Geas

The internet = The wonderful place for people to feel like they know everything about everything when they really have learned nothing.

Do those of you not from the U.S. have friends who have been victims of gun violence, or for that matter other kinds of violence? I always wondered if different countries were actually more peaceful, or if thats just a bunch of hype.

adanath wrote:The internet = The wonderful place for people to feel like they know everything about everything when they really have learned nothing.

I'm sorry i dont see where i claimed to know everything about everything
i just posted something that i found.

Do those of you not from the U.S. have friends who have been victims of gun violence

No, and I do not know anyone who does. There was an italian mafia gang fight in Germany some weeks ago, but I cannot remember any gun violence in the local newspapers. A colleage of my girlfriend knows a victim of a knife-attack, though.

It would be intersting to know if the number of knife attacks is larger here, to compensate for the lack of guns.

When I was in Germany I was a victim of a violent assault by a very large German man!

If not for all the Hefe-Weizen, it may have actually hurt

He did use a weapon, but it wasn't a gun.

He did use a weapon, but it wasn't a gun.

A bretzel?

Brass Knuckles.

Does anyone besides me wonder how a post about Luminier not playing turned into a discussion on gun rights (not that Im not enjoying it, it has to be one of the most interesting posts Ive read on here), Im just curious...

vurdijak wrote:Do those of you not from the U.S. have friends who have been victims of gun violence, or for that matter other kinds of violence? I always wondered if different countries were actually more peaceful, or if thats just a bunch of hype.

I have never been attacked by a gun, nor do I know anyone who has been. In Spain, listening on the news about a incident which involves guns may happen twice in a year.

That does not mean violence doesn't exist. Of course, I have been attacked several times, punched or threatened with a knife and fights and assasanations happen everyday.

There was a recent tv show that wanted to investigate in why "some" american think guns are necessary. The show was long and very interesting, but resuming it, 99% of the people asked said that "weapons are not what kill people, people do it".

I was thinking about that, and after a discussion with some of my friends, we simply concluded that against such an empty argument for us and such a strong for theirs, there was little else to do when talking with that people than respecting their way of life.

Personally, I appreciate more what I have in my country seeing what others have in theirs.

Personally.

Ancale wrote:Does anyone besides me wonder how a post about Luminier not playing turned into a discussion on gun rights (not that Im not enjoying it, it has to be one of the most interesting posts Ive read on here), Im just curious...

This topic suddenly looks like an episode of the Simpsons

Well it started about desert eagles, then turned into solar/wind powered laser guns with light saber attachments, then it just took a downward spiral from there
obviously wind powered laser guns with lightsaber bayonets were to much to handle

Well, one thing I'd like to make clear to people: Legal guns do not increase the chances of crime or emo kids shooting up high schools and such. People who want to commit crimes, or use guns wrongly, can obtain them no matter what. In fact, it's easier for criminals to obtain illegal guns than legal ones through the black market and such. And most of the guns used in crimes are ones that would never be legal anyway.

Also, as far as I know, people with criminal records aren't allowed to legally own guns. So you don't have to worry about a guy getting out of jail and purchasing a pistol.

And kids that go out and do RL grand theft auto is more a fairy tale than reality. The only kids that do that are the ones that are already psychotic. And I'm pretty sure we could go look at other countries that have similar games and such, and not see the same rate of violence (even if guns aren't allowed, knives and fists can be weapons, too).

However, I do feel that it's rather silly that the US is so relaxed about violence on things like TV and such. And while I'm not going to sit here and do a Jack Thompson routine, it probably doesn't help the mindset of people to see violence going on so often that they become numb to it. I mean hell, how often do I hear about murders in St. Louis on the news? Nearly every day, and certainly at least once a week.

I find it more silly that nudity seems to be shunned worse than violence. I can understand if some people are uncomfortable with nudity, but I assume that if nudity was such an awful awful thing, then God or whoever else wouldn't have given us our privy bits to begin with. Or at least would have given us fur or something (why's it okay for animals and not us?). I don't really see what's so sinful and amoral about our own natural bodies.

Violence, on the other hand, is different. While it's natural for our instinctive drives, it's hardly acceptable in a civilized atmosphere.

Abharsair wrote:1) In comparison with most (if not all, but I lack the data for a definite statement) nations which have more or less the same standards of living (e.g. Western European countries), the murder and violent crime rate in the US is higher. Why? Someone already said because of the amount of illegal firearms, but then one has to ask: Why are there so many illegal firearms, and who/what is to blame for it?

