AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-12-21, 17:05   Link #881
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
in fact, statistics should not come into the mix when dealing with inalienable natural rights at all.
Well, clearly not everyone personally believe this is inalienable natural rights, so...

argument continues.

Quote:
I will point out that I would feel safer with a cop at the schools
One is not enough. And even if it's effective (and I do expect so), it sends a message to the world that implies American schools are less safe than other 1st world countries schools.

But I suppose saving lives is more important than pride

The bigger issue would be cost as mentioned, such that even Foxnews' iffy at this idea. Assuming the armed security guard has similar salary to teachers, that would be like 1-2 extra teachers for every school in terms of cost.

Last edited by maplehurry; 2012-12-21 at 17:35.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 17:47   Link #882
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
What you seem to fail to grasp is that achieving this would be quite literally impossible in the US. Not only are there massively more firearms in circulation in the US, you're also looking at a population that will not support a ban.
Which is why I made clear suggestions what could be a possible middle ground, to reduce the availability of guns in the medium run:

1) Make sure that every firearm needs to be registered and assigned to a person. Hold this person liable for crimes committed with the firearm, for lack of oversight and irresponsible behavior. So that whoever owns a gun better keeps it safe and locks it away.

2) Make sure that it is illegal to carry unregistered guns. Fine whoever is found in possession of an unregistered gun to kingdom come, and immediately confiscate and destroy the weapon.

3) Pay bounties to whistleblowers who tip off successful police raids which lead to weapon confiscations. Take the money out of the point 2)-based fines.

This way, you can fulfill your second amendment and still reduce the number of weapons on the streets significantly. And then letsee if it helps.

If you disagree with this proposal, please give reasons why.

Quote:
Guns tends to be the more effective tool of choice when one wants to kill another, naturally it would be used more often, but that hardly means that said killer would forgo the killing if guns were not available, and the lack of the same disparity in violent crimes shows that.
No, the data matches the real-life experience of the police. In countries with strict gun control, there are much fewer deaths on violent crimes, because the perpetrator usually aren't armed with guns. Burglars usually aren't shooting people when surprised, they run. It also takes much more criminal energy to knife or bludgeon someone to death than merely squeezing a trigger, and once the attacker has taken out his primary victim, the remaining bystanders can get away much more easily than while held at gunpoint.

Violent crimes in general are still more prevalent in the US compared to e.g. Europe, but not remotely by 8 times. Which means that your criminals are made "more effective" by firearms.

Quote:
[about the difference between statistical correlation and scientific proof]
Not much else needs to be said here.
How about taking note of the obvious correlations at least? This is one more attribute which I've found Americans to be particularly skilled at: The ability to purposefully ignore unpleasant truths or dismissing them as librul conspiracies, like smoking causing cancer, global warming or use of torture.

Quote:
I find your attempt at strawman to be disappointing. What does protecting school have to do with supermarket or movie theater? are you saying we shouldn't protect school UNLESS we can also protect everywhere else?
No, my argument is that you should rather concentrate on dealing with the underlying problem instead of trying to relocate the crime scene. I'll concede that it would be an improvement, though.

Quote:
Or the trained police officers takes the shooter down? or suppress him long enough to mitigate potential damage? Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the shooter tends to surrender or kill themselves as soon as armed opposition presents itself?
Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the deed is already done?

Quote:
Please stop being ignorant. Should elementary school kids rush the shooter? no, because they would be ineffective, but high school or college? definitely, assuming denying entrance to the shooter is not possible.
Hey, it's some gun nutcases' idea, not mine. And I'm looking forward to teaching high schoolers to rush a shooter with automatic weapons. NOT.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with being manly or not, it's simply the best tactic for survival. If you can't stop the shooter from gaining access to your location, and you don't make any organized effort to stop the shooter, then the only alternative is sit there and wait for your turn to be executed.
No. The alternative is trying to escape. Run and hide. Rushing the attacker is a possible option against a knife or bludgeon. It is extremely dangerous against pistols and requires surprise and significant numerical advantage. And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.

Quote:
This, more than anything else, clearly demonstrate you're solidly in the "guns are inherently evil" crowd, where merely the sight of them would spread fear and corruption to all.
Guns are dangerous items which reduce the inhibition threshold of KILLING SOMEONE to a mere pull of a finger, and should therefore be restricted as much as possible and handled with care. They should not be advertised as token of manliness and made easily available to every psychologically unstable person out there. Otherwise, it will _naturally_ lead to bloodshed.

Besides, where to draw the line? Pepper Spray? Flashbangs? Concussion grenades? Fragmentation grenades? Chemical weapons?

