I've realised something about US gun control, and I'd like to share it....

a reply to: Kryties

EKU 28, REAL Ouzo and Soju?

a reply to: fleabit

AND THEY BLAME SOLDIERS TOO!

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

See, your first mistake is thinking there are no guns in your country.

There is, the military and police have them, and if the wrong government gets in power, you will damn well wish you had a gun to protect yourself at that point. This is in my opinion one of the biggest issues Europeans seem to have - they trust government WAY to much. If the jews were armed during WWII things would have gone down much differently.

Now, secondly there is like 300 million guns in America - if you think it is remotely possible to confiscate even 90% of those, even if the vast majority wanted that to happen your are mistaken. It would take 100 years at least before criminals would not have an ample supply of them, and actually it would probably never happen because of point number 3.

Third - we are quickly coming into the age of 3d printing - very soon your supposed gun free zones will have people easily able to make their own guns.

Bottom line with freedom comes risk - but the risk is worth it - always.

a reply to: Kryties

Each is a differing problem, as you well know. How is taking away my right going to help solve the problems? I'm very curious to know.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Kryties

EKU 28, REAL Ouzo and Soju?

We have those too

Walk into most pubs in Oz and you'll find Victoria Bitter, Tooheys New, Carlton Draught and a few others on tap plus most of the more expensive beer in the fridge. You can't honestly say you've had the "true Aussie experience" unless you've had at least one of those served on tap that I listed.

a reply to: proximo

What if your government offered you 300% of the value for a firearm to hand them in ? thats effectively what ours did back in 96 to get some off the street. What happened was people were bowled over in the rush to hand them in and make money. I had 2 semi autos which were banned and made money on mine handing them in. Guys then went out and bought legal ones and a tonne of ammo with the money they had just made.

I know a guy who was handing in pistol barrels claiming them to be actual firearms and he got $600 a barrel.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Your logic is flawed, and ignores most of history.

One, every single time some dictator type has planned to take over, they started by taking away the guns, leaving citizens helpless against their tyranny. That is THE biggest reason we have the right to bear arms in the United States; so that we do not fall under the control of some power-mad ruler or another.

Two, for most of known history, there were no guns, but there was much violence, murder, and so forth. Guns do not create more of these things. Guns, in fact, reduce these things. How, you ask? Simple; someone who would be incapable of adequate self defense, without a gun, can use a gun to equalize things, making themselves far less of a target, and capable of standing up to, and stopping, a far bigger, stronger, better trained assailant.

The people who are against guns either don't understand this simple principle, or they are the sort who want to control others, and know that guns make that far more difficult to accomplish.

Now, let's look at a scenario, and see what would happen where I live, where many people carry guns, openly and concealed, and where you live, in the UK, where virtually no one can carry a gun, even the police. Say you are walking don the street, and some guy shouts out, "Allahu Ackbar!", and starts charging you with a machete. What are you going to do? I know exactly what I would do, and he'd be down and bleeding, likely fatally, in seconds. How can you stop him, with no gun?

Another scenario, since someone mentioned this one. Say someone decides to run a car into people. How can you stop them, unarmed? Armed, I can fire at the driver, or at the tires, radiator, etc., and have a better chance of stopping the vehicle. Unarmed, all I can do is dodge.

Next, say someone breaks into your home. You are unarmed, have no skill in fighting, and he's way bigger and tougher. He's after your kids. What are you going to do? Armed, you can shoot him, and keep your family safe. Unarmed, all are helpless, and likely characters in a news story of a fatal home invasion.

I can't do a lot, hand-to-hand, in a fight with some young guy, though I'd certainly try if I had to, and he'd be hurt. I can, though, easily stop the same guy, armed.

I can also help to defend my country, my neighbors, and my family, against those who would try to take away our freedom. What can citizens of the UK do, unarmed, if the government decides you have no rights? History shows that doesn't work out well for unarmed citizens, of any nation.

These are reasons that we have guns. It's not a "gun culture", it's not the "Wild West" (which wasn't at all like you probably think it was), and people don't walk around afraid of being shot at all the time, either. In fact, in places with more gun ownership, there is far less crime, and people are more relaxed, and safer. And, no, as someone else suggested, one cannot by a gun in the local grocery store. Walmart, sure, and they sell groceries, but they sell a lot of other things, too. No handguns there, either; just rifles and shotguns. Even there, you have to pass a background check to purchase.

To answer another question, a lot of people own a lot of guns, and never have a single accident.

If no one had guns, bad guys would use knives, or clubs, or their fists, or vehicles, or poison, or whatever, and their victims would be helpless to defend against them, as they are, oh, yeah, in the UK.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

Each is a differing problem, as you well know. How is taking away my right going to help solve the problems? I'm very curious to know.