Well, for starters, the US is significantly larger than most European countries. So naturally its rates are going to be proportionally higher. Perhaps if you added enough European crime rates (preferably the ones closest to the 'normal') till you got roughly the same population, then averaged the total, the rates may be a bit closer.

Second: the US is one of the world's marketplaces. People of every faith and origin come to the 'land of dreams' to set out their life. And not all of the people that come here do it for noble intentions. After all, if you wanted to sell illegal firearms or drugs or so forth, and wanted the best odds to find a customer and not get busted by authorities, the US would probably be towards the top of your list.

Then, take Spain by comparison. Spain is a nice place IMO, and I have no criticizm of how it's governed, but I would safely say it's definitely not a centralized country like the US is. A nice place for vacations and so sure, but not like the US. So I'm really not surprised if there's not many black markets or crime syndicates out there. But I could almost assure you that if Spain had a Spanish Mafia (or if any other country had a respective mafia), they would probably be able to acquire drugs and weapons or whatever other illegal trade just as easily as us, if slightly less accessible.

2) Some of you say the areas with high per capita gun ownership rates have the lowest crimes. Now, again I have no data on that, but my common sense tells me that the areas where many people have guns are usually more rural, whereas in large cities, where crime is naturally more likely to happen, registered guns are harder to find, due to a lack of hunting or defending against wild animals. But I really don't know, so maybe someone could give an example where the violent crime in two roughly same-sized large cities with similar economic and ethnic background, but different per capita gun ownership rates can be compared.

Well, I can't find two similar cities right off, but maybe I'll look for it later.

And yes, your accessment is correct to me. However, when I say 'rural areas', I speak of very large regions, not small city-sized areas. So whereas rural areas are less concentrated with people than cities in equally proportioned spans of land, I'm taking into consideration a much larger span of land than a city.

3) Lastly, a question which always puzzled me. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution talks about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Fair enough, but what are arms? Clubs are arms, knives are arms, pitchforks are arms, muzzleloader guns are arms, automatic assault rifles are arms, tanks are arms, nukes are arms. So where does your Constitution draw a line? Why are some guns legal, but chemical weapons or anthrax aren't? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to forbid any kind of "arms", unless that part of the constitution has to be seen in context with let's say serving in a militia or army?

Well, this was written some 232 years ago, so I'd say it's a bit outdated at this point. However, arms are, at least to me personally, defined as weapons used to protect oneself or his family, but nothing more. In the present day, this usually means a gun, especially since you probably won't be carrying around a pitchfork or club these days. And I think it's suffice to say, automatic assault rifles, tanks, nukes, and etc. are a bit overboard when it comes to protecting oneself, and thus those are not allowed, in exchange for equally effective if less dramatic weapons like pistols.

But what are you going to do if someone tries to rob you? Shoot him?

Well, if someone breaks into your home and intends to kill you and your family, what other option is there, really? If someone invades your home, you have a right to ensure the well-being of your family.

And people are less inclined to rob a house if the people inside could and would shoot them for it, too.

I can somehow accept the "if bad guys have guns, we should have it too" since the "good" innocent people having guns is not a problem. The question is where those weapons eventually end up. What's the most common route for a weapon? Where does it go? What percent of good, legal, blessed, cuddled, clean weapons eventually become bad, blackened, dirty and bloody? How does the life of a gun look like? How does the spread of weapons affect society? Doesn't it just mean that bad things are more prone to happen?

For example compare USA to.. well... pretty much any european country on the number of gun-kills per year. Since guns almost doesn't exist except from in organized heavy gang criminality (which is rate), it's pretty black and white. I don't remember the numbers, but I looked at them at least a couple of years ago and it should be roughly the same. Now, I'm not saying that some portion of that might not be replaced by knife-stabs.. but still it feels like more guns = more oppurtunities to shoot. In other words, is the he-might-have-a-hidden-weapon-so-Im-not-robbing-him effect greater than the more-guns-more-death effect?

tessa wrote:

But what are you going to do if someone tries to rob you? Shoot him?

Well, if someone breaks into your home and intends to kill you and your family, what other option is there, really? If someone invades your home, you have a right to ensure the well-being of your family.

With "rob" I mean, pull a gun at you on the streets. Will you reach for yours? Or only while facing him forward? Or only if you have little money in your wallet? I mean, does it even solve the problem? What if you misinterpreted something?

And most importantly, while I don't really feel happy about people deciding to rob me, I still don't enjoy taking their life for something that can be "repaired". Is the psychological trauma of ending someone's life foreever really worth 100$..? Philsophically, maybe yes, but in practice.. is that a way forward?

