Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

You're not serious,right?
Estimates are over 2 million crimes are prevented by the presence of privately owned firearms.




Tell that to Gus Did He ,or did he not prevent a robbery and 3 possible homicides?

So You say,meh. Facts are very useful, opinions not so much.
Have any useful points? Do share.....

I have a right to defend myself and my family with lethal force,get over it.

 

ok, then explain to ME why those countries with the most rigorous gun control laws have the lowest gun uses and are among the most secure countries? by your logic, the more private guns= more security. however, for some reason this isnt the case.

on the side of the discussion: i always find statistics very funny that count things that actually never happened. like prevented criminal acts.

well, thats nice, but pls consider my position: i live in a country with very harsh gun control laws, and i feel secure. you live in a country with very liberal gun laws, and you obviously dont feel secure. there is nothing complicated about that situation, really. if you come to my country, you will feel secure, if i come to your country, i wont feel secure. why? because i know that you only feel save when you have a fucking gun at your bedside at night. yes, for me thats strange. very very strange. from my fiew, every lobotomiced idiot in your country can get his hands LEGALLY on guns, and most likely he WILL get a gun, because he KNOWS he can and he thinks needs them because it isnt secure. now again, for me a country that breeds such an environment is very, very strange. but again, thats from my point of fiew.

maybe your point of fiew is that you are more secure if you have a gun. but then again, you come from a country where every idiot can have a gun. yes, if my stupid neighbor had a gun, i would feel more secure with a gun myself too.

 

Fail, your logic fails to explain why other countries with lax gun laws, Finalnd, Czech republic, Switzerland(which has a much higher rate of gun ownership the America) fails to have these problems

 

You assume too much.

That's not what I was saying at all, are you saying

too?


Give this a read
Gun politics

 

switzerland: they have restrictions on weapon-upgrades, certain weapons are forbidden (especially converted fully and certain half-automatic weapons), you need a weapon-ownership certificate (dont know the proper english term). generally everyone in switzerland is allowed to have a weapon, as long as he has the PROPER training and the allowance (which needs the psychological and executive clearance). on top of that, every weapon has to be kept in weapon - storage (hope thats the right term), and the ammunition HAS to be kept and stored apart from the weapons themselves, and again, the ammo has to be sealed and locked away properly. on top of that, the police controls the locations and the guns every month. now, this aside, the switzerland isnt the US - the switzerland has a very high standard of education, good social care and very very few poor ppl.

finland has changed their weapons law - you need to be 18 and you also need to have the necessary clearances to be allowed to own a weapon. also, again, finland isnt the US - finland has a different society and one of the LOWEST crime rates.

the Czech republic also has changed their gun laws; beside that, they are acutally experiencing increasing problems with the increasingly wide spread ownership of guns - at least according to antonin kremel, one of the high up police functionairies. however, again, the Czech republic is NOT the US - better school and social system etc. on top of that, though the crime rate in the Czech republic is a bit higher than in other western countries, they dont experience as many crimes with guns as the US.

comparisons are all good and well, but you cant compare apples with bananas.

you are right of course. you say guns make you feel saver. if this isnt what you say, tell me i am wrong and explain to me what you mean.

I tell you that guns wont you make save. yes, they can make yourself feel save, but you are not. if you want to be save, you have to go to save places, not getting a gun. and if you want to create save places, you better look at the ppl who make places unsave and ask yourself WHY they are dangerous and how they have become what they are.

why do you feel threatened? i dont know, explain to me.

btw, comparing european countries to the US is a bit unfair. the us has much power, but they tend to create elites. most ppl in the US dont have the same standard of living as ppl in central europe. from my point of fiew, you have to compare the US with countries like brasilia or russia. countries with an elite of very rich and educated people that are about 2-5% of the populance, a big range of mid-class ppl (though at a lower than european level) and a significant percentage of poor and uneducated populance.

 

Nail hit squarely on head. When the entire society is DIFFERENT and HAPPIER they tend to not be so VIOLENT towards each other. Completely different policies, completely different lifestyle. We are living in a country that is notorious for being a police state. Most of us are slaves to "the system". We have way too many laws, way too many police, way too much red tape. And ultimately everything seems to be about CONTROL instead of MUTUAL RESPECT. But trying to respect something this big and this ugly is like trying to love your rapist... We're pretty much trapped in the WILD WEST mentality. Of course people won't admit it. Because we've been fed the "America, the land of the free" bullshit for so long that we can't admit that maybe we are not. So, instead of fixing the problems which will probably take as long to fix as they did to make, we put a bandaid on the problems by saying we are FREE TO HAVE A GUN, rather than actually BE free, as in FREEDOM FROM FEAR.

 

Apparently former citizens of the former Soviet Union were not as gullible as we are in the US. Americans will fall for just about anything, if it is presented in the right way.

 

its easy to be gullible when there is an armoured regiment a few kilometres east.

