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

reply to post by LT mikey


i believe in keeping G-D's laws,i hate no one,but i would always carry a holstered 9 mili if my government permitted me to,which it does not.
i could obtain 1 at the local taverns illegally tomorrow but i will not do it that way

if the situation ever arose in my presence that required me to be of assistence to the victim of a criminal /murderous attack i would not want to stand by watching when i could help but------i am 61 years old----my physical strength has run down and i never was that able in an assault situation as a child/teenager anyway.

what would you do if by chance were put in the predicament of watching an innocent person going thru the process of being beaten to death with no police around to intervene?-------and that is the way it is where i live----------there's never a cop around when you need one.

now i think of it----2 years ago my son and grandson were attacked by 2 pitbulls as they walked down the sidewalk in the city they live------the owner supposedly lost his grip on the leashes while walking 3 of them together.my son kicked those 2 dogs as hard as he could while holding his son in the air before the owner got control of them.

same story-----never a cop around when you need 1 and the guy hi tailed it out of there when my son got the cell phone out and called for them.

i don't think mentally unsound people should have a gun but it would not bother me in the least if everyone whose heart was right carried one openly in our societies------------i believe that this would discourage would be murderers and holdup criminals from attempting robbery in the first place.

reply to post by 44soulslayer

The majority of American deaths in Iraq are the result of IED attacks, crude explosive devices that can often be made out of household chemicals and are similar to the devices that were used in the attacks in the UK.

reply to post by LT mikey


Our fundamental right is for the "people to bear arms" . We the people are our govt. We tell our govt. what to do not the other way around. The responsibility of the people is to overthrow any tyrannical govt that might come into being. This is per our constitution. I cannot explain that concept to those that have been ruled over for hundreds of years.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by lifestudent


That's understandable. It like when you're dealing with animals and children who are being awkward or unruly. If you try to increase your control over them they just get worse. Nature often works to the opposite way to what logic would tell you.

reply to post by lifestudent


That's understandable. It like when you're dealing with animals and children who are being awkward or unruly. If you try to increase your control over them they just get worse. Nature often works to the opposite way to what logic would tell you.

reply to post by lifestudent


That's understandable. It like when you're dealing with animals and children who are being awkward or unruly. If you try to increase your control over them they just get worse. Nature often works to the opposite way to what logic would tell you.

In Malta, there's such a restriction on guns that any gun crime can almost instantly be closed due to knowing who has what, so most people don't bother with gun crimes.

In fact, the country only has problems with drugs, a few drunken knife fights and car accidents (blah, stupid people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel!)

Seriously, the crime rates are LOW! I love the country.

It might be true that gun restriction really does lower crime, but I'm doubtful because I think it's the mindset of the people, not what weapons they happen to own. I mean why don't we have rampant bow, crossbow or baseball bat crimes? Did our ancestors live with rampant musket crimes? I don't buy it. I know guns are the fastest way to kill someone without having any knowledge or training. But there are countless ways to kill people.

But to protect the people from tyranny you'd have to ban the authorities from also having guns. You can only prevent tyranny if the people's weapons are at least equal to what the authorities have. Why? Because when violence becomes the answer, it's the only answer. Talk won't get you anywhere with someone who is genuinely determined to control your life and socially/financially exploit you and repress you.

It might be true that gun restriction really does lower crime, but I'm doubtful because I think it's the mindset of the people, not what weapons they happen to own. I mean why don't we have rampant bow, crossbow or baseball bat crimes? Did our ancestors live with rampant musket crimes? I don't buy it. I know guns are the fastest way to kill someone without having any knowledge or training. But there are countless ways to kill people.

But to protect the people from tyranny you'd have to ban the authorities from also having guns. You can only prevent tyranny if the people's weapons are at least equal to what the authorities have. Why? Because when violence becomes the answer, it's the only answer. Talk won't get you anywhere with someone who is genuinely determined to control your life and socially/financially exploit you and repress you.

You've made a lot of good points there but I want to raise a few of my own.

Gun crimes in the US are rampant. Why? Because buying guns is as easy as buying a loaf of bread if you weren't going to factor in price. The sheer amount of weapons and illegal weapons makes it extremely difficult to triangulate the perpetrator of said gun crime.

