Should guns be legal?

[Bakiryu]

And accessible to the public as well?

Protection or annihilation?

What do you think?

[mosimo]

And accessible to the public as well?

Protection or annihilation?

What do you think?

Guns should be legal. Take a look at Switzerland. It successfully remained out of both world wars because everyone was too afraid to attack them as almost every household has a gun and is part of the militia. Also look at Switzerland's crime rate. it is one of the lowest in the world. If everyone in the US was required to carry a gun than anyone who attempted a shooting would not stand a chance. Take the mindset of the criminal would you be willing to walk into that store and rob them if everyone was carrying an automatic? And you know they now how to use them.

[NikolaiI]

Guns should be legal. Take a look at Switzerland. It successfully remained out of both world wars because everyone was too afraid to attack them as almost every household has a gun and is part of the militia. Also look at Switzerland's crime rate. it is one of the lowest in the world. If everyone in the US was required to carry a gun than anyone who attempted a shooting would not stand a chance. Take the mindset of the criminal would you be willing to walk into that store and rob them if everyone was carrying an automatic? And you know they now how to use them.

Yes but then you end up with a bunch of dead people. If there were no guns, then we couldn't kill people so anonymously. Of course there's two different things here, one is a store robbery and the other is possible invasion of another country, and of course illegal and non-existent are different things.

[Oniw17]

of course illegal and non-existent are different things.

That's what it comes down to. We're never going to eliminate the threat of guns in the hands of other people(at least not in the lifetim of anyone who's alive today), so it's best to be on the safe side. Then, there's always the threat of an oppressive government. Especially in larger, more corrupt countries. Also, I though that the reason nobody attacked switzerland in WWII was because that's where the world bank was?

[mosimo]

you forget that a criminal usually does not get his gun through legal means. Therefore if guns are not legal it will be the armed criminal against a lot of unarmed victims. Also criminals usually are afraid of you just as much as you are afraid of them.

Would not Germany have attacked Switzerland on purpose for the world bank because they were not the richest of countries in and of themselves? There had to be another reason.

[NikolaiI]

Yeah, that's a very good point, mosimo...I don't see how you can refute it.

[Granny5]

There's nothing I can say about guns being legal that isn't a hot political topic in the US.

[mosimo]

you must hang out with the wrong crowds legalization of gun is a very HOT topic.

Just not usually in literature networks.

[Granny5]

The two sides are so extream. I've heard NRA officals say that it worth small children being killed by stray bullets to keep guns legal and to keep from having to license a gun. I've also heard anti-gun folks say that ALL guns, handguns, hunting rifles, etc. should be banned. Neither side will give an inch. Both sides are like little children.

[amalia1985]

I am one of those anti-gun folks. Personally, I can't see what guns have to offer. Protection may come through other means, I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.

[mosimo]

What about Black powder. I mean it takes about five minutes just to load it.

And for me the lives of children is worth more than my gun.

Also the Government should require licensing but not to ban them.

[mosimo]

If you are going to make them illegal then you might as well make bows and BB guns illegal too.

[Granny5]

Hunters, and there are a lot of them in my area, should be able to own registered gun, IMHO. If someone feels the need for self protection, then there should be training classes and licenses. But, according to the NRA, everyone should be able to own any type of handgun or long gun, including assult rifles without a license. It's crazy as far as I'm concerned.

[NikolaiI]

I am one of those anti-gun folks. Personally, I can't see what guns have to offer. Protection may come through other means, I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.

I totally agree and I think it would be better were there no guns. But mosimo had a good point that if you make them illegal, then it's the armed criminals versus the unarmed non-criminals. And I think the government shouldn't have guns either. I don't see how to argue against mosimo's argument, though.

And oni, I dunno about that, my history's not that good, but that seems right, too.

[amalia1985]

I totally agree and I think it would be better were there no guns. But mosimo had a good point that if you make them illegal, then it's the armed criminals versus the unarmed non-criminals. And I think the government shouldn't have guns either. I don't see how to argue against mosimo's argument, though.

And oni, I dunno about that, my history's not that good, but that seems right, too.


You made an excellent comment, Nikolail. I think, more and more, that it's a vile circle, leading nowhere. That's why I said there is no black or white. Both sides have equally adequate facts to base their opinions on.