 

Yes, you actually can compare Finland and Switzerland to the US simply based on the fact your entire logic is that less guns=less crime, despite the fact all the evidence points to contrary in other countries with liberal gun laws. Also the fact in both Britain and Australia, when they introduced strict gun laws over the past 20 years, their murder rates went up.

 

I offer a dissenting opinion, guns do stop crimes and protect people as can be proved here
http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp

I like what you have to say and I think your very intelligent but I think you are extremely bias

 

and in case some of you didnt click on the link I posted here is an excerpt

 

Blasphemy! Guns can't do any good!!!!


Except you know those hundreds of thousands of instances a year where they do stop a crime.

 

crimes commited with.... guns?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJEySrDerj0

watch and think.

i advice you again to keep in mind the reasons of the ppl behind the gun and not the gun itself. in a healthy environment, ppl dont just go on the street and start murdering, raping, steling /whatever. however, once the environment isnt good anymore, crime rates rise... for instance, look at the economic situation in a country over a few years and compare it with the crime rate of the same span of time.

if you were living in a healthy environment, you wouldnt think about getting a gun just to keep yourself save. however, you get one and still this gun has done nothing to improve the overall situation nor your personal savety. now, with liberal gunlaws, more ppl can get guns more easily - and like it or not, most murders are not commited by "professional" criminals but by ppl like you and me. like a friend in cosovo once told me: "the most dangerous thing is a civilian with a gun".

 

and now this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKLXCHgOiA

 

hitler banned guns? where has this freakhead that from? i dont know what you are tought in american schools, but it seems a little .... strange. this seems like the guy thinks hitler could have been stopped if the ppl had guns... the most stupid thing to think ever. they really gotta teach you guys proper history.

 

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

--Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.



and heres the written law to follow Hitlers philosophy

--Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

These were posted around areas the Nazi party aquired

it states the following:
All fire arms and ammo, hand grenades, explosive devises and other war material are to be surrendered. The delivery must take place in 24 hours at the nearest German military administrative headquarters or garrison, provided that other speial arrangements have not been made. The mayors must accept full responsibility for complete implementation. Commanding officers are authorized to approve exceptions.

It would appear you need a little higher education GleichKnallts

 

this is about weapons in occupied countries...... let me underline it for you so you can see it better: OCCUPIED

this passage clearly states for whom this decree is - for the sudeten-german districts. i dont know if you have an idea about the sudet-germany districts (die sudetendeutschen, in german).

this passages you quoted here are all for accupied countries. on top of that a few of the paragraphs have origins in the wansee konferenz.

your post is absolutely worthless in regard to the topic because its posted contents dont concern themselves with the home affairs of a country but with the treatment and parameters for freshly conquered areas under martial law and with the general policy concerning itself with the holocaust (all passages adressing jewish ppl).

on top of that what you posted are clearly "Verordnungen" (just read the text of the posted graphic!), and verordnungen are not laws.

it appears i know a great deal more about my countries history than you do. and on top of that i can read german and you clearly cant.

 

Maybe they need to teach you history more on how all totalitarian regimes have this odd habit of disarming their citizens, when only the police and government have guns, only the government has power. In Hitler's case yes it wouldn't have made a difference because until late 1943/44 Hitler did in fact enjoy widespread popular support

 

well duh

but I was right, hitler banned guns (for some) and restricted them for others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQqYj-pbdg

 

hitler banned guns from jews and political enemys. however, this does by no means support your theory that private guns would help if a fascist gouverment got the power in you country. first of all, the german gun laws were made years AFTER hitler took over hindenburgs power. yes, there were raids agains political enemys ´33, but they were not based on laws. and no, you didnt say anything about laws in the first point. you posted something that had hilly- vanilly- absolutely-NOTHING do do with the topic. i proved you WRONG and you didnt react on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKLXCHgOiA

this guy says HITLER BANNED GUNS, which is simply WRONG the way this dude tells on the video. you didnt say "hitler banned guns" - something that is WRONG if you read the context of it btw.

you said, fascist regimes disarm their populance so army and police is the only armed force in the country. this is NOT right per-se, as your own friggin post (the material you posted) shows.

you whole theory is based on the assumption that a heavily armed populance can make sure no fascist ruler gets the power. now, looking at fascist rulers and the nature of fascism, your argument is utter bullshit.

fascism in its form is a movement that requires the toleration and support of a good deal of a populance - look at the history of the NSDAP (especially the developement of their voting sucesses and the fascist party in italia!). also, experience shows that fascist (and similar forms) need the right environment to develope - bad economy, crisis etc. . a healthy country wont become a fascist country all of a sudden. yes, a healthy country can potentially be taken over by a dictator - but then again, a dictator is not necessarily a fascist - even though most fascist leaders evolve dictatorian traits.

let me put it this way: if facists take over your gouverment, you are far more likely going to stand in a crowd, holding your weapons high and cheering for the fascist than you are going to fight them with your weapons.

again my question: tell me of one instance where private weapons got rid of/preventet a fascist gouverment. only one pls.