In this world, guns are a necessary evil. It's just my opinion that it should be restricted to those persons and organizations that actually need it. Not to push up everyone's testosterone. If you don't, stuff happens much more often. Fact.

Quote:
Were children emotionally scarred because they went out to shoot with their parents?
In my opinion, yes. Lowers the inhibition levels and promotes the use of weapons. And certainly adds to the violent nature of Americans, especially the willingness to use violence as means of conflict resolution.
Mentar is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 18:11   Link #883
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I actually agree with your ideas, Mentar, except I'd like to add the stipulation that licensing and registration of firearms should either be free or no more expensive than obtaining a driver's license. If you don't ensure this, it'll just wind up being yet another discriminatory measure against those who are not wealthy. Already the rich can basically ignore existing gun laws and do whatever they want. I'd prefer not making it worse.

Also, if an unlicensed individual is found in possession of a stolen weapon that was promptly reported, the stolen item should be returned to its owner and not destroyed (after the process of justice is complete, of course). There's enough of that crap already where the police either destroys or just keeps stuff that people stole instead of returning them to their rightful owners. A gun owner shouldn't be penalized for being victimized, especially if they immediately report the missing weapon(s) and all of its identifying characteristics to the police.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 18:21   Link #884
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Such a thing would get a lot of resistance. There is a sizable collection of people that dispite not being criminals, do not want the government tracking their weapons. Mostly on the notion such records will be used for confication purposes (became the prevalent though in the late 1980s and 1990s).

I also seem to remember some sort of computer game or maybe it was a movie were the US was invaded (somehow) and the invaders systematically hunted down everyone that owned a gun via their registered weapons in the BATF's records. Though for some reason I think the invasion was from Mexico (Don't remember clearly, it was a long time ago. Was like a rising of LA RAZA backed by Soviets or something. I think the game was about doing airstrikes from a carrier offshore if you lost our airbase to whatever it was).
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 18:23   Link #885
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"
The ''good guy with a gun'' is more like a last resort option at best. If the good guy is at that moment far from the action, he can't do much. If the bad guy take care of shooting the good guy at the start his presence would had been meaninless. If the good guy don't manage to shoot the bad guy with his first shoot, his the strat bullets might injure or kills bystander than we was supposed be protecting.

"Smart guns" show promise, but not readily available on U.S. market
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BJ18E20121220
Quote:
When Irish gun entrepreneur Robert McNamara learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, his immediate reaction, like that of most people, was one of horror, shock and sadness. But there was something else, too.

"I was literally pulling my hair out," McNamara said. "I thought, we have a technology that could have helped prevent that massacre."

That technology places a radio chip in a gun handle and a corresponding chip on a ring or bracelet or even implanted in an authorized shooter's hand, McNamara said. If the two chips are not within an inch or two of each other, the trigger will not unlock.
How many school massacres could had avoided if some teens or young adults wouldn't have been able to use their parents weapon to do their deed ?
__________________

ganbaru is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 18:47   Link #886
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Wow, ID'd guns? Those already exist? How long till it's viable for mass production I wonder. This reminds me of MGS.
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 21:03   Link #887
Jaieni
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Physics Lab
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

I'll leave this here and let you draw your own conclusions from this study.
Jaieni is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 21:13   Link #888
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaieni View Post
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

I'll leave this here and let you draw your own conclusions from this study.
It certainly won't make some people very happy since it directly confronts certain assertions made as if fact.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 21:40   Link #889
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaieni View Post
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

I'll leave this here and let you draw your own conclusions from this study.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing it. I intend to read through it, but I've found some issues within the first few pages.

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on fire‐ arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are high‐ est.”11

This is in conflict with the data from the American government database. Citation 11 (which covers the statement about the United States) refers to an article from Psychology and Social Policy. While I find psychology to be an interesting field, I do not hold it nor experiments related to it in high regard as a science in general. I'll try to get a hold of the original article to determine what data bank and statistical analysis they used, or whether they made this assertion based off of psychological questionnaires. If it's based off of statistics from a different data set, that will be interesting. If it's based off of psychology, well... excuse me for preferring numbers of actual events.