[mosimo]

The question then is who will win?

If anyone wants them I have a lot more reasons on the side of legalizing guns and if anyone wants to they can sent me any other of the views of the other side either here or pm them to me.

[amalia1985]

I am not that optimist that there is going to be a solution.

[Shalot]

guns should be legal with restrictions. felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns. that's just my opinion. I don't happen to have a gun. but if I decide that I want one, i want to be able to go get one, provided I am responsible enough to have one. If I felt the need for one, I would certainly like to have it. I haven't experienced much violence in my life though so i don't have an urgent need to go get one. I shot one once, but it was kind of a non-event and I didn't see what the big deal was. My grandfather sure was anxios to get that rifle away from me though.

[Poppy]

I am one of those anti-gun folks. Personally, I can't see what guns have to offer. Protection may come through other means, I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.

What are those other means? I certainly respect your opinion, I just think its a pipe dream to believe that you can defend yourself against an armed intruder without equalization...

~Poppy

[amalia1985]

What do you mean by saying "armed intruder"? You mean it regarding...war? Or in the case of, say, a burglar? Perhaps, I have this opinion, because in Greece, we do not have many cases of similar violence. What is Police for?

[Pendragon]

Interesting topic. I picked this quote up early in the topic from Nik.
If there were no guns, then we couldn't kill people so anonymously. Really? I collect knives and swords, which are silent, and if you know where to put the blade, one only 1 and 1/2 inches long can kill very quickly. They are concealed weapons in my state at 3 inches. You have to carry them visible if the bade is longer.

A bow is silent, and given compound bows, gives a fair distance. Crossbows have greater range and more deadly force. If someone wants you dead they will find a way, guns or no guns.

The question is, how will you defend yourself? Since I have a knife scar on my back, and have tasted steel as a teenager (which you never forget), I learned how to fight with a knife. I always carry one, and if I am hiking the backcountry, I usually carry my Gurkha Kukri, large enough to take on the biggest wild animal that might attack.

I own guns and am a good shot. The guns stay locked up. I still have the remaining original shells I bought for my 30-30 20 years ago. Why? I don't waste shots. I no longer hunt, but my son may use the gun this fall deer season.

Murder has been committed here. A serial killer dumped bodies within 5 miles or so of my house. His last victim survived, and he is now in prison. I went to school with him. See, you never know when you might need protection, because you don't know who is who.

The major problem I see, is selling guns to private citizens that fire multiple rounds with quick reloading. All of mine take time to reload. No pop out a clip and pop in another. If all guns that citizens had were like that, then things like massacres couldn't happen. When the perp ran out of bullets, the law could charge before he could reload.

[bazarov]

Guns should be legal. Take a look at Switzerland. It successfully remained out of both world wars because everyone was too afraid to attack them as almost every household has a gun and is part of the militia.

:( :( Noooooooooooooooooo:( :( :bawling: :bawling:

Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 gave independence and neutrality to Switzerland by European states. French revolutionaries conquered Switzerland in 1798 but Napoleon returned them their status. After that, nobody touched them and Congress in Vienna confirmed everything in 1815. They were neutral in WWI. In WWII Hitler planned but never made an invasion; some others operations failed all over the Europe.

Seriously, what do you think; how much time would Hitler needed to conquer Switzerland? 3 or 4 hours?

[manolia]

:( :( Noooooooooooooooooo:( :( :bawling: :bawling:

Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 gave independence and neutrality to Switzerland by European states. French revolutionaries conquered Switzerland in 1798 but Napoleon returned them their status. After that, nobody touched them and Congress in Vienna confirmed everything in 1815. They were neutral in WWI. In WWII Hitler planned but never made an invasion; some others operations failed all over the Europe.

Seriously, what do you think; how much time would Hitler needed to conquer Switzerland? 3 or 4 hours?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Baz i saw that comment too..i took it as a joke :lol:
Hitler who managed to enslave the greatest part of Europe and it took the combined forces of so many nations to bit him, being afraid of gun carrying civilians in Switzerland..

