Guns, Why do many countries not trust there citizens with them?

Which unfortunately seems to be makeing a comeback :\

reply to post by aklover

---

I cannot argue with your point but I still feel that we are better off than most. We the people haven't fully awakened to the situation as yet.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Really, you actually believe that. It was done in the name of expanding US markets, not for some thin veil of bringing freedom to the world. America acts in its own self interest.If it is in the interst for people to be repressed in a some countries then America will support that governement/dictator. The list is endless of the corrupt and represseive regimes America has supported. You sir are a fool if you believe otherise.




No, they are the facts. Freedom in America my ass.



Never said it wasn't. Isn't that where Christians draw their strength from - Suffering in the belief that there suffering here will give them some entry into the fabled land of heaven, lol. So in essence Christianity thrives on the suffering of its followers, the Chinese governent is doing the church a favour.




Just like Kent State where the Army shot and killed protestors exercising their freedom. You have heard of that ?



Amazing in CHina they can chose to have as many children as they want. In fact I met amny people who had brothers and sisters.



So many poeple are brainswashed from birth to believe in God and the Chruch, they don't have any freeom to chose.




And you have ? Yeah right. Who are these loved ones have a been killed as you suggest in China ?

BTW. You calim to have lived overseas, which country ? Canada doesn't count.

reply to post by xion329alpha

---

The problem isn't guns. Its urbanization and the conditions of poverty that go along with it.

All one has to do is look at the violent crime rates in rural America, where gun ownership rates are also very high, and compare them with violent crime rates in most major cities. The rates in most major cities will be several times higher than rural areas. Its a city problem, for the most part, likely caused by the economic squalor that is so common in our inner cities in this country, as well as the city 'rat race' that puts so much stress on their populations.

BTW, we have about 17,000 murders in the US in an average year, a little lower than it has been in the past. It averages out to about 2 per hour, not one per minute. And of those, about 65% are committed with firearms (and 80% of those with handguns, for the assault weapons banners). The remaining 35% is far from insignificant, and shows clearly that people who are determined to kill each other will do so regardless of weapon. In fact, there are plenty of articles on the internet indicating that many inner city US gangs are actually switching to machetes these days because they're cheap and easy to acquire or even build.

reply to post by mad scientist

---

This will be my last reply. You have said enough to demonstrate your beliefs and feelings. I will not hold that against you. Here you are free to believe as you see fit. I never claimed to have lived overseas just visited. Your post did not ask for specifics. Those that were helped across the border were not oved ones, just those in need of help. Specifics will not be given even if asked. Believe what you will. peace to you.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

because alot of citizens cant be trusted to use them responsibly

5 school shootings in the USA over the past week says it all.

That's funny. Maybe if schools weren't "gun-free" zones one of those crazy citizens with a firearm could have shot this idiot or at least held him until the cops arrived when he walked out from behind the curtain with shotgun in hand or when he stopped shooting at the unarmed students cowering and hiding to reload. It's not like this guy would have had to even stand behind anything in a "gun-free" zone.

School or any "gun-free" zone = barrel of fish

Thats funny just watch the news our right to bare arms Is one of the only rights i disagree with

A person who is determined to Kill will find a way to kill, period.
A Person who is determined to commit suicide will find a way to do so, period.

The only way to pervent murder and violent crime is to install camera systems in every place in the WORLD and if someone does something wrong someone or something comes in to arrest them.

Banning guns might prevent school shootings BUT bombs can be manufactured even more easilly if you have the know how so this would mean that you would have to ban all guns and all knowledge to create destructive devices, ban all knifes and substitute them with plastic knifes, control the internet and squelch freedom of speech and control the internet, for such a feet you would really need a one world government.

violent crime can only be stopped by changing the mindset of a person, a person becomes violent because of the enviroment he is raised in and living in, if their parents told them about morals and how to live as a respectable human being they would not kill in the first place.

I say BAN BAD PARENTING!!!

I am from the Netherlands were guns are virtuallly banned, guess what, I fear for my life walking through these crime ridden streets, most criminals have guns anyway and I heard them use it frequently, they just like to shoot at traffic signs and such when they are not shooting at them selves...

The majority of crime comes from different nations where violence prevais btw, the duch are peaceful and pacifist by nature.

Just as an aside I noticed a few of the UK members saying that the gun ban in the UK coming into being after the Dunblane massacre, that's not strictly true the banning in UK came gradually.
First we had Michael Ryan whom went on a rampage with an AK47 and an M1 Carbine ( en.wikipedia.org... )
during the Hungerford Massacre which resulted in the banning of automatic and semiautomatic rifles and assault weapons. Then of Course we had Dunblane Massacre ( en.wikipedia.org... ) where Thomas Hamliton walked into a school with 2 Browning HP's and 2 .357 Magnums and killed an entire class of 5 and 6 year olds.
this resulted in a ban on all handguns other than black powder and the like.
I think there was talk of there being a ban on deactivated firearms (which have been in the past reactivated by criminals) but not 100% sure, I believe a lot of renactment groups and the like opposed it.

The real problem isn't guns, but the fact that some members of society think it's somehow justified to kill other people. Be it through poverty or mentally unstable (say they caught their wife cheating, or they lost their job, or being bullied). Fixing those problems is an epic task that is quite possibly the pinnacle of society. What can be done in the mean-time, however, is to limit the fall-out from when the people go nuts with their guns. Removing guns from society means there are far, far fewer people gunned down. That benefits the families, and the country.

The argument about guns being needed to keep the government in check is quite frankly hilarious, as if a bunch of disparate folks, with minimal training at best, looking out for themselves, can keep the armed forces at bay? Puh-leeze. This isn't hollywood.

