water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

If I listen to my inner child, I can more then understand this fascination with guns. As a mature adult however, I can't.

A gun is a tool made for killing. That is it's sole purpose. The only way a gun thus makes sense is that killing is acceptable under certain conditions in any given society. Once that line of thinking is established, it is rather easy for people to justify their own reasons for using deadly force. That applies to criminals as much as to people defending themselves.

This whole debate is questionably a debate between instinct and rationals.
Instinct dictates the right for defence of home, family and one's own life without trusting others or institutions to do that job. THat is an emotion I can more then understand.

However, Rational dictates to ban killing outright (including the death penalty) and a ban on tools for killing is a logical consequence. At first glance this may look naive, as there always will be people willing to use deadly force. However, a) emotional barriers will be higher (yes, it does make a difference for people if you told them as a child that it is ok to use deadly force in some circumstances opposite to telling them that killing is wrong, period)

and b) a lack of tools for that purpose makes it quite a bit harder from a purely physical PoV.

It's a simple matter of maths. Ban on firearms=fewer firearms=fewer kills. The individual may feel more unsafe without lethal means for defense, but that person is also much less likely to be confronted with a firearm.

That said, there are some grave differences between the US and the UK; or any other european country for that matter. In the US there is a lot of space for people to spread out. In Europe there is not. And the fewer space there is for a society to spread out, the more there is a need for compromise.

bewolf, people get killed regardless of firearms, if someone wants to kill, he/she still will do it, with or without a gun.

Following your idea we shouldn't even have armies, nor embark in things like invading other countries for "peacekeeping". This kind of societal hypocrisy really annoys me.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

bewolf, people get killed regardless of firearms, if someone wants to kill, he/she still will do it, with or without a gun.

Following your idea we shouldn't even have armies, nor embark in things like invading other countries for "peacekeeping". This kind of societal hypocrisy really annoys me.

That would imply that all killing was planned and intentional. It also implies that using physical force or careful planning as a means to kill a perosn is as likely as simply having to pull a trigger as a result of the situation. That's a very narrow view on gun crime. Or any crime involving a dead person in the end, eventually.

And please spare me that army argument. We actually should disband them indeed. The countries with the largest track record of starting wars are western countries, between each other and most of the rest of the world at one point or the other. That hardly is a good defense for defense.

Besides, hardly a criminal considers himself "evil" or a "bad person". Neither do nations. All have their in their own eyes legit reason for the crimes they comit. The only "good" guy is the one who stands in the end with a smoking gun.

Just to make this clear, I do think that there are situations where one must fight, risking one's own life and for that having the means to win. But these situations do not apply to everyday life.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

That would imply that all killing was planned and intentional. It also implies that using physical force or careful planning as a means to kill a perosn is as likely as simply having to pull a trigger as a result of the situation. That's a very narrow view on gun crime. Or any crime involving a dead person in the end, eventually.

And please spare me that army argument. We actually should disband them indeed. The countries with the largest track record of starting wars are western countries, between each other and most of the rest of the world at one point or the other. That hardly is a good defense for defense.

Besides, hardly a criminal considers himself "evil" or a "bad person". Neither do nations. All have their in their own eyes legit reason for the crimes they comit. The only "good" guy is the one who stands in the end with a smoking gun.

Just to make this clear, I do think that there are situations where you one must fight, risking one's own life and for that having the means to win. But these sitations do not apply to everyday life.

I agree, it's easier to kill with a gun, but you don't hang around with loaded weapons all the time: you need to take it out, load it and go on a killing spree.

Unfortunately the idea of a world without armies and guns is pure utopia: difference, class, status and primary needs force us to confrontation, on many scales.

I agree, I don't wanna live in a society where I need to walk around with a sidearm all the time to provide for my own security, but I want to be given the freedom of bearing arms, using them for recreation, hobby, hunting (not that i'm a hunter myself, but others are) and ultimately (and hopefully never), self defence.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I agree, it's easier to kill with a gun, but you don't hang around with loaded weapons all the time: you need to take it out, load it and go on a killing spree.

Unfortunately the idea of a world without armies and guns is pure utopia: difference, class, status and primary needs force us to confrontation, on many scales.

I agree, I don't wanna live in a society where I need to walk around with a sidearm all the time to provide for my own security, but I want to be given the freedom of bearing arms, using them for recreation, hobby, hunting (not that i'm a hunter myself, but others are) and ultimately (and hopefully never), self defence.

Sorry, but societies consist of more people then your psycho having a go at a group. And I rather risk being shot by a psycho in an unlikely event of being at the wrong time at the wrong place then having every weirdo, drug addict and wannebe criminal or even your average gun fascinated father easy access to a firearm. There simply are too many imature, irresponsible or emotional driven poeple out there. In light of this the fun for hunting or sports shooting and as harsh at that sounds, ultimately self defense, too, is a very egocentric one. That is the gist of it.