One example of shifty citations:
As of 2006, if the police catch a mugger, robber, or burglar, or other “minor” criminal in the act, the policy is to release them with a warning rather than to arrest and prosecute them.24

Citation 24 refers to an article in The Daily Mail. That's a tabloid. I don't know whether this is the true policy or not in England, but surely there was a better, more... reputable source than a tabloid? It doesn't discredit the article to have this citation in there, but it means that you can't accept a statement with a citation number next to it as being something solid.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 21:59   Link #890
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
1) Make sure that every firearm needs to be registered and assigned to a person. Hold this person liable for crimes committed with the firearm, for lack of oversight and irresponsible behavior. So that whoever owns a gun better keeps it safe and locks it away.

2) Make sure that it is illegal to carry unregistered guns. Fine whoever is found in possession of an unregistered gun to kingdom come, and immediately confiscate and destroy the weapon.

3) Pay bounties to whistleblowers who tip off successful police raids which lead to weapon confiscations. Take the money out of the point 2)-based fines.
While I don't have too much problem with your proposal in general, that one will never fly in the court, it'd get thrown out in a heartbeat. It's one thing if you have very specific provisions which outlines possible cases of criminal negligence (for example, open and unsupervised access to weapons and ammo to children), it's quite another to have what you're suggesting here, which is carte blanche vicarious liability on the gun owner's part. Even if you pass something like this, it'll never survive it's first legal challenge.

Quote:
No, the data matches the real-life experience of the police. In countries with strict gun control, there are much fewer deaths on violent crimes, because the perpetrator usually aren't armed with guns. Burglars usually aren't shooting people when surprised, they run. It also takes much more criminal energy to knife or bludgeon someone to death than merely squeezing a trigger, and once the attacker has taken out his primary victim, the remaining bystanders can get away much more easily than while held at gunpoint.
Yup, that's working out really well for Mexico isn't it? And as long as you continue to view the US as carbon copies of other countries with zero difference other than gun availability, you're never going to grasp the real issues.

Quote:
Violent crimes in general are still more prevalent in the US compared to e.g. Europe, but not remotely by 8 times. Which means that your criminals are made "more effective" by firearms.
I have no ideal how you possibly arrived at this conclusion. First you say that the number of guns directly contributes to more violent crimes and deaths, and then turns around and says the lack of similar reductions of violent crime levels in strict gun control nations is because it makes criminals in the US too effective? Huh?

Quote:
How about taking note of the obvious correlations at least? This is one more attribute which I've found Americans to be particularly skilled at: The ability to purposefully ignore unpleasant truths or dismissing them as librul conspiracies, like smoking causing cancer, global warming or use of torture.
Any student who's taken Statistic 101 can tell you that you can pretty much slice and dice data to make it correlate to whatever it is you want. Which is why the specific qualifiers are so important, as they allow you to read the data without bias.

And yes, please continue to sling mud, I guess someone has to right?

Quote:
No, my argument is that you should rather concentrate on dealing with the underlying problem instead of trying to relocate the crime scene. I'll concede that it would be an improvement, though.
As I've noted in a previous post, it's not a zero-sum game, so stop with the either-or fallacy, there's no reason why you can't protect schools while dealing with other issues at the same time.

Quote:
Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the deed is already done?
Yea, because there was no one there capable of stopping them, which is the whole point of having police/security guard there - to have someone on site that is capable of doing so.

As for the specific cases I was talking about, no, the "deed" wasn't already done. In the case of the church shooter, he killed himself right after he was wounded by a guard while attempting to carry out his mass shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/col...ngs/index.html

and in the case of the principal, he was able to stop the shooter from further attack and detain him until the police arrived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting


Quote:
Hey, it's some gun nutcases' idea, not mine. And I'm looking forward to teaching high schoolers to rush a shooter with automatic weapons. NOT.

No. The alternative is trying to escape. Run and hide. Rushing the attacker is a possible option against a knife or bludgeon. It is extremely dangerous against pistols and requires surprise and significant numerical advantage. And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.
You're showing your bias and lack of knowledge in the relevant field again(nor did you pay attention to what I wrote apparently).

Escape is not always an option, depending on the design of the building and you (and the shooter's) position, or as it was in Virginia Tech, literally impossible due to preemptive measures by the shooter.

As for rushing, these shootings are not taking place on a wide open field where you're starting from 500 yards downrange. These are extremely close quarter affairs where the shooter are in the same room as his victims, it doesn't take much time to cover even the maximum distance - back of the room to the door, this leaves the shooter with only a few seconds at the most to deal with a rush.

Also, real life is not like the movies, you don't get flung back 20 feet and insta-gibbed because you got hit with a bullet in you arm or your shoulder. With the typical classroom size of 20-30, the shooter would have to be a real life version of a headshot aimbot to do what you think would happen. In the real world? Not even Carlos Hathcock can do what you think would happen.

