StarDestroyer.Net BBS

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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?

Perinquus wrote:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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.

Well of course. If you don't have anything to contribute to the argument, proclaim your moral superiority.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perinquus wrote:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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.

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"

RedImperator wrote:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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?

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:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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?

it´s not so much that anybody has grown out of it, it´s more like the american society has grown into it.

salm wrote:

Perinquus wrote:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

salm wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

salm wrote:i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

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?

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???

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.

Darth Wong wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RedImperator wrote:

salm wrote:

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.

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"

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.

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.

These gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else.

Barring the Swiss of Course Mike

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

The Dark wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Mr Bean wrote:

These gun control arguments tend to pit Americans against everyone else.

Barring the Swiss of Course Mike

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RedImperator wrote:

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.

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.

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).
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's a good source for general information about the Swiss militia:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

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.

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.

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.

RedImperator wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.
btw, i am american.

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.

hehehe, ever shot one with a .45-70 at close range? or a watermelon, for that matter?

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.)