The historical argument (for the US) is about as retarded as it gets. It's the 2nd amendment - the clue's in the name. It's possible, by design, to be revoked. The constitution was never designed to be a static document, but one that changed every generation to be updated to fit in with the times. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realise one document can't suit its purpose forever. It's a shame more folks today don't understand living by an anachronistic document isn't the best idea.

reply to post by dave420

---

If you really believe a bunch of backwards poorly armed people cannot compete with a well funded massive trained and equipped military, might I ask you you look to your history books. It happened to us in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the British in America. History is ripe with cases of just that. You might even look today at Iraq. A well maintained and large military does not have the capacity to police a large populace in a large area. A small group acting independently will often bring a larger group to its knees. What good are nuclear missiles on your own ground against a small force that you cannot find and is supported by the people? I suggest you become a little more knowledgable before you condemn something you knoe little about.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by reluctantpawn

---

Those examples are of invading foreign forces, not the people rising up against their own governments. Vietnam was a war against an army with massive popular support, but an army none-the-less. Russia invaded Afghanistan and fought in terrain they weren't used to, against the Mujahideen (who were funded directly by foreign powers - if they were left on their own with no surface-to-air missiles, Russia would have walked it), and Britain was thousands of miles away from the US, at a time when your average person could have the exact same weapons as any standing army, which is not the case now.

I know about those events in history, and I know they have no bearing on current events, as unless your average US citizen has access to a nuclear submarine, carrier group, F22, M1 Abrams, radios, close air support, Apache helicopters, etc., then they're going to get their asses handed to them by the very power they're trying to overthrow.

That is not necessarily so. These large scale weapons are for use against another large scale army and are quite useless against a smaller quicker force that can act on their own innitiative and not have to wait on orders from superiors. Any resurgence of the people against their own government will have help from the people. And last of all we cannot forget about the ingenuity of te people to overcome what is placed before them. We americans while usually lazy and complacent have a tendency to get the job done once we decided to do it.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

^^ What he said...

There can´t possibly be worse examples to the "population-defeating-the-military" fantasy than the US Independence, Vienam or Afghanistan... because they are entirely different than the situation the american population would have to face SHOULD there ever happen something as a dictatorial swing in the USA (Needless to say, all proper dictators manipulated a majority of the population to embrace exactly that kind of authority before they even started with repressions).

All three conflicts were fought against EXPEDITIONARY forces, who were limited in their freedom and resources by their own governments or the circumstances, and who were ultimately not defeated by the population but because of problems at home (or, to put it easily, these were only half-assed attempts by the foreign powers). And all three of the attacked populations had significance outside forces to support them.

Much more prominent examples would be the great military invasions such as the Roman campaigns or the Nazi German invasions. Every country, area and people they wanted to occupy and for which there were enough resources available, they DID occupy.

And all the numerous insurgencies and uprisings were only tiny needles in the side of said agressors, a nuisance. They never endangered the takeover. And we are speaking of foreign forces here with zero infrastructure in the occupied regions, and also forces that had numerous other fronts to commit resources to as well.

A political turnover in America, a civil war involving the humonguous US military and collaborators on its own soil, will never EVER be stopped by ones personal boomstick. Maybe the oh so divine founding fathers DID think of protection from dictatorship when writing the 2nd amendment. But the idea they could have thought of anything else as "miltia" than a proper, well-organized militia that could actually INFLUENCE things is IMO an insult to the intelligence of said founding fathers.

[edit on 29/2/2008 by Lonestar24]

reply to post by Lonestar24

---

we will have to agree to disagree. The american people are different in many areas. We have had from the beginning the greatest freedom alotted to the people than any other nation. We have risen as the supreme military and economic power in the world. We are a melting pot of nationalities that have come together with one thing in common. We all want a better life and opportunity. Very few here will really sit by and allow this to happen. We have the Holocaust to look back on and see how a government can oppress its people. I can't say that it won't happen, but our nation will be a bloody mess for decades to come if it were to ever happen. I personally still have faith in the people. Without faith and hope we are truly lost.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Is anyone on this forum aware of the number of people in the U.S. that are former military? I would say it is the vast majority, yes we have an all volunteer military, but it also has a high turn-over rate.

That translates to a majority of individuals who have an understanding of small unit tactics. And some few who have extensive training.

As an example, I know 1 individual who was only in for 8 years active, Training consisted of, Small Unit Tactics, Escape and Evasion, Counter Terrorism, NBC Defense, M60, Combat Shotgun. Law Rocket Launcher and Qualifying with the M16 and .45 Cal.

As far as weapons are concerned, no the majority of personal weapons are not military grade weapons, although some could be easily modified to be so. The weapons we do have could be used very effectivly to "obtain" military Grade weapons.
I know personally individules who have weapons that are military issue: like M16's, .50 Cal's, M60's, and Claymore Mines.
These are not legal and are not easy to get, but they can be had.

The framers of our constitution had 2 things specifically in mind when drafting the 2nd amendment, Invasion by a forgin power and to use the words of Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match
for a standing army:


This would answer the OP's question, Guns, Why do many countries not trust there citizens with them? Because they fear their citizen would overthrow them if they are unsatisfied with the way they are being governed. Emphasis mine.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by RedmoonMWC]

reply to post by RedmoonMWC

---

Most countries don't trust their population with guns for the same reasons the US government doesn't trust its population with nuclear weapons.

Not to derail the thread of something, but i thought it might fit in here. At least it gave me a good laugh.

Get social!

US - Not good at avoiding killing themselves with guns! Japan - Good

Below is a quote from the 1994 report, you think its got better in the US since then?

"The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. "

The right to bear arms? Hmmmmmm ?