Culture. But don't let that be your "Achilles Heel". Stand for it. Fight for it. Preserve it.

I'm an American. My family came from a conquered people. My conquered people, helped subjugate other "nations" of people to be "free". Read that. Think about it?

Americans are unique. That's not just the States. That goes for North and South America. Canada, Mexico...Bolivia...etc. "The New World"? Our Contenent is the last one "subjugated"?

You "feel" about guns..like the/our Apache, Navajo, Nes Pearce, Chactaw, Tillamook and a nunber of others, do. Or that my Emerald Island, ancestors would Feel.

The use of arms has made this world. My people have been defeated, not just in battle. But in war. We were "conquered". But America is the last hope for all "conquered" people. To come and look each other in the eye, hand on sword, pistol butt, and say? You got a cup of coffee or water? No American would ever deny thier worst enemy a drink of water. America is a hodgepodge of free people. That at one time or another were slaves or "subjects". History has noted, we don't "subject" to well. Heck! We've gave back more than half the world.

Not bad for an "imperialists nation" that's just learned how to swallow oatmeal in a historical timeline? My Nation, my people are beautiful! Lord knows I'd like to backhand some sense into some. But? They're my people. I swore to die for thier right to disagree with me.

I'm not in that "uniform" anymore. But I'm still under that oath.

That's why I smiled at you OP.

originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: network dude

Well I hope this thread somewhat lightens the spirit that talking about guns does not have to be a war onto itself. Or a argument trap.

I am just lucky that I live in a small relatively rich country right at the center of the EU influence sphere, buffered only by extremely rich and powerful nations.

I hope the polarization of the subject can be lessened over time. Why must it always be a confrontation of extremes? I think if you would understand the inner workings of our politics you would call us all moderates.

Live Long and prosper.

I am not sure if you are upset, or we just have a communication issue. I thought we were having a nice rational friendly discussion. Perhaps you could point out what in my post was confrontational so that I might learn from this.

I was truly interested in your country and you offered some great information.

May the force be with you.

Just wanted to toss one more thought out there...

If (god forbid) anymore attacks like Paris occur... pay very very close attention to your politicians... don't fall for the trap we did after 9/11 when we meekly stood aside to let them ram through the Patriot act.

Do not sacrifice your rights for an illusion of security.

That also I think plays a part in our rabid defense of the 2nd, many folks now realize we were conned with the patriot act and are not happy about the erosion of our rights, so possibly even when it should be a civil discussion it usually devolves quickly into a name calling mess.

Peace.

originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: Cygnis

Yes. I can agree with this.

Should everyone who wants to, be allowed too? Yes, as long as they are of sound mind, and are safe and legal to do so.

This of course being the ideal circumstance as safety, legality and clarity of mind can and will not be guaranteed all the time, but that's just the natural price of living as far as I am concerned.

What do you consider the solution to Gun violence?

How do you feel about Europe lacking gun ownership across the board. I mean we are not on the verge of collapse here....

Kind Regards

The solution to gun violence, you ask?

If we remove the adjective "gun" from "gun violence" we are left with "Violence"..

So the real question is, what is the solution to violence?

There really is none, as humans are emotional, and imperfect. As long as we have inanimate objects, like hammers, cars, screw-drivers, knives, swords, and any other implement there will be "(adjective) violence".

Honestly, "gun violence" is a buzz word. You don't hear about Knife violence, or hammer violence, or car violence, or bomb violence. So why is "gun violence" singled out?

As far as your second question, about Europe and gun ownership. There are several countries over in Europe that allow gun ownership. Switzerland is one that allows for it, and I believe there are one or two more that allow their citizens to own. However, I do realize it is not as wide-spread as it is here in the USA. I do not consider European's ignorant for not understanding how things are here in the USA. I consider those Europeans that think the USA should be like Europe as Ignorant because they are not looking at things from anything but their own perspective and what they are used to. Different countries, different ideals and histories play a huge role in mindsets.

I still feel that a person has the rights, as a human being, to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones with equal or greater force than a person wishing to deprive them of theirs. I do believe that the world is not a safe place, not because guns exist, but because there will always be someone who is not the sharpest crayon in the box, and wishes to do harm to others.

I believe firearms are a personal choice, there will be those who do desire to own, and those that do not wish to own. I respect the choices of those on both sides of the fence, I wish to be afforded the same respect and understanding in return.

Thanks for reading. Peace be with you.

This pretty good thread had me thinking, and this is just a rough outline...