[bazarov]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Baz i saw that comment too..i took it as a joke :lol:
Hitler who managed to enslave the greatest part of Europe and it took the combined forces of so many nations to bit him, being afraid of gun carrying civilians in Switzerland..

But I am sure he was serious. It would be too long joke! :lol: :lol:

[stephofthenight]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable
to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------


It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.


There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.


You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.


Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!


The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.


With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!


If you value your freedom, dont get rid of your guns..

___________________
me im a southren girl, ive owned a gun since i was 8 and i had a bb gun around 6...i personaly belive that our guns are our security and RIGHTS.

[bazarov]

Dear stephofthenight,do you really believe that Beretta or AK47 under your bed would save you from Stalin's, Kemal's, Hitler's, Mao's, Idi Amin's or Pol Pot's regime and secret police? I doubt. Were are not much smarter then those 60 millions. Do you think nobody of them had a gun?

What is your solution? Carrying a gun in your pants and looking over your shoulder will some lunatic attack you?



During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

So they attacked most armed place: Pearl Harbor???
No. From USA, Japan needed only Hawaii to satisfy their imperialistic aspirations; for creation of Big Japan state empire.

[amalia1985]

Right on, Bazarov.You are absolutely right.

[NikolaiI]

Totally due to my parent's upbringing of me, I advocate non-violent resistance...

[Pendragon]

Dear stephofthenight,do you really believe that Beretta or AK47 under your bed would save you from Stalin's, Kemal's, Hitler's, Mao's, Idi Amin's or Pol Pot's regime and secret police? I doubt. Were are not much smarter then those 60 millions. Do you think nobody of them had a gun? No. Here, Baz, we are in full agreement. That type of gun shouldn't even be in the hands of private citizens, anyway. But this old man might have taken a couple with me with the guns I do have. No one likes to argue with a pump 12 gague which by law is plugged to carry only 3 shells, but that's plenty.



What is your solution? Carrying a gun in your pants and looking over your shoulder will some lunatic attack you? Here, I like to go with a quote by baseball great Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you."



So they attacked most armed place: Pearl Harbor???
No. From USA, Japan needed only Hawaii to satisfy their imperialistic aspirations; for creation of Big Japan state empire.Well, that was kind of the point. Cripple that point, and the USA is less of a danger in the Pacific war. And they would, as you say. extend their island empire. Unfortunately for the whole world, someone had created man-made hell, and pushed the point to where it was used twice.

Which brings me to my next point. So I have a 7 shot lever action .30-30, the gun that won the west as they like to say. As I said, it's slow to load. The crook has a Glock with extended clip, fifteen shots, instantly reloadable, and six extra clips. Who has the atvantage here? He can pin me down while methodicaly walking in to kill me, and I'll never get a shot off. If I do, he's gone, but I have little chance of coming out unscathed.

I'm not for gun control in removing all guns, but these big clips and automatics should be law enforcement or army only. Wouldn't hurt any gun I own.

[SleepyWitch]

about burglars, I think there are only so many armed burglars in countries where it's easy for civilians to obtain guns because the burglars have to reckon with armed householders. if they could be sure their victims are unarmed, they'd just grab the valuables and run for it.

[mosimo]

But I am sure he was serious. It would be too long joke! :lol: :lol:

No I was not joking. But I think you missed the point. I did know that Hitler had a plan for the invasion of Switzerland yet he did not use it. Also id did not matter how long he would take to capture the country but rather that the country would provide a pain with the resistance efforts. Additionally no one can truly see what Hitler was thinking. Militia when used to there fullest are not best as fighting as a army but as they are doing in Iraq now as a hit and run. See how right now the war in Iraq is a fester. Switzerland could have done the same thing and therefore Hitler may have delayed. But this is only speculation.

[Shalot]

Where are guns NOT legal right now? I know they're legal in the US as long as you have a permit. But I know that people can obtain guns anyway, so what does it matter?

[amanda_isabel]

i don't see why guns should be illegal, as long as they're issued to people in the right frame of mind.

[mosimo]

Where are guns NOT legal right now? I know they're legal in the US as long as you have a permit. But I know that people can obtain guns anyway, so what does it matter?

