US Gun Laws

@Imperial
Mabye I'll answer tomorrow, but right now I can't deal with this shit and I just feel like we're running in circles.

Take your time. That is the beauty of a forums. Unless you want to be the first to point something out.

Sore?

LOL. That is Constituational debates for you.

Well a little You're getting all the support from the gun-loving nation of USA while I get Finland and other randomness...

The popular position is the popular position. The topic was concerning US gun laws and there was question to them, I answered as I could. That US citizens agreed with me 'merely' vindicates my posts. That the US citizens [amoung the common posters on the forums] are mostly from the US is not my fault, however convienitent I find it.

I'm seriously beginning to think the US is now filled with mentally unstable idiots carrying guns and shooting random people. Seriously, I've hardly ever heard of gun related incidents here in the Netherlands (the last one was a man starting to shoot people in a small mall a few months ago now, I think), and gun laws are pretty strict.

Also, are you guys being trained to be cold and calm in those situations? Do you really believe letting people carry guns will increase safety? Will those people immediately react to sudden gunfire and shoot down the maniac? Or will other people think they're the maniac, and some blood bath happens. As for burglaries, unless your house has huge rooms and halls, something like a baseball bat could probably do the job just as well. Or are all burglars bloodthirsty murderers who instantly shoot people at sight?

If you don't know the intent of the intruder in your house, you can't take the risk. He could be a murderer or a robber, but how would I know that? I can't take chances in that situation.

Only in some states are people allowed to carry guns around in public.

This is what most gun crime is in the US. These guns were not legally owned. Most gun crime is committed using illegal weapons.

I can't put the video up, but here is the link: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=8291545

These men shot up a public bus because a passenger criticized a woman for disciplining her child. No one was killed, but if the men had used other weapons, it is likely that they would have fatally wounded someone.

Regardless of whether guns are illegal or not, criminals are still going to find a way to get them. Therefore its stands to reason that a reasonable person should be able to own a firearm to protect himself. Something like 80-90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal, unregistered firearms.

Theres also the hardcore Ron Paul type argument that says the government will be more wary of restricting our rights if everyone is armed to the teeth. I'm don't subscribe to the notion that everything is a government conspiracy, but at least its a nice safety net if we really do get someone in office that wants to do harm.

With regards to burglary, if someone enters your property, without your consent, you should have every right to take his head off with whatever weapon you so choose. As someone above mentioned, you have no idea of his intentions, and its irresponsible to risk your families life trying to decide just how dangerous the strange black man who entered your house at night is.

Have you been reading this thread thouroghly? Or at all?

1. As stated before, gun laws in the US vary from state to state.
2. Great for the Netherlands. What was your population compared to the US?
3. So you are saying 'Gun ownership increases gun-related crimes!' durr... no ****. Do you have proof that it increases crime itself, or does gun ownership just make guns more used to commit crimes that would occur anyways if guns were outlawed?

I have never heard of such training for civilian gun ownership in the US. However, I have not studied the training proceedures in the US.

Increase the safetly of the person weilding the gun, parhaps. It was never meant to protect the one threatening people.

Probably not. But most people would prefer being able to shoot back and protect themselves to huddling behind any make-shift cover praying that the police will arrive on time to save them.

Present me a case in which civilians shot one another in confusion over who was the original shooter. The only time that I hear of such a thing as civilians being accidentally shot when they were not the perpetrator of the incident is usually done by the police and extremely rarely in that case.

So savagely beating to death a person is preferable to shooting them? And what if they have a gun? What if they are stronger. What if there are more of them than you?
Too many variables. Guns help to nullify some of them in that situation.

Are you willing to risk that they are not? How do you know their true intentions? You can't. A gun can be a contingency plan that covers most of the varibles that you cannot control or know.

So, if you don't know someone's intentions, might as well shoot him?

If you don't count small city states like Monaco, the Netherlands are the third most densely populated country in the world, just behind Bangladesh and South Korea. Yes, there are only 17 million people living here, but I assume in the US the crime rates in large cities like New York are considerably higher than in smaller towns and villages, so I'd say population density is a more important variable for crime rates than the pure number of inhabitants.

Seriously, does everything have to be lethal? If someone enters your house, is your first reaction really to kill them? Using a baseball bat or any other blunt object to knock them out and subdue them until the police arrives sounds like a pretty good alternative to me. Jumping to conclusions and beating or shooting someone to death for what might just as well be a misunderstanding (although I admit, it'd be a pretty fucking stupid misunderstanding) does sound like overreacting. As for the other variables, if you face multiple armed men, you're still dead, unless you sneak on them, in which case (in a small space) a blunt object can be used to knock them out, which also nullifies their strength somewhat.

And no, I don't have an example of innocent people being killed by other bystanders, but with you people making the assumption everyone is apparently out to kill you, I think it's only fair I can think up scenarios of what might happen. Seriously people, the times of the wild fucking west are over.

