How'd I know someone was eventually going to sweep down in here and proclaim American attitudes about guns are the result of some national character flaw that [insert nationality here] has grown out of? When in doubt, proclaim your moral superiority, eh?salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
Do you shoot?
Moderator: Edi
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
Well of course. If you don't have anything to contribute to the argument, proclaim your moral superiority.Perinquus wrote:Ahh, the hasty generalization rears its ugly head: Americans are a bunch of immature, trigger happy cowboys, yadda yadda yadda...salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
I wondered how long it would be before someone chimed in with something like this.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Which you ignored in favour of focusing on CHILD accidents only, as if all of the adult accidents don't exist. You also seem to make some distinction about hunting accidents as if they don't exist either. And nowhere have I seen any numbers showing that these "man walks into convenience store and starts randomly killing people" events kill anywhere near as many people as these accidents.Perinquus wrote:The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them.
These gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else. Ultimately, America's way of life is unusual because their laws uphold the sanctity of property more than the sanctity of human life. It is perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed man in the back if he's trespassing on your property in most of the United States; it is a strange societal code.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
- Utsanomiko
- The Legend Rado Tharadus
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: 2002-09-20 10:03pm
- Location: My personal sanctuary from the outside world
i wondered how long it would take until someone claimed that "too scared to live without them" is the same as "immatiure, trigger happy cowboys"Perinquus wrote:Ahh, the hasty generalization rears its ugly head: Americans are a bunch of immature, trigger happy cowboys, yadda yadda yadda...salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
I wondered how long it would be before someone chimed in with something like this.
how the hell did you get to the assumption that "americans are too sacared to live without guns" has anything to do with moral superiority???RedImperator wrote:How'd I know someone was eventually going to sweep down in here and proclaim American attitudes about guns are the result of some national character flaw that [insert nationality here] has grown out of? When in doubt, proclaim your moral superiority, eh?salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
it´s not so much that anybody has grown out of it, it´s more like the american society has grown into it.RedImperator wrote:How'd I know someone was eventually going to sweep down in here and proclaim American attitudes about guns are the result of some national character flaw that [insert nationality here] has grown out of? When in doubt, proclaim your moral superiority, eh?salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
It's not a different philosophy. It's not a different history, or a different outlook on the world, or a different legal code. It's not just a different way of doing things--no, if Americans do something and Europeans don't approve of it, it's some gaping national character flaw.salm wrote:i wondered how long it would take until someone claimed that "too scared to live without them" is the same as "immatiure, trigger happy cowboys"Perinquus wrote:Ahh, the hasty generalization rears its ugly head: Americans are a bunch of immature, trigger happy cowboys, yadda yadda yadda...salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
I wondered how long it would be before someone chimed in with something like this.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
- The Dark
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
- Location: Promoting ornithological awareness
I believe so here as well. I know some areas have gone so far into criminals' rights that they have to shoot first, or else the defender is considered a criminal.Darth Utsanomiko wrote:I believe tresspassers have to be armed or threatening to attack for it to be legal here, though I can't vouch for other states.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
Because the other half of the statement "Americans are too scared to live without guns" is "and EUROPEANS AREN'T". If not moral superiority, it's and unjustified assumption of superior national (or continental) character.salm wrote:how the hell did you get to the assumption that "americans are too sacared to live without guns" has anything to do with moral superiority???RedImperator wrote:How'd I know someone was eventually going to sweep down in here and proclaim American attitudes about guns are the result of some national character flaw that [insert nationality here] has grown out of? When in doubt, proclaim your moral superiority, eh?salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
Uh, where did you get that idea? I'm sorry Mike but that is simply not a true statement. I can tell you exactly what'll happen to you if you shoot an unarmed man in the back, whether it's on your property or not - you'll go to jail for murder. I'm a cop, and I can't even shoot an armed man in the back. He has to be threatening your life, not just your property. If he's facing the other way or running away, you're going to have a hard time convincing a judge and jury your life was in danger. If he's unarmed and you have a gun, then unless you are physically so much smaller and weaker, or disabled or something, you are not going to sell it to a jury that you had to shoot him, and away you go to the grey bar hotel. If you blow a guy away while he's climbing out the window with your TV set, you're going to be charged with murder, and almost certainly convicted.Darth Wong wrote:Which you ignored in favour of focusing on CHILD accidents only, as if all of the adult accidents don't exist. You also seem to make some distinction about hunting accidents as if they don't exist either. And nowhere have I seen any numbers showing that these "man walks into convenience store and starts randomly killing people" events kill anywhere near as many people as these accidents.Perinquus wrote:The point you were making, or so it seemed to me, is that the number of accidental handgun deaths was so great that these other shootings would have to go into high numbers to exceed them.
These gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else. Ultimately, America's way of life is unusual because their laws uphold the sanctity of property more than the sanctity of human life. It is perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed man in the back if he's trespassing on your property in most of the United States; it is a strange societal code.