What's the most common route for a weapon? Where does it go? What percent of good, legal, blessed, cuddled, clean weapons eventually become bad, blackened, dirty and bloody? How does the life of a gun look like? How does the spread of weapons affect society? Doesn't it just mean that bad things are more prone to happen?

I would say most guns are put away for display or dismantled. I would say very few of the responsibly owned guns are ever used malistically.

And no, I wouldn't say it makes things more prone to happen. Take away guns, people will use knives. Take away knives, people will use fists. I don't think it makes violence any greater, as people who want to commit a crime will find a way to commit it. Guns didn't exist back in the ancient days, but that sure as hell didn't lower violence any.

For example compare USA to.. well... pretty much any european country on the number of gun-kills per year.

Still, keep in mind the size of the US vs a European country.

Now, I'm not saying that some portion of that might not be replaced by knife-stabs.. but still it feels like more guns = more oppurtunities to shoot.

But then I can ask, what difference does that make? A murder with a knife and a murder with a gun are both murder. And if you have 5 gun murders and 5 knife murders in one place, and 2 gun murders and 8 knife murders in another place, can we say that guns cause more violence, or can we say that it's not the weapons, but rather the people that are the cause of the crime?

To me, it doesn't mean guns increased violence, it simply means it's the favoured weapon of the criminals. Take guns entirely out of the scenario, and I think the same crimes will take place, just with different weapons.

With "rob" I mean, pull a gun at you on the streets. Will you reach for yours? Or only while facing him forward? Or only if you have little money in your wallet? I mean, does it even solve the problem? What if you misinterpreted something?

And most importantly, while I don't really feel happy about people deciding to rob me, I still don't enjoy taking their life for something that can be "repaired". Is the psychological trauma of ending someone's life foreever really worth 100$..? Philsophically, maybe yes, but in practice.. is that a way forward?

The thing is, if someone's going to rob you like that, they're likely to do more than simply take your money. Maybe if you comply and give them everything, they'll let you go. But if you refuse, or don't have the money, or they're in a bad mood, you've got fair chances to be shot or stabbed in the stomach and left for dead on the street. Or, if you're a woman, chances of being raped on top of it.

And let me ask you this, would you be willing to endure rape or mortal wounds in exchange for not harming the person that did it to you? Probably not. Do you know if the robber is really going to hurt you or not? Not really, but if he's going to pull a weapon on you and threaten your life for money, IMO he made his own choice and it's his fault and not yours if he pays the repercussions for it.

And BTW, usually for street or alleyway robberies, the favoured weapon is a knife. Guns tend to make a lot of noise and draw attention, and pickpockets usually don't like that. And stabbing the person afterwards can improve the chances that they won't be pursuing or screaming for help afterwards.

And the weapons don't always have to actually be used to kill. If a man sees a robber threaten a woman, he could hold the robber at gunpoint until police arrive, or chase the robber off by showing his gun.

Or, in the cases that there's a shoot out at a public place, what happens if no one there has a gun? Everyone gets shot by the criminal (who likely got the gun illegally) and have no way to save themselves. Allow conceal and carry, and a citizen could drop the shooter and spare the lives of everyone else.

Even if you made it illegal to own guns in America, I could almost guarantee you that crime rates would be the same, as the criminals would all still have guns, and citizens would have nothing. I mean, if a person is wanting to commit a crime, why would he care to obtain the gun legally?

i think it's clear now everyone. criminals are bad. now lets raise our kids properly!

If you want to do mean, unmentionable things to people, don't grab a knife and prowl the streets. Log on your friendly neighborhood Geas and make a Satho.

And no, I wouldn't say it makes things more prone to happen. Take away guns, people will use knives. Take away knives, people will use fists. I don't think it makes violence any greater, as people who want to commit a crime will find a way to commit it. Guns didn't exist back in the ancient days, but that sure as hell didn't lower violence any.

Sad, but true.

we are cavemen that get our meat at the supermarket, we need some way to release our violence, again, geas seems to be safe.




btw yes, i stole that from csi las vegas. best of the csi shows.

On the question as to what constitutes arms. In my opinion, what constitutes arms is what would allow the citizenry of a country to rebel and successfully fight against that country's military should the government become overpowered or impose upon the rights of its citizens. On that note, I do not think that an assault rifle, or an RPG would be unnaceptable to own. Probably beyond the means of most to obtain cost wise, let alone a tank or anything. However, resistances can be carried out with the simplest of firearms. The second ammendment was first put in place as a check against the government itself, so that citizens could maintain their rights. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said a healthy nation was one that rebelled openly against its government every 20 years.