Basically, don't try to talk tactics when you obviously have no clue about them.

Lastly, and I'm getting real sick of this, if you're not willing to put in even the smallest of efforts to know what an automatic weapon or an assault rifle is, then I see no point in carrying on this conversation - it's like trying to talk modern astronomy with someone who still believes in the geocentric model.

Quote:
Guns are dangerous items which reduce the inhibition threshold of KILLING SOMEONE to a mere pull of a finger
No, what gun lowers is the capability threshold for killing, by the time someone has reached for a gun to kill another, they've long since passed their "inhibition". FFS, guns are not the One Ring, it doesn't whisper in their owner's ears and make them go "My Preciousssssss!"


Quote:
In my opinion, yes. Lowers the inhibition levels and promotes the use of weapons. And certainly adds to the violent nature of Americans, especially the willingness to use violence as means of conflict resolution.
In my opinion, your opinion is seemingly formed from nothing other than cliched assumptions and speculations to fit with your preconceived notion of the world, with zero input from said world.

But hey, dont' let me stop you trying to sling mud at Americans at every opportunity
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 22:28   Link #891
ZGoten
Custom User Title
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to ZGoten
The fact that any adult in the US can just buy a gun and ammunition is absolutely ridiculous. There is not a single reason why this should be allowed when faced with the reality that any mentally fractured person can take the life of another person. The possession of firearms should always, in all cases, require the aquirement of a written, legal permission that also stands as a testament to an individual's ethic maturity. The fact that there are people who do not share this view point scares me, to be honest.
__________________
Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.
ZGoten is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 22:28   Link #892
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
It certainly won't make some people very happy since it directly confronts certain assertions made as if fact.
Actually, it can please both sides, if you just read the conclusion.

The conclusion mentioned another study that compare Canada and USA's murder rate in 1976-1980.

The murder rate was similar while USA had much higher gun ownership at the time.

So the pro-gun people can say, higher gun ownership does not lead to more murder.

While the anti-gun people can say high gun ownership has failed to deter crime.

Both sides WIN.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 22:46   Link #893
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGoten View Post
The fact that any adult in the US can just buy a gun and ammunition is absolutely ridiculous. There is not a single reason why this should be allowed when faced with the reality that any mentally fractured person can take the life of another person. The possession of firearms should always, in all cases, require the aquirement of a written, legal permission that also stands as a testament to an individual's ethic maturity. The fact that there are people who do not share this view point scares me, to be honest.
You do realize that people all over the world are beaten to death, stabbed til they die, and killed in all sorts of horrific ways without the presence of a gun?

Not every adult in the US can buy a gun. There are all kinds of restrictions (felons, age, domestic abuse, brakes on the purchase transaction, etc.). Are they working? Well, they're not implemented very well or they're underfunded.

Who is writing these "permissions"? On what basis do we trust the permission granters? How have we vetted them? How is that different than vetting the purchaser?

Women often resort to guns when the men in their life are violent jackasses. Its an equalizer. Will the permission granter giver her a nod? What if he's the abuser? Just following ramifications.

Fear is usually mitigated by knowledge. I'm quite aware the status quo is busted and we need solutions. I just want the solutions to actually work and not just make people with no clue feel better or make the problem worse.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:01   Link #894
Kyero Fox
Tastes Cloudy
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Snake Way
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to Kyero Fox
__________________
Kyero Fox is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:03   Link #895
ZGoten
Custom User Title
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to ZGoten
I'm not here to talk specifics. I'm just here to talk common sense. Baseball bats and knives can kill, sure. A gun, however, will kill if used even semi correctly, without leaving the victim any chance. That is just too much power at the finger tip of a single human being to just let anybody have it. You were saying that that's not the case entirely and also suggesting that the access restrictions are not implemented well. I would agree on that, but I would add that they are simply not restrictive enough. Here in Germany, I don't know a single person on a personal level, who owns a gun. Not one. And I don't think I would feel comfortable knowing that they had one.
__________________
Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.
ZGoten is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:10   Link #896
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyero Fox View Post
Images
video of nice rant
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
The "nabobs" always put the hook on things They Don't Do. Non-gamers, people who listen to happy bubbles corporate music, people who watch the "right sports", go to the "right church" ... you get the idea. They have no basis in fact, science just emotional gut "I don't get it so that must be the root problem."

I've got bruises on my forehead from facepalming at the dozens of jackass stupid "oh, he played video games" "he wore black" "he listened to metal" irrational nonsense being uttered (whether it is the moron LaPierre, a half dozen politicians from both parties, or the last interviewed "soccer mom idiot") I've been inundated with over the last few days.