There are about 4-6 types of 'personal violence' of the extreme type.

o Targeted-targeted (like an attack at a specific person for a specific reason).

o Random-targeted (Like a home invasion, but not specifically picked, but perhaps selected because of ease of entry, a rich neighborhood. Still it's targeted because the perp is going after the home-owner).

o Non-specific-untargeted - sounds confusing but it's an attack on the street where you just 'became' the victim because you did something that looked like 'prey item here'.

o Random--untargeted - maybe a dumb road-rage event where you just happen to be the focus of road-rager (could have been anyone) you didn't cause it, and you can't do a lot about it. Higher chaos.

Now, this is not an all encompassing list, it's more like partial analysis by venue.

So, now to the point...

In the HOME:
1. Carrying or employing a firing solution is at the highest levels of purpose, effectiveness and moral high-ground in the first type. You're defending your family in your home. The BG targeted YOU, he came to YOU, and you may not have done anything besides being there. I'm omitting for the moment that the homeowner was just an a-hole who went home after a dumb act.

I can most defend and explain the need/right/logic of carrying, employing, defending the morality of this type. IF I had very high attributes, like footspeed, agility, common-sense, low on the rage-o-holic scale, lived in a safe place, stayed out of bars and bad places at night then I could see limiting my use of a last-ditch firing solution and not carry out in the public.

Now, if I am low-attribute endowed, i.e. female, young, weaker, mobility-challenged, smaller, elderly, then there really is no better method of having personal safety, leveling the playing field, preventing bullying due to looking like easy prey than carrying and knowing how to deploy and carefully react by having a firearm. It gives me time, and lets me create distance and time and seek cover. THEN if it comes down to it, I have an option not to die cowering in the back of a 7-11.

IMO, people are really being FOOLISH not to have SOME METHOD of layered home defense in this day and age.

Why? Because home invasions are NOT LIKE home invasions in the past. Most of them are Type II HI, i.e. random, and unrelenting homicidal predatory people driven by their addictions, devoid of conscious, or regret and sometimes not feeling fear and pain.

If ONE can reduce the risk, perhaps prevent this kind of thing by having 'sensible' layered home defense, backed up by communications, lighting, alarms, reinforced windows and doors, a practiced plan by the whole family, and a 'final option' of deadly force, (I.e. a shotgun backed up by a rifle or a handgun) then you have a simple solution to a quickly growing problem.

Again, a hastily frameworked set of definitions and planse just to give people an idea of how to analyze and strategize.

Sorry about the incompleteness of the above post and the lack of spell-check. ATS decided I was taking too long and reloaded the page. So screw it. Figure it out yourself. I KNOW what I'm doing is right, well thought out and based on peaceful co-existence.

I had backed up the post that far - you can see where it's going. Bad neighborhood, elderly, female, disabled etc., you should be carrying outside the home and be in charge of your OWN personal self-defense, and not be delusional or depending on LE that arrives just in time to be too late.

Remember back in the feudal era, the Kings and Royalty made sure the peasants didn't have weapons and were unable to organize. There's a reason for that. Now having said that, I don't think an armed populace can stand up to a determined LE and Military presence bent on using martial law to desecrate the Constitution and depopulate the country and win.

If you can carry or use in the home, consider it. Violence against the individual and your loved ones can happen anywhere any time, and saying 'it can't happen here' is magical thinking. Of course it's also magical thinking to hope you'll come out of such a bad encounter unscathed. Every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. We who would carry know that.

Nuff-said.

originally posted by: GamleGamle

There must be a way to stop these string of senseless mass shootings your country is dealing with right now and I find gun control to some extent not a very high price to pay to safe future innocent lives, but I am open for different ideas and solutions.

This is the ONLY gun approved by me .

a reply to: network dude

No no, I am not offended at all. I was not talking about our conversation, I was talking in a broader sense. Like everyone. Reading back my post, I understand now how it could be picked up as personal critique. It was not.

I was wondering why most people always have to think in terms of extremes in comparison to our friendly discussion.
No worries friend. My bad. I am sorry for the miscommunication.

In that last segment of my text the question was purely rhetorical and the last part about politics was an independent afterthought. I worded it poorly. Thank you for pointing it out.

Sincerely

a reply to: Irishhaf

Well although I get the feeling that my posts are turning into a unapologetic love letter to my nations people. I can not help but point out that our down to earthiness shields us somewhat from that kind of manipulation. Although I can not be absolutely sure we would not have a knee jerk reaction. The thing is the Netherlands has been pretty much unsullied by large terrorist attacks. We have had our hate crimes, and some foiled plots, but we do not seem to be standing very high on the terror hit list for some reason.

Military on our streets would be considered a very very big deal.