I do admit, a lot of crime by guns is done with illegal weapons. Now that I think about it, that would probably be a good idea for the criminal, with gun registration for legal owning of weapons and all that. Still, I do think that stricter laws on owning weapons (good registration, maybe something like a driver's license, but then for guns or something, I don't know how it works exactly) would really help. Yes, of course, you won't completely stop illegal guns, that's nigh impossible, I understand.

Oh, and recently, I did read about a kid being alone at home when three men rang the door. He didn't answer, so they entered the house through the back. The kid hid somewhere, called the police and kept them updated. Two of the men escaped after a car chase, the third was arrested. Yes, it was a kid against three men, but if he'd gone rambo, took a gun and went downstairs to take them on, he'd be dead and his house empty. Maybe not the best example, but still a pretty good alternative. Yes, you're dependant on the police and them arriving in time, but I'd rather trust them than facing certain death.

I read this article on a Dutch site (the incident was in the US, by the way) which reports weird news. On a lot of pages, there are gun related accidents. Heck, even today, there was a report that a 17 year old accidently shot a friend in the back when his gun went off in a car. But I guess that brings us back to the point of responsibility. Oh, and some random guy shot himself in the foot when a hospital refused to give him painkillers for his backache. Again, if you have a gun, you should have a good sense of responsibility.

I'd say a gun is a last resort option you can consider when you're cornered. This is another scenario, but what if you have a kid that went out some random night, and came home slightly drunk? He'd have some trouble opening the door, and would stumble around the house somewhat, making sounds like he was searching the house. Do you run downstairs, guns ablazin'?

This is the only question i can answer, the way most people see "Legally" owned guns, there deterrents, most people keep a gun because it makes them feel safe and secure, heaven forbid they actually have to use it, its good to keep multiple options, where i used to live people would die every day because of home invasion robberies, murders, and gang violence, so you kind of had to have a gun, or be in a gang, I would own a gun, but this does not mean I would Join the NRA or actually use it unless under extreme duress. there is a difference between the intentions of people, a man could want to a gun for hunting, does this make him a criminal? should this man be prosecuted? what about gun collectors, Historians, people who want to protect themselves should they be prosecuted aswell? while i don't think guns should be carried in public, I believe they should be in your Car, or house. also on a final note, its nearly impossible to pull off a crime with a registered gun, in the US.

Well, I'm not against owning a gun, don't get me wrong. I just find the way of thinking "Whoever enters my house is a dead fucking man" is absolutely ridiculous. When there are strict laws concerning who gets to own a gun, I'm absolutely fine with it. If someone can prove he has the responsibility, then by all means give him a gun. However, if you get a gun to kill anyone who enters your house, then no thanks, let the government keep it.

I assume this is paired by keeping the gun pointed at the intruder, as otherwise he might just panic and shoot you instead.

Actually, it is a pretty important point. Unless someone can show me proof to reveal otherwise [and no, I haven't looked for it] that any particular population is more or less prone to violence/crime, then we can infer that the crime rate would have a base level in all human populations. Thus, total population can be counted. Not doing so is like saying 'look, five times more people die a year in China compared to the US' and leaving it at that. When in fact the Chinese have five times the population of the US and therefore, it is logical that a proportional amount of people would die per year compared to the US. In this case, the Netherlands would have to produce numbers that disprove the idea of a proportionality statement BEFORE even counting in other factors like population density, poverty, etc. Not that I am saying that any of the others are invalid, but there is a logical angle to this.

My first reaction to an illegal incursion onto my property is to defend my family at any cost. Whether the perpetrator die in the course of said defense is not really my concern. But protecting my family takes priority.
With a blunt weapon, again, the other variables apply. I might be able to overwhelm one-three of them, but what if there are more? Again, a gun can nullify the chance that I'd end up dead MUCH more so than testing my strength against theirs.

Not necessarily. I may or may not think that people are out to kill me, but a gun is a contingency plan against a chance just like I may or may not think that there will be crime, but police are a contingency plan against the chance.

You come to one conclusion, but cannot prove it. You ASSUME that it would end with his death [even though, yes, that is a logical assumption], but you cannot prove it. In any case, I would prefer to have a gun and be able to protect myself, than not have it and be subject to the risk.

The first guy was irresponsible. But I am missing key information. Some states require the gun and ammunition to be stored seperately and some forbid the posession of a loaded weapon in public without a proper permit or reason. Also ALL states [to my knowledge], even Texas and NRA states require that the safety is ON at all times outside of an emergency. This guy sounds like he was either unqualified and missed in the filtering process or he was in direct violation of the law.
The Second guy just sounds nuts. Mental issues are supposed to be identified and people with them filtered out of ownership. But it sounds more like he was in a difficult situation and took drastic measures. No kind of testing can detect EXACTLY what everyone will do under that situation.
Neither of these examples are exibiting responsibility to being with. Now, if the second guy had shot someone else, that may be a different story. THAT would be a credible support to your side.
Also, please link these so I can get other information.