I never advocated for taking away rights, just common sense legislation. Please don't lump me in with the "anti-gun" lot when I have stated many times that I am not.

OH man. this is easy one Tyranny...guns stop Tyranny.

a reply to: Kryties

NOT here.
Soju isn't like it was in Korea and Ouzo contains opium(I found THAT out during REFORGER 85, but STILL won a German shooting medal)
,the EKU 28 was too sweet.
TOO sick to travel now.
WE just use Everclear anyway, if one is really blasting off.

originally posted by: mazzroth
a reply to: proximo

What if your government offered you 300% of the value for a firearm to hand them in ? thats effectively what ours did back in 96 to get some off the street. What happened was people were bowled over in the rush to hand them in and make money. I had 2 semi autos which were banned and made money on mine handing them in. Guys then went out and bought legal ones and a tonne of ammo with the money they had just made.

I know a guy who was handing in pistol barrels claiming them to be actual firearms and he got $600 a barrel.

Sure a lot would get turned in,

But people that were smart and didn't care about breaking the law would hold onto them, because they would become a lot more than 3 times as valuable in a few years.

But you are not getting something here, gun owners in the US are almost all very pro gun - the vast majority are not turning in all of their guns no matter what - if they have 10 they might sell 5 or 6 of them - but they will never completely disarm. They would have to think that is a good idea - and I can tell you almost none are even slightly leaning towards thinking it is a good idea.

I was at your place before. Coming from Europe it seems insane to own a gun, yet when arrived in the United States, I slowly got the reason why this is such a big deal.

You really need to be out of the country a couple years and distance yourself from your heritage to understand how the European society works and also see the impact on your life.

Essentially when you grow up, you get taught not to think freedom-based but be obedience to what the news, government and even your supervisor or teacher tells you. If you don't agree with me, maybe take a step back and you may recognize that this is not so far fetched. All your life is centered around what is socially acceptable and what is not.

I am still shocked how US media, Russia media, Chinese media present a certain thing and than I go to any of the European outlets and you hear quiet the opposite - usually with a narrative that follows usually the line of political and social direction. Something that is good but bad for the Europeans gets presented in an overhyped way as bad. Something that is really bad but actually good for the Europeans - get a "oh well - no big deal" narrative.

The key is that all European countries dictate a certain general social system to their people which is not driven by the people itself but by the Government and ideology think tanks to ensure that there is a certain cohesive agreement between all the people. It works "ok" - I would say. People can find certain prosperity if they aligned in the proper way - meaning either through birth or connections - and even than, it is really begging for success. I have numerous examples that show that. For example: Many germans run to the local bank branch if they have to deal with any kind of money transaction. It really depends how deep your connection is with the local branch supervisors if you want certain services. I still have to deal with the same pattern every time I run to the consulate to deal with certain matters (oh yeah - they hate me there.. haha - so it's pain in the butt to deal with them).

In the United States there is a "generic" society model that allows everyone to be on the "same page" - yet it is never fully defined so that can be applied very regional down to the individual person. I believe that is the main strength of the United States and the massive success it had for such a long time. Anyone can strive under any circumstances - there are very little walls and always ways around it. It is also called the "American Dream" which is a very real part of every person living in the United States.

Now back to the gun control matters - while the European society model is very limiting, it is also very solid - in contrast the US model is open, dynamic and fluid, yet easily to destroy. I believe the founders and over the centuries many smart people realized that and had to ensure the survival of the open society model. The main threat to the general people are entities with power and of course guns.

Many people will argue that private gun ownership is leveling the field and we all know that this is pretty much BS. The majority of gun owners barely know how to use their guns in defense or attack scenarios. If you don't have significant weapons training, you will be dead before you fire one shot.

I believe private gun ownership has far more deeper origin and provides a certain psychological effect that is part of the overall identity of Americans which guarantees in turn the open and dynamic society models without a lot effort or regulation and of course provide a bit of an insurance. That's why any "ban" is such a heavy topic because it hits the center of the American identity and society models.

Now don't get me wrong - I fully understand that an open society also means that there is no true guides for you and your life and it's basically up to you to determinate what you want to do with your life (which is kind of contrary to the European model with thousands of social nets) - it also means that you have to be responsible and accountable for your actions in order to succeed. Nothing is handed to you.

Many people can't deal with that and they rather be on the safe side and have an universal net that allows them to be still kind of free yet guided. They don't have to think in their life. That's where those people run in conflict with gun ownership because yet again, their idea of society can conflict if the other side has "guns" - not because of the power but somehow as an reversed psychological effect. But even the two systems conflict with each other, the open society model still encompasses both without running risk in a civil war.

The United State is truly a special place with a lot of conflict and issues - yet most if not all people actually can live here without fear while I don't see that happening for the rest of the world!

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
OH man. this is easy one Tyranny...guns stop Tyranny.