Kind Regards.

a reply to: Cygnis

Well there is a case to be made that when you remove the tools of violence, people are less inclined to commit to the violence. You can not remove violence from a person, but the external stimulation of it can be regulated, although that in and of itself guarantees nothing. I see your point.

I do not remember where or when, but there have been times that ""knife violence"" was on our news as a problematic issue. So ""gun violence"" is not the only buzz word. It just pops up into existence when a group consider that tool to be particularly problematic.

Yes Switzerland is one of the exceptions. I hear they have excellent gun education. Its a country that really makes the case that there is no intrinsic problem with the citizenry having easy access to firearms. I read that, the fact that they were well armed played into the decision not to invade Switzerland by Nazi Germany.

Another thought that came to mind.... even though suicide by gun is more prevalent in countries where there are a lot of them. That does not mean that these people would not have committed suicide anyway. The firearm was simply the first choice.

A lot of this thread has been about that, how its not possible to compare and oversimplify. I simply raise the question a couple of times as long as I feel more info can be gleamed from it.

I believe the US citizenry is in a way more rooted in reality. There is a relative safety here in the center of northern Europe. That people have become very used to. Even though some troubles seem to be getting closer as a whole we do live in a bubble and we like to project that safe mindset to places that are not safe and act like people are over reacting over there. When there are real threats. If we ever have extreme social unrest or are under threat of invasion. You will see people get very sympathetic real quick to those who wish to carry arms.

I think that we for the most part are the same way. We want to have the right to protect ourselves as well, and we certainly will do that. We just have less qualms in leaving that up to the organized security apparatus for the most part. Over here people actually have faith in the police for the most part.

So your probably not gonna like this but, when a civilian shoots a burglar for breaking and entering private property, they can be put on trial for that. Although I have heard that there is a culture of looking the other way when an event serves the mutual interest of both the police and the private party. This is not so much corruption in its most sinister sense. Its just not executing the letter of the Law, because that private individual through his actions did some great community service. This is especially the case when its a particularly troublesome individual which the police had to deal with for a very long time.

I can not speak for all Europeans... but... what I have perceived is this.

We do not think just because there have been many mass shootings that the US should just give up their second amendment right, but..... its like planes, they are extremely safe, but if one goes down... poof 300 lives gone.
A gun is like any other just a weapon, but a weapon that can kill many, very rapidly. So Europeans will say. A handgun for at home, a Hunting rifle for sport and game, A sniper for the shooting club. Sure go ahead. But why not do away with vast unregulated distribution of Assault Rifles & SMG's. They seem dangerous.

Kind Regards

a reply to: Maverick7

The amount of safety one requires is based on how safe or unsafe that person feels.
It is clear to me now that that feeling of safety that would require no firearms is absolutely lacking in the US
Be it by crime or government. Far removed from European docile relegation of defense and protection to the
sanctioned security forces.

When safety is a concern and firearms are required education is the only way to balance it out. Like Switzerland.
Then we pray that underlying problems that lead to desperation and madness do not supersede education and common sense.

Kind Regards

originally posted by: GamleGamle
So Europeans will say. A handgun for at home, a Hunting rifle for sport and game, A sniper for the shooting club. Sure go ahead. But why not do away with vast unregulated distribution of Assault Rifles & SMG's. They seem dangerous.

On this point, the thing is, very few homicides...a low single digit percentage... in the US involve the usage of any kind of rifle, including assault rifles. The vast majority are committed with handguns. If you go after assault rifles on the basis of public safety, then you have to go after just about everything else, too. Otherwise, an assault weapons ban alone is going to have little if any measurable impact on violent crime and homicides.

Just one note to add: machine guns and sub machine guns are already heavily regulated and haven't been manufactured for the US civilian market since 1986.

a reply to: GamleGamle

Thanks. I'm really good at being a prick, but I usually know when I do it. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't snapped.

a reply to: vor78

Thank you for the machine and SMG tid bit of info. I was not aware.

Well your post is as good as any to once again conclude that there is not so much a gun problem, but a human problem.

The streamlining and expansion of gun legislation is a PR stunt at best to muddle the fact that there is little within the power of the government, in the short term, to tackle the root causes of violence within the US.

At its worst its a sinister long term implementation to erode the rights and freedom of US citizenry. By an authoritarian, greedy, control crazy, corrupt, ruthless, compassion-less, extremely powerful calculating group of people.

Even better firearm education might have some effect on decreasing violence with the use of firearms, but its not going to be enough, not by a long shot.