Quote:
Here in Germany, I don't know a single person on a personal level, who owns a gun. Not one. And I don't think I would feel comfortable knowing that they had one.
I wonder what the ratio of law enforcement to population is in Germany? (how many people per officer). I should look that up.

I'm not going to dispute a gun-less society might feel safer to most people (ignoring possible problems with governments going haywire) but the problem in the US --> how do you get there without creating havoc and chaos? Our law enforcement ratio is really low. Where I live, police response time is 15 to 30 minutes and I'm only 20 minutes from the center of a large metropolitan area. Police in the US are legally not required to prevent crime (judicial rulings) or even protect civilians. Their only legal bounding is to clean up afterward. So if I or my neighbor experience a home invasion - we are really on our own. In other words, there are a ton of issues that have to be dealt with simultaneously.
__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2012-12-21 at 23:22.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:11   Link #897
SoldierOfDarkness
The Dark Knight
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
The ''good guy with a gun'' is more like a last resort option at best. If the good guy is at that moment far from the action, he can't do much. If the bad guy take care of shooting the good guy at the start his presence would had been meaninless. If the good guy don't manage to shoot the bad guy with his first shoot, his the strat bullets might injure or kills bystander than we was supposed be protecting.
It's dangerous and could escalate.

I mean if a guy shows up and starts shooting, then the teachers "could" retaliate with their guns but then you end up with a shooting spree. If I recall correctly these "bad guys" come armed not with guns but lots of ammo AND bullet proof vests and they are prepared. A teacher would just be armed with a regular handgun and it'd be a spur of the moment. How does the math teacher across the school know what the English teacher whose engaged with the shooter doing?

Plus when the cops show up how do cops know whose the bad guy? They rush in with guns drawn and they see an adult with a gun who could mistakingly point it at them or they think from their angle that it's pointed at a child and they end up shooting him/her?

As for armed guards...I'm not sure but in schools since 2000 we always had police officers around and one "designated resource officer" who patrolled the halls and at times gave lectures about safety. Honestly I don't see an issue with having a guy around but there's more to the problem than just placing a guard at each school.
Quote:
"Smart guns" show promise, but not readily available on U.S. market
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BJ18E20121220

How many school massacres could had avoided if some teens or young adults wouldn't have been able to use their parents weapon to do their deed ?
Only problem though is that the mother was killed before he ran off with the guns. He could easily have killed her, then removed the chip and kept it close when he runs off with the guns.
SoldierOfDarkness is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:11   Link #898
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Just out of curiosity, is Germany heavily anti-gun for citizens, or has it been regimented for a generation or two? It just seems the ones that are the most anti-gun here are German, which just leads me to question why this is, as oppose to say Dutch or French.

I don't recall when firearms for civilians became illegal for German citizens. Or is it just a heavy restriction? It doesn't sound like it with the ideology we've been getting is pretty much "guns belong in the hands of the military and the police....no one else", or something similar.

It just increased my curiosity, that's all.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:32   Link #899
ZGoten
Custom User Title
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to ZGoten
The German gun laws are definitely among the strictest on the planet, even though owning a gun is not illegal. In order to simply own a gun, you need a certain license called 'Waffenbesitzkarte'. To be able to access one, you need to fulfill different criteria like for example physical and mental capability. You also need to give a written explanation as to why you would like to apply for a license (hunting, sports, collecting etc.). Depending on your reason, there are additional restrictions.

In order to be legally allowed to carry a weapon outside of your house, you need a completely different license, though ('Waffenschein'). Such a license is only ever permitted in exceptional cases. I googled it. You need to proof that owning a gun would considerably lessen the danger of a position you are in, and that this certain position renders you more endangered than the general public. Not all weapons are allowed to be carried with that license, though, and there are places you will never be allowed to take a gun to like for example at public events.

As to why this is the situation with Germany, I have no idea. What I can say, is that even though getting a license that allows you to have a gun at home is not all that hard, few people actually feel the need to make use of that.
__________________
Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.
ZGoten is offline  
Old 2012-12-21, 23:51   Link #900
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Interesting. I wonder how or what difference there was between East and West Germany, though that was now well over 20 year ago. Or if that even mattered when it came to gun regulation, or probably more importantly to the topic of US civilian ownership of firearms, the mentality of the German people towards to subject matter?

If you are wondering, I am simply trying to figure out how the various stances came about. I know of US regulations and a little bit about UK and some of the Commonwealth countries regulations, but not the rest of Europe for example.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.