🚀 go-pugleaf

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:

> > We here in the US need them for protection as well. If we banned all guns
> > except for hunting that the criminals who rob/rape, and deal drugs would
> > give up their guns? If they don't, wouldn't you like to be able to *protect*
> > yourself against them?
> 
> Well, if I don't have a gun, does the criminal need to pull out his,
> or even use it? Further down I write about criminals/guns.

	Yes.  A criminal will always pull out the gun because it gives them nearly
absolute power.  They know that a gun held to an unarmed person will get them
what they want in the fastest manner possible.  An experienced criminal operates
on speed and absolute power.  1) Establish complete control of the situation, 2)
Get what you want, 3) Get the hell out as fast as possible.
 
> > > The best thing would be if you didn't need the gun to protect yourself
> > > at all, right? In a perfect world, people don't need guns to protect
> > > themselves. I am correct, right?
> >
> > Absolutely! I've been to the UK, and as you know they have no guns... even
> > the police don't carry guns... It was wonderful! That said, this is not a
> > perfect world, and here in the USA, there are too many guns to ban them
> > all.. The only ones to give up their guns would be the law abiding citizens
> > like myself (even though I don't own a gun). Then, the only ones with guns
> > would be the criminals... hey, wait... would that be a good thing? NOPE.
> 
> I think I agree to this, actually. But that is because the situatiioin
> is as it is, and this has already come "this far" - with guns being
> needed some places, to protect yourself.
> 
> Now. I know that the situation in the USA is different from Europe, at
> least this is the impression I get when I read about these matters.

	I think that it takes more than an 'impression' to hold productive discussions
on this topic.

> Banning guns just like that wouldn't solve anything. Since "everyone"
> has a gun, people wouldn't give up theirs easily, and when it is so
> easy to get hold of guns.
> 
> In a way, it seems to be a vicious circle for the USA, and I sure
> don't know how to break it.

	The problem, as I see it, it that we are stuck in the middle.  We don't have a
small / condensed enough population to ban guns and make it work (like the UK),
but we have too many gun-ignorant citizens to are scared to allow more gun
ownership.  Thus, we are stuck with gun-carrying criminals who victimize the
gun-ignorant populace.  The gun-ignorant populace also sucks up the media hype /
bullshit about anything guns (e.g. - the Rosie O'Donnell show) and perpetuates
the fear and gives even more power to a gun-wielding criminal.
	We're not going to get to where the UK is.  Being in the middle ain't working
too well either - it's kind of like the rich vs. the peasants, except that the
power comes from the understanding of the tool we call a gun instead of money.
	My opinion is that we must go the other direction - place more responsibility
on the citizens to learn and understand firearms so that each citizen can make
their own informed decision about guns.  Back when the constitution was written,
pretty much every household had a gun and everyone knew how to use it.  It was a
tool with many purposes, and citizens knew how to use it as well as a knife or
horse.  Now that guns have a place in fewer households, many misconceptions,
myths have come about from the heads of people who just don't know a damned
thing about guns.  Many rely on the media for their ideas about guns (and many
other issues).
	It comes down to this: it's easier to read the paper and watch the news to get
your ideas and opinions than to go out and learn about it for yourself.  That is
the difference between a well-read and an informed opinion.  You don't have to
agree with what you learn about, but we all need to understand the other side of
the issue.

> About criminals being the only ones with guns... It is inevitable that
> criminals, at least a lot of criminals will have guns, but not people
> like yourself (I assume you are not a criminal ;-)), unless you need
> it for hunting, or other such activities - if such a law did exist.
> But don't forget that strict control makes it easier to get rid of
> _illegal_ weapons.

	Strict control is a foolish idea.  Singling out 'illegal' weapons is
impractical.  It's too easy to change the gun a little bit and stay ahead of the
laws.
 
> I still disagree with you about guns being about "freedom". It is
> really a "prison", but the situation is like that, and I don't know
> what one can do about it...

	See my previous post (up the thread a bit) about why guns provide freedom.  It
isn't a 'free' freedom - it requires responsibility and understanding that isn't
necessary in a gun-controlled state.
 
> "prisoners" of the guns. This can only be done if there are strict
> rules for ownership. I don't really have a problem with that, since I
> don't feel like I need a gun anyway.

	But you don't have a choice.  I don't feel I need a gun, but I want to have the
choice.  My situation my change, my government may change, I just don't know.

> As the situation is like it is in the USA, I don't see a quick and
> easy solution to this...

	Then harsh criticism of the status quo is totally unacceptable.
	
	Quick and easy solutions never work.  Ever.  Lawmakers advertise all of their
quick and easy solutions, and every one of them has become dead weight.  No
answer is easy, and unfortunately, too many people think that banning guns is
the easy way out.  1) It won't be easy.  2) It won't work.

	Dave