Only when a true balance of Justice, equal opportunity & social harmony is achieved will this kind of violence and any kind of violence decrees. This is not going to happen overnight and some people do not want to hear or are able to see that. So they go after the symptoms. Guns just being one of them.

I have heard some compelling reasons why firearms, especially in the US should at least be allowed to exist and remain as they are.

Crime
Corruption
Distances
History
Distrust of Gov
General Safety
Freedom
Way of Life

It might also be a way of dealing with the massive multiculturalism of a historically young nation that is still balancing itself out.

Having said that it seems to me The US of A could do with some less fiery independence and more communal co-operation. If not with the government then so be it without. I do believe it to be healthy for their to be a balance between the will of self defense and pacifistic abstinence, but I also believe this balance comes naturally and does not necessarily lead to a confrontational polarization of the nations people. I reference Switzerland here as a commendable example. Although after some further reading, Switzerland seems to be slowly but surely moving away from any worthwhile comparison with the US. Gun ownership is dropping and firearm legislation is tightening, without any overly harsh public outcry. So..... even less guns in Europe.

I started out with this thread wanting to tell something about my own country and guns, and learning more about the particularities of new and old US gun legislation. It does not seem that important anymore to know much about that, seeing as it is just a small piece in a much bigger puzzle that could be called a solution, if at all. So thank you everyone for helping me refine my view. I am still open to a lot of different views, but my personal focus may shift somewhat to other long term solutions..... as a way to educate the people who might care about that kind of subject and the dangers of focusing on one aspect of a much larger whole.

Kind Regards.

a reply to: GamleGamle

Only when a true balance of Justice, equal opportunity & social harmony is achieved will this kind of violence and any kind of violence decrees. This is not going to happen overnight

It will never happen, and that is why people should not be allowed to own guns. If Heaven ever descends to Earth, then perhaps it will be acceptable to allow private citizens to own guns.

a reply to: Astyanax

So be it. Let it never happen or let the heavens descend down upon the earth.

Even if free will turns out to be an illusion its the bases of true co operation. Free will is sacred.
In the end the universe will balance itself out with or without humanity and its descendants in that equation.

Take away weapons, people will find ways to kill each other. A method will be found.

No one can change what is inside us. No presence or absence of guns will change that. It is the will of the whole that determines what happens. Trying to micromanage the circumstantial symptoms of a vicious cycle of basic violence, be it victim or perpetrator, as a way of solving a problem is likened to trying to play god. It never ends well.

I myself will never pick up a gun for myself. Will never carry a gun for myself and will never regret its absence even in the face of my imminent demise by someone violent, by gun or otherwise. So you could present me a weapon or you could take away a weapon and for me it would be no different. It is only of consequence to those who believe in violence and they will believe regardless..... until they decide otherwise. It is the acceptance of this, that makes it easy for me to talk to all of you.
Learn from it without falling to the belief that I can persuade anyone to feel or think differently about anything.

So its better for people to understand one another positions without wanting to change that for anything. Once a person truly understands something no one can fear it any longer even if it ultimate's in the end of my or their physical existence. True understanding more often than not leads to the end of violence.

Kind Regards

Attempting to have a rational and reasonable gun discussion on here is not going to happen. The majority of Gun owners on ATS are kind of unstable. Do not get me wrong, there are a lot of reasonable gun owners but they seem to be the most quiet and the others are the most vocal. There are valid reasons to own a gun and that is a fact but equating owning a gun to bravery is not one. You are neither braver by owning or not owning one. Owning a gun is a false sense of security but if it helps..go for it.

I mean look at your first response, "You prefer to deal with problems through diplomacy and perseverance. We deal with problems using our spines", apparently instead of looking for a non violent way to deal with things, it is better to point a gun or threaten someone with a gun in order to deal problems.

Another reply is unreasonable..Import their problem areas in your country, even though guns have never done anything to help with those problems.

A lot of them believe in myths such as.."gun free zones are targets for mass shooters" or "a good guy with a gun would stop a mass shooter". I find a lot of them live in a fantasy world where everything plays out like a movie where the good guys save the day and everything works out

They also think that the amount of guns equates to the amount of gun owners, when it is only 1/3 of America that owns those guns. The studies they bring into a discussion are never supported by government agencies and when they bring a study in, it is always from one source and is by John Lott, a gun rights advocate.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

a reasonable gun owner reaction

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. “Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” Parker told MSNBC. “We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves.”

Parker is just one of many armed civilians who have been present or proximal to a mass shooting but was unable to stop it. The canard of the armed civilian mass-shooting hero is perpetuated by exaggerations and half-truths.