Of course you would be careful to distern if it was someone who was supposed to be there. Accidents happen, but that should NOT barr people from the oppertunity to defend themselves adequately.

Guns are both cool and fun, so there's no reason to go banning them.

Yes, of course, in China, more people die than in the US, that's only logical, however, to me it's also logical that in larger cities, and overall places with a high population density, crime rates would be higher overall. Let's take China again. Where would there be more crime, in the countryside villages with not even a hundred inhabitants, or Beijing? Also, I wasn't referring to pure numbers. Yes, of course, the Netherlands have less criminals than the US, we're talking about 17 million inhabitants vs 300 million. However, I was thinking about countries named before that that have legalised guns and have considerably lower crime rates than the US (in percentages), like Finland, Switzerland and Canada. Of these, only Switzerland has a higher population density than the US, but has no massive cities like New York. I probably should've mentioned this, as it was something I considered in the argument that those countries have a lot less gun related crime than the US, even though guns are legal, or nearly everyone owns a gun.

With a gun, you'll still need the element of surprise to win against, say, three armed men. Or an automatic rifle. If you're heavily outnumbered, hiding and calling the police would probably be the best alternative. Not to mention the possibility they might not harm you if you don't act. Yes, of course, there are lunatics that still feel the need to kill, rape or do other harm on you or your family. In that case, and that case only (so not the entering itself), I'd say shooting to kill would be truly justified. Then again, I was raised in a country where the police gets no respect, yet when they show their authority or use their weapons, everyone is so very shocked. I do get the feeling the US is much more forgiving towards actions of the police. (This leads me to think about yesterday. A guy was arrested because he pepper sprayed some policemen. Will the people be as outraged as that time when the police officer pepper sprayed that Occupy protester? Of course not, being hypocritical is way more fun).

But isn't that like having a radiation suit in your house because there's a slight chance a nuclear holocaust happens? You can't prepare for everything. But I guess a gun is a lot easier to acquire than a radiation suit...and would probably be a lot more useful.

I like to think of myself as someone who thinks logically and realistically. Yes, the kid could have a lot of luck and shot all three people in the face and survived, but I do think in this case he did the best thing. Of course, it was a kid vs three burglars, a grown man vs another single man would be a completely different story.

I could provide you with links, but they're in Dutch, and I fear Google translate would massacre it. Still, here are the links:
17 year old shoots friend in the back
Kid contacts police when three intruders break in
Man shoots himself in the foot for medication
I figured I'd put the link to the article with the kid as well. The last two were in the US, the first in the Netherlands. I don't know the exact laws here either, but it seems to me the kid just wanted to be a though guy. The article doesn't provide a lot of background information, however. What I do believe is that through the strict laws, a majority of the people here would have no idea how to safely handle a gun if given one.
And I hear that people with mental issues are not allowed to obtain a gun, yet these stories continue to appear. Whether it's an error in the system or an illegally acquired weapon is another issue, though.

While that's true, you're still wielding a deadly weapon, you should be careful at all times, and not jump to conclusions. Even if someone is on your property illegally, you don't need to kill them. Warning shots, or aiming for the legs or arms can be enough to alert not only the intruder, but also your neighbours (if you have any), who could call the police when they hear shots being fired. Again, I'm not against people owning guns (if they can prove they're mentally stable and responsible enough, of course), or even using them to defend themselves. However, killing if they're not in direct danger (as in, the intruder is pointing a gun at them, finger on the trigger and ready to fire), killing is an unjust overreaction, if you ask me. However, I do admit, at a time like that, you're probably using your instinct more than you're using your brains.

I'm afraid I messed up my sentences a bit. That incident happened in the Netherlands, although I think the legal ages are similar, if not the same. Again, my mistake, sorry about that. Still, you bring up a few very good points, which I agree with.

Not necessarily. You can still win in open combat. In the majority of cases, if they are not armed with guns, the mere sight of a gun can send them packing BEFORE you even fire a shot.
I cannot speak for the Netherlands, however, from what I understand of the American attitude on the subject of the police, the police are, in theory, supposed to be viewed as natural extentions of the civilians protecting themselves. That is to say, the police in America are viewed as little more than civilians with more specific training and authority [and pay] to safeguard the community. This I got from American law-enforcement and legal professions. Parhaps in the Netherlands, you view them as no more than an extention fo the government.
In the case of law-enforcement misconduct, the American population usually argues that there are bad ones in every bunch and it does not necessarily represent the whole. It helps that [on an individual level at least] the law-enforcement admit that they have faults and make mistakes.
However, I would never go as far as to say that they are 'forgiving' towards the police. I have several associates that do not trust the police on any grounds. Rather I would say that the majority of the American population is willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt.

Having a gun in case of a robbery is MUCH more sensible than having a radiation suit incase of a nuclear holocaust, as you said. The chance of a robbery is MUCH higher than the chance of a nuclear holocaust at [pretty much] all times.

Well, you kind of pointed out the faults of the rest of your own arguments so...
In any case, imo it is good that you understand both sides. I can see the sense of both arguments.