And what are the comparative pea shooters you own going to do to stop bombs, tanks, jets, missiles, drones, laser and sonic weapons, nukes etc etc?

It's literally like taking a sharpened stone and trying to use it to fend off an army.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The Aussies are addled by over-rated beer, heat stroke and snake venom.

LOL.

I REALLY hope you're joking about that. If not, however.....

1. Over-rated beer? Are you talking about that Fosters crap we export? You actually think Aussies drink that carbonated urine? We keep the good stuff for ourselves and you lot get the dregs.

Fun fact too: Fosters was invented in 1888 by 2 AMERICANS. Proof that they have had a death wish for well over over a century, at the very least.

A slow, painful, unpleasant tasting, a foul rotten melted plastic stinking death wish that causes the consumer to ultimately curl into a fetal position and expire.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
OH man. this is easy one Tyranny...guns stop Tyranny.

And what are the comparative pea shooters you own going to do to stop bombs, tanks, jets, missiles, drones, laser and sonic weapons, nukes etc etc?

It's literally like taking a sharpened stone and trying to use it to fend off an army.

Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare. Those pea shooters the afghnis have, have worked pretty well against all that modern army equipment in keeping them from ever being put under total control. Not to mention until things are automated a lot of the military would turn and fight on the peoples side.

But sure, if the government wants to nuke or gas its population than we are SOL, but what are they controlling at that point.

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The Aussies are addled by over-rated beer, heat stroke and snake venom.

LOL.

I REALLY hope you're joking about that. If not, however.....

1. Over-rated beer? Are you talking about that Fosters crap we export? You actually think Aussies drink that carbonated urine? We keep the good stuff for ourselves and you lot get the dregs.

Fun fact too: Fosters was invented in 1888 by 2 AMERICANS. Proof that they have had a death wish for well over over a century, at the very least.

A slow, painful, unpleasant tasting, a foul rotten melted plastic stinking death wish that causes the consumer to ultimately curl into a fetal position and expire.

LOL nice. I didn't know that, I learnt something today!

originally posted by: mazzroth
The problem isn't the gun its the person, sick people drive cars into crowds and unbalanced people will always find ways and means to kill.

Take away firearms and watch the mayhem, the only thing keeping violent people from doing more harm is the possible threat some victim may be able to defend them-self.

You would have to ban machetes, knives, swords, throw stars, cars, trucks, planes, motorcycles, poisons, fuels, glass, nails and anything else deadly to wrap people up in cotton wool to make them feel safe. Then go after all the snakes, spiders, scorpions and sharks just so people can sleep at night ?

YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE SAFE FROM DELIBERATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE!!!

Unless everyone has a gun, right?

You just said YOU CANNOT... but for some, that is the very reason for carrying. Safety.

If every single citizen of the US gave a reason why guns should be untouched despite the ease at which people can take out dozens of people with minimal effort, we'd have as many reasons as there are gun owners, given the flow of reasoning in these last few threads.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

t also says in the same paragraph of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, that this has to do with a "well regulated militia" but very few gun owners are members of a militia, well regulated or not.

Should probably bone up on what those terms meant at the time they were written, rather than trying to apply a 21st century definition to them.

Yes, I agree that the US Constitution, as it now stands, is out of date (that is at the core of what you said). I hardly think that the US public have enough will or forethought to re-frame the document, as has been done in the past.

The whole point of the second was to not give the government the ability to restrict firearms owning. So why would they draft an amendment that gives the government the ability to "regulate" the right to own a firearm?

The second amendment was framed to allow people to rise up in an organized manner against unjust governments. Your present government is too powerful, in a judicial and military sense, for even vast militia to effectively oppose them. It would be sure suicide.

The Second Amendment was also framed to allow armed groups to"put down" slave revolts.

As such, it cannot achieve at least two of the purposes for which it was framed and should be replaced with something that does preserve those rights, as originally intended.

The US Government now spies on its entire population, under FISA section 702, which is re-signed annually (so every modern POTUS has been implicit in breaking the articles of the Constitution).

Legally, FISA 702 is specifically targeted to at only foreign threats, yet as Edward Snowden has revealed, it is used to justify collection and analysis of data from US citizens, something it specifically prohibits and that is also unconstitutional.

Armed domestic groups that are anti-government are supposed to be allowed under the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they are labelled as lawbreakers and put down by judicial condemnation and force, as in the cases of Ruby Ridge, the Bundy Standoff, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Waco. In Wyoming it is illegal to attempt to form a public militia.

Guns are not the problem criminals are. Anyone with any kind of intelligence can make a firearm. If you think for a moment those in power have your safety in mind, guess again. Your firearms are an obstacle in their way to controlling and stealing you blind. a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

a reply to: chr0naut

Just replying to congratulate you on an excellent post. I agree with everything you said.