And in regards to nations, we are very qucikly reaching a point where this earth is becoming a very small and very densly populated place. Time runs out for national quarrels. Either grow up or go down.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Sorry, but societies consist of more people then your psycho having a go at a group. And I rather risk being shot by a psycho in an unlikely event of being at the wrong time at the wrong place then having every weirdo, drug addict and wannebe criminal or even your average gun fascinated father easy access to a firearm. There simply are too many imature, irresponsible or emotional driven poeple out there. In light of this the fun for hunting or sports shooting and as harsh at that sounds, ultimately self defense, too, is a very egocentric one. That is the gist of it.

again, points of view man. The right to bear arms has little to do with your hobby or hunting, if the right of self defence means being egocentric, then I'm one.

And in regards to nations, we are very qucikly reaching a point where this earth is becoming a very small and very densly populated place. Time runs out for national quarrels. Either grow up or go down.

Totally agree, and I'd rather be armed.

[BadAim]

Still going at it? You might as well give up Stern, there is nothing more persistent than a man trying to explain why he'd give up his freedom for security. There is no logical reason for it, there can be no good outcome except that of a slave with a benevolent master, so you cant expect logical reasoning to work. No matter what you say, it will be seen as a personal attack, so the only response you'll get are personal attacks after the party line has run out of steam.

I really, really love my UK friends, as I've said here before, but banging heads rarely helps. Both men just end up with a headache and opinions unchanged.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

again, points of view man. The right to bear arms has little to do with your hobby or hunting, if the right of self defence means being egocentric, then I'm one.

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

Totally agree, and I'd rather be armed.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun to. Are you so bound to prove my point?

btw:

Of course, there are less than 50k guns for 60 millions of people! I don't need a gun to defend myself from a gun waving murderer, but potentially for anybody who would try and commit a violent assault to me, my family or my property. How can you be happy to live in a society where you can't even provide for your family protection? Is it just a case of "let's hope it's not gonna happen to me", then if it happens you'll still say "tough"?

You only "need" to provide this protection if you create the conditions for that need. It's a self fullfilling prophecy, especially in tightly populated european countries. If a given society falls apart and violence spreads, then it would make sense to find the causes for that and solve it instead of fighting the symptons till the end of days.

You were at gunpoint yourself, which means that criminals can still get a pistol, so why shouldn't you? It's obvious that police forces can't limit the presence of illegal firearms in this country, so thank you very much, but I'd rather defend myself with my own means.
In that immediate stance you risked your life without being able to defend yourself. You hit the guy and he fled (which probably means his gun was fake), but what if you missed or if he decided he wanted more from you than just your wallet? It's insane to think you went through that and still think you shouldn't be able to ultimately defend yourself.

I have been at gunpoint myself when I was 19. Still live, though, and so does the one holding that gun. But it did not even require me to punch him, just told him to either shoot or to stick it where the sun never grows and leave me alone. Guess what he did? As I said, I rather take the risk of being threatend with a gun then to make society much more dangerous in general for some dubious arguments mostly born of pure Ego.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

I've done self defence courses man, and I know how to defend myself by just using my body, but above all I also know its limitations. If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris. If you're happy to gamble with your life good for you, I care about mine, and have seen and lived enough to leave it all to chance. Some stuff we can't control, but other we can.

And what's with this stereotype of ego that needs to be compensated with guns? That's quite ridiculous, and typical of someone who never handled one. It's like saying "that guy is driving a Ferrari cos he has a small penis".. grow up man, envy is a bad bad thing.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

I already found the solution for it, it's just a case of you not agreeing with it. If you want to think you live in a perfect world, with bees flying and honey streaming from rivers, you're up for a shock. We will NEVER be a peaceful society, confrontation is in our DNA and has been happening for thousands of years. I don't see why it's not mature only cos it doesn't agree with yours, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun. Are you so bound to prove my point?

I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
I handled guns for years and never had a problem, you (and two others here) think of people with firearms like a bunch of gung-hos with holsters and guns in their socks, ready to jump at any given chance. It's not like that, I'm not for free carrying of firearms, I'm for discipline and security, a demand that is necessary for our society, since our authorities are obviously incapable of offering a suitable swift answer in case of an aggression.

A mentality like yours is one that relies not only on an utopia, but also little and selfish, which back inside is all about "let's hope it won't happen to me".

Take some responsibilities for your society and your family, claim your right to defend them, don't just wait and hope others will do it for you.

It actually surprises me that some of you three (if not all) have families and think they're providing them with an adequate protection.

[MD_Titus]

It would seem to be the case bewolf.

Also stern, your ignorance of the underlying issues related to the riots, in comparison to your judgements of the french and greek riots is puzzling, if not just a vast oversimplification to justify your untenable stance.

I'd like to clarify my statement regarding not voting as well though - in some cases it is registering a discontent with the establishment, rather than a laziness issue, and if informed it is no less a responaible position to hold.