There’s the story of Joel Myrick, an assistant principal who “stopped” a shooting at Pearl High School—but only after it was already over and the shooter was leaving.

There’s the story of James Strand, the armed banquet-hall proprietor who “stopped” a shooting at a school dance he was hosting—but only after the student gunman had exhausted all of his ammunition.

There’s Nick Meli, a shopper who drew his weapon in self-defense during an attack at Clackamas Mall—but Meli’s story has changed repeatedly, and local police say that his role in causing the shooter’s suicide is “inconclusive” and “speculation.”
There’s Mark Kram, who shot a gunman fleeing on a bicycle from the scene of a shooting. Kram also ran down the gunman with a car.

There’s Joe Zamudio, who came running to help when he heard the gunfire that injured Gabby Giffords and killed six others in Tucson. But by the time Zamudio was on the scene, unarmed civilians had already tackled and disarmed the perpetrator. Zamudio later said that, in his confusion, he was within seconds of shooting the wrong person.

There’s Joseph Robert Wilcox, who drew his concealed handgun in a Las Vegas Walmart to confront gunmen who had executed police officers nearby. Wilcox was himself killed by one of the two assailants, both of whom then engaged police in a firefight.

And then there are the fifth wheels—armed civilians who have confronted mass shooters simultaneously with police, such as Allen Crum, who accompanied three law enforcement officers onto the observation deck of the UT Main Building to end the 1966 sniper attack.

In reality, it is too late for anything to to be done about guns in America. Does that mean they should not still try, of course not. I will never understand the reaction by some to gun violence and that would be to put more guns out there. That would be like trying put out a fire by throwing more fire on it.

Another mind boggling reaction, not because it is not valid but because of how different the reactions were...a radical goes on rampage in California and the shooter was American born and seems to be the only shooting that matters. This somehow confirmed to them that terrorists are around every corner and that refugees should be considered dangerous. That something has to be done about Muslims in America which is an extreme reaction claiming it was in best interest for the safety of fellow Americans. Other shootings by other people and then someone asks for something to be done but then the reaction is different and it becomes how dare you even think about some kind measures to be taken in regards to gun and fellow Americans safety is not a concern for these same people as long as they have theirs.

If you actually want a discussion about guns and are expecting some kind of rational and reasonable debate, take it from me, guns owners on ATS (not all) are not rational nor reasonable and nothing you can say will change that.

a reply to: theonenonlyone

I have read your full post. A rational discussion with gun owners is exactly what has happened here on this thread. That above news worthiness or educational value is the redeeming quality of this thread. As far as I can recall bravery or cowardice has barely been discussed on this thread, except maybe a one liner here or there. Look to me tolerance in any discussion is very important. Everyone may shout out their beliefs in a one liner, it never is or ever will be the meat of the discussion.

I had a friendly meaningful exchange with the person that started out with the ""import these situations into your own country and see if you still feel that way"" poster. Who even goes so far as to explain his reaction based on recent personal experience...... nothing going wrong there.

As for the possible less than fact worthy claims. You may be right. I have never seen any proof that armed civilians in public shootouts have had any positive effect on anything. Just to many variables in a human being for that to count as a plus. Gun free zones, + / - is another complex discussion in my mind with no easy answer. Believing such claims at face value is certainly not something I do

I think its common knowledge that there are far more guns in the US then actual Gun Owners. Most participants in this thread even the right to bear arms enthusiasts have confirmed this. I have seen so many different stats about how many US citizens actually have a gun...... I just simplify to they have more people carrying then most countries and leave it at that. That may sound ignorant, but its my experience that its not very important how many carriers there are in the overall discussion.

I read your article link, it further showcases the complexities involved and that lobbies like to spin things one way or another.

To summaries, I am very much aware of the myriad peoples frequenting ATS, but if you read through this thread carefully, the extreme views you have pointed out are not overly represented here. You may have an axe to grind with the Gun ho crowd, but they haven't been frequenting this thread I am sure. Furthermore, this is not some political piece trying to sway people one way or another. Its just my personal inquiry that may or may not be interesting to read for others.

Kind Regards

a reply to: GamleGamle

The United States has the right to bear arms because of these reasons...

1)To defend private property. With a large dense population police because less effective at doing this.

2)To prevent/stifle foreign invasions. Conquering a country get 10 times easier when you can just defeat the military and take over the unarmed population.

3)To defend against violent criminals that are armed and can rob,rape you or kill you before the police show up.

4)To prevent coops,military dictatorships,emperors,etc.Tyrants can just assemble a small number of well armed and well trained criminals and replace the government with their government. Who's going to stop them?