This is not just in Virginia that this is the case. I believe that there are a couple of states where the law does technically permit you to shoot an intruder, but even in those states, you can still be found guilty of an unjustifiable homicide. Property here is not as sacrosanct as you make it out to be.
you know, that´s a load of bullshit.RedImperator wrote:It's not a different philosophy. It's not a different history, or a different outlook on the world, or a different legal code. It's not just a different way of doing things--no, if Americans do something and Europeans don't approve of it, it's some gaping national character flaw.salm wrote:i wondered how long it would take until someone claimed that "too scared to live without them" is the same as "immatiure, trigger happy cowboys"Perinquus wrote: Ahh, the hasty generalization rears its ugly head: Americans are a bunch of immature, trigger happy cowboys, yadda yadda yadda...
I wondered how long it would be before someone chimed in with something like this.
just because this fear i´m talking about is present in the us society doesnt mean that all americans have a character flaw.
Barring the Swiss of Course MikeThese gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else.
But they acutal HAVE a gun culture as compared to the America "Kinda" culture or the Brit "Hell No" culture
Walk by a Police Station with a M-16 Slung over your shoulder with a box of ammo in one hand in praticualy every country you'll probably be either Shot dead or arrested on the spot
Switzerland?
The Police will wave
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
-
- Resident Redneck
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: 2002-09-10 08:01am
- Location: Around the corner
- Contact:
Here in Tennessee you can't shoot someone just for trespassing, although you can press charges with the local police agency. If somone is in your home though, then you may shoot. If someone is simply on your property though, no you can't. BUT, if someone is on your property and is threatening you physically, then you have the right to defend yourself.The Dark wrote:I believe so here as well. I know some areas have gone so far into criminals' rights that they have to shoot first, or else the defender is considered a criminal.Darth Utsanomiko wrote:I believe tresspassers have to be armed or threatening to attack for it to be legal here, though I can't vouch for other states.
-
- Resident Redneck
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: 2002-09-10 08:01am
- Location: Around the corner
- Contact:
Yeah, in Switzerland isn't it illegal if you DON'T have an automatic weapon and are trained to use it due to the lack of a large formal military in the country?Mr Bean wrote:Barring the Swiss of Course MikeThese gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else.
But they acutal HAVE a gun culture as compared to the America "Kinda" culture or the Brit "Hell No" culture
Walk by a Police Station with a M-16 Slung over your shoulder with a box of ammo in one hand in praticualy every country you'll probably be either Shot dead or arrested on the spot
Switzerland?
The Police will wave
Also, doesn't Switzerland have one of the largest per capita gun ownership rates in the world, yet the lowest per capita gun violence rate in the world? I think that that says something about criminals being afraid of an armed populace.
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
Maybe there's just a language gap going on here, but I'm having a really hard time figuring out how "I guess Americans need guns. They're too scared to live without them," is anyting BUT a giant, unsupported generalization about a national character flaw. Perhaps you could explain it to me, since apparently in additon to my fear of life without guns, I don't understand English, either.salm wrote:you know, that´s a load of bullshit.
just because this fear i´m talking about is present in the us society doesnt mean that all americans have a character flaw.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
Yeah, the Swiss have a real militia, as opposed to a standing army. Every man of military is trained, and issued with an assault rifle and ammo, which he is required to keep at home. And these are real assault rifles (i.e. selective fire) as opposed to semi-auto-only weapons that are erroneously called assault rifles.NF_Utvol wrote: Yeah, in Switzerland isn't it illegal if you DON'T have an automatic weapon and are trained to use it due to the lack of a large formal military in the country?
Also, doesn't Switzerland have one of the largest per capita gun ownership rates in the world, yet the lowest per capita gun violence rate in the world? I think that that says something about criminals being afraid of an armed populace.
And they do have a very, very low rate of gun crime, or any other kind of violent crime for that matter. One of the reasons the Swiss overwhelmingly voted no to EU membership in a 2001 referendum was that the EU was pressuring them to tighten up their gun laws, and bring them more into line with those of other EU member states. Another reason is that the Swiss enjoy considerable economic prosperity at home - lower taxes, unemployment and inflation - and the Swiss see themselves as having little to gain, and much to lose by joining the EU. The Swiss have also historically been wary of any form of integration with their European neighbors. Switzerland is not even a member of the United Nations for fear of ceding too much power to outside agencies.
And you thought we Yanks were the only ones suspicious of the UN.
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
It's interesting to note that the Japanese have a rate of gun crime nearly as low as that of the Swiss, yet they have very strict gun control. Obviously, something more than the availability of guns is figuring into national gun violence statistics. What it could be, I don't even have a half-assed theory.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
part of it was sarcastic, part of it wasnt. when i said "the americans" i didnt mean ALL americans. i´m sure that there are americans who dont have that fear, myself included. it´s like saying we need to bomb the irakies (you dont mean we need to bomb every single iraki, you mean bombing military targets in irak).RedImperator wrote:Maybe there's just a language gap going on here, but I'm having a really hard time figuring out how "I guess Americans need guns. They're too scared to live without them," is anyting BUT a giant, unsupported generalization about a national character flaw. Perhaps you could explain it to me, since apparently in additon to my fear of life without guns, I don't understand English, either.salm wrote:you know, that´s a load of bullshit.