This thread started to discuss the ethics of guns and whether if guns are legal in a hypothetical country would they serve as protection or just cause more death.
Therefore does it matter?
Not really. What guns provide in way of protection or demolition really matters in the mentality of the people of this hypothetical country. In a country were the majority of the people care for each other and would willingly die for their neighbor, legalization of guns would produce safety because an intruder would not be fighting a split people but a united community. Nevertheless if the hypothetical country has a lot of animosity and each person cares only for themselves they would rather sacrifice their neighbors for their own comfort in that country it would not matter whether guns would be legal or not because they would find other-ways to kill each other, guns would just speed things up. See if you distrust your neighbor you would not want him armed yet if you trusted him it would not really matter.

[Pendragon]

This thread started to discuss the ethics of guns and whether if guns are legal in a hypothetical country would they serve as protection or just cause more death.
Therefore does it matter?
Not really. What guns provide in way of protection or demolition really matters in the mentality of the people of this hypothetical country. In a country were the majority of the people care for each other and would willingly die for their neighbor, legalization of guns would produce safety because an intruder would not be fighting a split people but a united community. Nevertheless if the hypothetical country has a lot of animosity and each person cares only for themselves they would rather sacrifice their neighbors for their own comfort in that country it would not matter whether guns would be legal or not because they would find other-ways to kill each other, guns would just speed things up. See if you distrust your neighbor you would not want him armed yet if you trusted him it would not really matter.Well said. Trust is the key. We are backwoods folk here. Almost every guy you see has a visible knife sticking above his pocket or in a sheath on his side. Why? Because to us, they are like tools. Everyone has one, several, in toolkits, fishing tackle boxes, hunting gear, etc. Yet we do have to be careful, there are places where it is illeagal to carry even that knife, like, say on school property. I have to watch when I pick up my son, that I've left it at home.

But we're not knife fighting. Most of us hunt or are ex-hunters. Every murder in the past while has either been by someone passing though or not by gun. I've had rowdy neighbors in the twenty-four years I've lived here, never had to even fight period, or call the law. Guns don't kill people, people who misuse guns kill people.

[bazarov]

No I was not joking. But I think you missed the point. I did know that Hitler had a plan for the invasion of Switzerland yet he did not use it. Also id did not matter how long he would take to capture the country but rather that the country would provide a pain with the resistance efforts. Additionally no one can truly see what Hitler was thinking. Militia when used to there fullest are not best as fighting as a army but as they are doing in Iraq now as a hit and run. See how right now the war in Iraq is a fester. Switzerland could have done the same thing and therefore Hitler may have delayed. But this is only speculation.

Every nation provided some resistance but it was useless, I don't see why would small Switzerland be something else. Iraq is a bad example; I am afraid what would happen to Bagdad or Falluja it they would be attacked with 100 000 of US soldiers, like Hitler was attacking. Hitting and running would be pretty useless, don't you think?


Where are guns NOT legal right now?

Croatia. :)

[mosimo]

I do not know. To truly know the answer Hitler would have had to actually attack Switzerland. Nevertheless there is also the example of the American revolution. The British at that time were the top of the world. Yet a direct comparison can not be made between the two because the British did not really have a plan nor did they even have the ability to occupy the place in a few hours. Therefore one will never know how the Swiss would have held up.

"Hitting and running would be pretty useless, don't you think?" It would be a whole lot better then trying to fight as an army and be annihilated by the Germans. See you allow them to come in with open arms then you turn and fight when they least expect it. This is the stuff that war games are made of. Although I loose fifty percent of the time.

[bazarov]

I do not know. To truly know the answer Hitler would have had to actually attack Switzerland. Nevertheless there is also the example of the American revolution. The British at that time were the top of the world. Yet a direct comparison can not be made between the two because the British did not really have a plan nor did they even have the ability to occupy the place in a few hours. Therefore one will never know how the Swiss would have held up.


Benelux was defeated in couple of days, France also( no matter of Petain) and I really don't see why would peacefully Switzerland last longer.



"Hitting and running would be pretty useless, don't you think?" It would be a whole lot better then trying to fight as an army and be annihilated by the Germans. See you allow them to come in with open arms then you turn and fight when they least expect it.

Blitzkrieg was definitely something Switzerland would like to miss in any form of war with Germans.