I'm not saying ban them, I'm saying people need to be researched more before a gun is given! But there will STILL be gun crimes committed by those who suddenly lose their mind and plot a murder, or simply shoot.

Having a gun is a huge responsibility that some people are incapable of having, so another alternative would be for people to be brought up better, to respect life more, to work harder and not execute illegal actions.



What? A guy can dream.

I saw an interesting documentary about a military study on soldier's killing efficiency. Back in the days of WWII and Vietnam the military found out that 98% of soldiers deliberately aim to miss their opponent because they can't bear to kill another human. 1% killed only to protect their colleagues, and the other 1% killed because they liked it.

So in theory, regarding criminal deaths, only 1 % on the population is a potential source of problems. It also shows that the fear that if everyone has a gun you'll likely get shot is not true, only 1 in a 100 would actually like to shoot you (even then only if you give them a reason, like witnessing something or flaunting your valuable wares), and likely not when any of the other 99 are watching, so actually you're pretty safe. Anyone who wants to be completely safe is not living in reality and should lock themselves away from the rest of the human race for comfort. No mammal in the world is completely safe, we're all at risk from attackers from both within and outside our species.

What really sticks out like a sore thumb to me is that crossbows are not restricted, yet there are as dangerous and easy to fire by an untrained person as a handgun. If fact probably more dangerous because an arrow or bolt can often go right through someone and into another person. In theory, if you fire a 150 lbs crossbow into a crowd you could kill up to several people or so with each shot, depending on how much resistance the bolt gets from hitting clothing and bones etc. Seems to me like the authorities just want the guns to themselves to maintain the intimidation factor, like the nazis and other dictators did.

I saw an interesting documentary about a military study on soldier's killing efficiency. Back in the days of WWII and Vietnam the military found out that 98% of soldiers deliberately aim to miss their opponent because they can't bear to kill another human. 1% killed only to protect their colleagues, and the other 1% killed because they liked it.

So in theory, regarding criminal deaths, only 1 % on the population is a potential source of problems. It also shows that the fear that if everyone has a gun you'll likely get shot is not true, only 1 in a 100 would actually like to shoot you (even then only if you give them a reason, like witnessing something or flaunting your valuable wares), and likely not when any of the other 99 are watching, so actually you're pretty safe. Anyone who wants to be completely safe is not living in reality and should lock themselves away from the rest of the human race for comfort. No mammal in the world is completely safe, we're all at risk from attackers from both within and outside our species.

What really sticks out like a sore thumb to me is that crossbows are not restricted, yet there are as dangerous and easy to fire by an untrained person as a handgun. If fact probably more dangerous because an arrow or bolt can often go right through someone and into another person. In theory, if you fire a 150 lbs crossbow into a crowd you could kill up to several people or so with each shot, depending on how much resistance the bolt gets from hitting clothing and bones etc. Seems to me like the authorities just want the guns to themselves to maintain the intimidation factor, like the nazis and other dictators did.

Originally posted by Shpow
In Malta, there's such a restriction on guns that any gun crime can almost instantly be closed due to knowing who has what, so most people don't bother with gun crimes.

In fact, the country only has problems with drugs, a few drunken knife fights and car accidents (blah, stupid people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel!)

Seriously, the crime rates are LOW! I love the country.

I bet if you could somehow force everyone to follow the same moral code, and only speak the same orthodox thoughts, how much more peaceful it would be......


Stalin would love you.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." truer words were NEVER spoken.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

reply to post by basil_brush


Bolts from crossbows and arrows from compound bows can split body armor too making the 90's craze over the mythical armor piercing teflon coated ammo even more ridiculous than it actually was.

Do you remember the name of this documentary? It sounds interesting.

Originally posted by pikypiky
Guns are nothing by themselves without the projectiles (bullets) and the users. When gun users get really upset or uncontrollably angry, their sense of judgment is impaired and sometimes their trigger fingers take over to do harm to themselves and others unfortunately. Guns cannot be trusted to just anyone where emotions run high and that is where gun control legislations come in – to allow a sense of security knowing that the citizens are responsible enough to own guns in the first place.