just because this fear i´m talking about is present in the us society doesnt mean that all americans have a character flaw.
i think that there´s some sort of fear in the us society which makes the people think they need to protect themselves and their property from whatever and to acomplish that they need guns. a lot of americans (e.g. my aunt/uncle) are afraid of the big bad robber that breaks in and steals all of their money/tv/stereo. in other countries (in this case i can only speak of germany, but i think it´s not much different in the uk, france, spain...) people dont even think about it. it still happens occasionally of course, but the vast majority of the people will never be robbed in their life time.
anyway, the guns that the people buy cause deaths.
lets say somebody breaks into a house and the owner has a gun. the owner takes his gun aims it at the robber and the robber shoots the owner. this wouldn´t have happened if the owner hadnt had a gun.
or the owner takes his gun and shoots the robber.
both ways are pointless deaths as well as crimes, since they would have been (very probably) avoided if there had been no guns involved.
now, i´m not going to argue if the robbers death would be a crime or not. that would be pointless discussion because neither you nor me are going to change his point of view.
IMHO, the Swiss crime rate is more of a function of their culture than any fear of getting shot. As someone else posted, Japan's crime rate is comparable to the Swiss, and yet the Japanese own no guns. Something else is at work other than the fear of guns.Also, doesn't Switzerland have one of the largest per capita gun ownership rates in the world, yet the lowest per capita gun violence rate in the world? I think that that says something about criminals being afraid of an armed populace.
The only thing the Swiss experience is good for is disproving the guns automatically equal crime bullshit that the Bradys and their ilk constantly peddle.
It's not the guns, it's the culture. The US has historically been a more violent and individualist culture than either the Canadians or the Europeans.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Oderint dum metuant
Oderint dum metuant
They keep the ammo at home as well. He's issued only 50 rounds in a can, whcih is inspected each year during a week of national service training.salm wrote:now, i´m not completetly sure about this but i think that the swiss have the guns at home, but not the ammo. i´ll try to find that out.
Here's a good source for general information about the Swiss militia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
- RedImperator
- Roosevelt Republican
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
- Location: Delaware
- Contact:
Indeed, that's where different cultures come into play. You see a dead robber, you say it's pointless death that could have been avoided. I see a dead robber, I say "Good, he deserved it." All this four page gratituous thread hijack has proven is that when Americans and non-Americans start arguing gun control, the two sides are so far apart they can't even understand the others' positions.salm wrote:lets say somebody breaks into a house and the owner has a gun. the owner takes his gun aims it at the robber and the robber shoots the owner. this wouldn´t have happened if the owner hadnt had a gun.
or the owner takes his gun and shoots the robber.
both ways are pointless deaths as well as crimes, since they would have been (very probably) avoided if there had been no guns involved.
now, i´m not going to argue if the robbers death would be a crime or not. that would be pointless discussion because neither you nor me are going to change his point of view.
Speaking of hijacking, I don't think I ever answered the thread's original question. Yes, I shoot, when I'm down in North Carolina, though it mostly consists of blowing up soda cans on tree stumps, rather than shooting in a range.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
X-Ray Blues
just because we grew up in different cultures doesnt mean wa cant discuss certain things. if people dont discuss they will never be able to understand each other.RedImperator wrote:Indeed, that's where different cultures come into play. You see a dead robber, you say it's pointless death that could have been avoided. I see a dead robber, I say "Good, he deserved it." All this four page gratituous thread hijack has proven is that when Americans and non-Americans start arguing gun control, the two sides are so far apart they can't even understand the others' positions.salm wrote:lets say somebody breaks into a house and the owner has a gun. the owner takes his gun aims it at the robber and the robber shoots the owner. this wouldn´t have happened if the owner hadnt had a gun.
or the owner takes his gun and shoots the robber.
both ways are pointless deaths as well as crimes, since they would have been (very probably) avoided if there had been no guns involved.
now, i´m not going to argue if the robbers death would be a crime or not. that would be pointless discussion because neither you nor me are going to change his point of view.
Speaking of hijacking, I don't think I ever answered the thread's original question. Yes, I shoot, when I'm down in North Carolina, though it mostly consists of blowing up soda cans on tree stumps, rather than shooting in a range.
btw, i am american.
-
- Resident Redneck
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: 2002-09-10 08:01am
- Location: Around the corner
- Contact:
hehehe, ever shot one with a .45-70 at close range? or a watermelon, for that matter?RedImperator wrote:
Speaking of hijacking, I don't think I ever answered the thread's original question. Yes, I shoot, when I'm down in North Carolina, though it mostly consists of blowing up soda cans on tree stumps, rather than shooting in a range.
WHABOOM
Seriously, my father and I were shooting his .45-70 that has ported barrels to help with recoil and I was standing about 5 feet away to his side and I could literally FEEL the concussion from the pressure leaving the tiny ports in the barrel. That, my friend, is pure, untethered, POWER, only surpassed by some heavy safari magnums (.375 H&H Magnum, .416 Weatherby Magnum, etc.) and the .50 BMG.)