[Sancho]

This is tangential to the basic question, but a German blitzkrieg would have never worked in Switzerland: tactically - the terrain is too difficult; operationally - the cost outweighed the reward; strategically - why bother?

I think that a willing and well armed Swiss guerilla force would’ve given the Germans hell.

[bazarov]

Why not? Airplanes would bomb them, and tanks and soldiers would finish the job. In war, you're trying to win cities, not snow covered mountains.
Guerilla and resistance was something Germans expected and solved easily all over the Europe so probably would also in Switzerland.

[mosimo]

The Germans were not gods they made mistakes. Their success elsewhere would have only made them more prone to make another.

[Nossa]

And accessible to the public as well?

Protection or annihilation?

What do you think?

That's a bit tricky. I know that guns are sold and they have licence and all...but they still shouldn't be accessible to everyone...we hear a lot about tragic accedents in schools and things like that...so I don't know, I can't really decide. I suppose you can have a gun under certain conditions, maybe if you feel that there's a certain threat that requires you having one in order to protect yourself and family, or if you're harassed by someone or stalked, but then again what are the guarantees that the person buying it is honest about his/her claims...it's hard to decide.

[Sancho]

Airplanes are notoriously lousy at attacking a well dispersed, well covered, dug-in enemy. In order to kill him – you have to see him. Even if the Germans had had a heavy bomber, which they didn’t, carpet bombing a hillside in the hopes of killing a few guerilla fighters would have been ineffectual as well. The militia would have simply crawled into their holes and waited for the airplanes to go away, then climbed out, dusted themselves off, and started shooting Germans again.

Blitzkrieg, or “Lightning War” in English, is a war of movement. The whole idea is to avoid attacking the enemy’s stronghold and then grinding it out in a war of attrition. So, you use exterior lines, get around or envelope the enemy, cut him off from his center of gravity and his supply lines, and you’ve won a relatively bloodless victory. This style of maneuver marked a paradigm shift in how wars were fought, and the German Army was the best in the world at it. In practice: they did not attack into the French Maginot line, they went around it and sped through the Low Countries and took Paris before anyone could say, “Merci beau coup.”

They were smart enough (on a number of levels) not to try the same thing in Switzerland. On a tactical level, the approaches to Zurich could easily be defended by a relatively light force against Panzers (Tanks). A Panzer’s strengths are in its speed, firepower and its ability to cover open ground quickly, those strengths are almost totally negated in a narrow mountain pass. Lay a few mine fields, blow a few bridges, zero in a few artillery rounds, and you’ve got yourself a real target rich environment for a few hundred fighters with bazookas. On an operational level, of course the Germans could’ve taken Zurich, but it would’ve cost them several divisions; and on a strategic level, why bother? The Swiss weren’t causing them any trouble and all of the living space (Lebensraum) was to the east anyway.

General Paulis and the German Sixth Army showed how effective the Blitzkrieg was in “Operation Barbarossa” on the open plains of Russia in the summer of 1941. That is, Right up until they got to Stalingrad and out ran their own supply lines and had to face the wrath of the Russian winter, the Russian people, and the Red Army. General Paulis never went home. Good Book about it: Enemy at the Gates.

Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack the thread.

[Bakiryu]

That's a bit tricky. I know that guns are sold and they have licence and all...but they still shouldn't be accessible to everyone...we hear a lot about tragic accedents in schools and things like that...so I don't know, I can't really decide. I suppose you can have a gun under certain conditions, maybe if you feel that there's a certain threat that requires you having one in order to protect yourself and family, or if you're harassed by someone or stalked, but then again what are the guarantees that the person buying it is honest about his/her claims...it's hard to decide.

Maybe everyone should be well armed then?

[Nossa]

Maybe everyone should be well armed then?

As I told you, I'm not sure what to decide. Not everyone should have guns in my opinion, just for urgent cases, but this is also a problem cuz you'll never know what that 'urgent' case is..what's important and urgent to me can sound silly to you and vice versa. Maybe there should be certain laws or standards to determine when it's appropriate for someone to have gun, and where to keep it and all. Perhaps then whoever owns a gun would be really in need for it. What are the standards, I don't know though, but this is the best I could come up with...lol