Holy cow, that was the dumbest thing I have ever read on ATS.

"Guns are nothing by themselves without the projectiles (bullets) and the users."

Hope you didn't break a sweat conjuring up that bright line.

"When gun users get really upset or uncontrollably angry, their sense of judgment is impaired and sometimes their trigger fingers take over to do harm to themselves and others unfortunately."

So, based on your observations, if you give a person a gun - watch out! If they get angry, someone is getting shot. Right. You are the kind of pathetic individual who needs to intrude on other person's rights because of your own insecurity. I can't even fathom the sort of ignorance it takes to come up with a line like that.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


lol, I like your signature quote.

Yep, I'm learning the bowyer's craft myself. Bows and their variations are seriously underrated these days. People think they're primitive but they don't realise what a mere 150-200 grain arrow going at 200 fps can do. I tell you what, if any fascist socialist official tries to bust in a take my kids away they'll get a few surprises! I don't care how big their mouth or gun is.

I recorded the documentary on vhs somewhere. I think it was called The Truth About Killing:

www.channel4.com...

Though the TV page quotes 15-20% kill, but I distinctly remember them saying in the documentary that 1% are sociopathic and enjoy to kill the enemy...some kind of power trip I guess, like these bastards that enjoy hunting animals for fun (of which the most detestable are the "yeehaa, I killed it" brigrade) - not that I'm against hunting, I hunt myself, but only for food and feel sad about killing things.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


lol, I like your signature quote.

Yep, I'm learning the bowyer's craft myself. Bows and their variations are seriously underrated these days. People think they're primitive but they don't realise what a mere 150-200 grain arrow going at 200 fps can do. I tell you what, if any fascist socialist official tries to bust in a take my kids away they'll get a few surprises! I don't care how big their mouth or gun is.

I recorded the documentary on vhs somewhere. I think it was called The Truth About Killing:

www.channel4.com...

Though the TV page quotes 15-20% kill, but I distinctly remember them saying in the documentary that 1% are sociopathic and enjoy to kill the enemy...some kind of power trip I guess, like these bastards that enjoy hunting animals for fun (of which the most detestable are the "yeehaa, I killed it" brigrade) - not that I'm against hunting, I hunt myself, but only for food and feel sad about killing things.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon

Originally posted by Shpow
In Malta, there's such a restriction on guns that any gun crime can almost instantly be closed due to knowing who has what, so most people don't bother with gun crimes.

In fact, the country only has problems with drugs, a few drunken knife fights and car accidents (blah, stupid people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel!)

Seriously, the crime rates are LOW! I love the country.

I bet if you could somehow force everyone to follow the same moral code, and only speak the same orthodox thoughts, how much more peaceful it would be......


Stalin would love you.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." truer words were NEVER spoken.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

It's not like you can't buy guns, the hunters and enthusiasts do. But that's the thing, Malta is a country where the guns are NOT needed. It may seem like communism to you, but the government is definitely not socialist. Tabs are simply kept on the guns.

"What happens in events of a war being waged on your country?"

Two words. European union. Even America would come to fight if needed.

All in all, unless you're a hunter or gun enthusiast in Malta, you won't have a gun because you don't need one. So please, take you're prejudice to somewhere where it matters.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Shpow]

reply to post by pikypiky


That is a self destructive opinion. When people get emotional they tend to kill other people with a gun? What about a car or a knife? What should we outlaw next becuase of the potential threat of emotianal people, how about the freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech. Hitler isnt on record of killing anyone but himself, and he did that with a gun.

I prefer to be able to defend mysfelf from wackos and I go places that allow me to carry concealed. It has come to my attention that deranged killers prefer to find their victims were the victims arent allowed to have guns, imagine that.

Originally posted by basil_brush
I saw an interesting documentary about a military study on soldier's killing efficiency. Back in the days of WWII and Vietnam the military found out that 98% of soldiers deliberately aim to miss their opponent because they can't bear to kill another human.

I saw that on Sesame Street too.

Seriously, unless you can provide a link, that statement is garbage.

Those 2% of german machine gunners who actually shot at our troops during the D-Day landings certainly did a lot of damage.