Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #821  
Old 03.01.2013, 19:19
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,981
Groaned at 68 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 5,049 Times in 1,795 Posts
crazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
Do people seriously think part of the problem is illegal immigrants with guns from Canada? In this economy? Why would anyone from Canada want to illegally immigrate to the US? It would be like an American illegally immigrating to Mexico.

I remember flying to Chicago from Toronto a few years ago, and being held at customs for extra questions. I had a great sense of humour about it since I knew Chicago (about the same size as Toronto) had over 500 murders that year and Toronto had about 60. And they were scrutinizing the female immigrant Canadian (For those who don't know, this is basically the demographic least likely to commit crimes in both Canada and the USA)

I say the problem with gun killings in the US has to do with irrational fear.
having lived the first half of my life in and around Detroit, I gotta tell you that the only time I was ever caught in the middle of serious gunfire...

...was in Toronto. at the time the Chinese v Vietnamese gang fighting was very intense.

P.S. this post is for our beloved new mod, I have now managed off-topic posts that could go on Mexicoforum, Chinaforum and Vietnamforum.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank crazygringo for this useful post:
  #822  
Old 03.01.2013, 19:29
Caviarchips's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Basel Stadt
Posts: 4,004
Groaned at 110 Times in 83 Posts
Thanked 6,677 Times in 2,388 Posts
Caviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
P.S. this post is for our beloved new mod, I have now managed off-topic posts that could go on Mexicoforum, Chinaforum and Vietnamforum.

Hey, listen, bonny lad.....I said "sorry" with humility and I corrected myself immediately.....so enough of the attitude.

Any of you heard from Carlos R since I became mod? Only to tell you about problems at the border, right? Nothing else. You think that his silence, the rubber glove treatment and my coronation are unconnected? That's all I'm saying....just be careful
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Caviarchips for this useful post:
  #823  
Old 03.01.2013, 19:30
adrianlondon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 9,200
Groaned at 193 Times in 176 Posts
Thanked 25,643 Times in 6,892 Posts
adrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
having lived the first half of my life in and around Detroit, I gotta tell you that the only time I was ever caught in the middle of serious gunfire...

...was in Toronto. at the time the Chinese v Vietnamese gang fighting was very intense.

P.S. this post is for our beloved new mod, I have now managed off-topic posts that could go on Mexicoforum, Chinaforum and Vietnamforum.

If I owned a country I'd rename it Forum. Just so that my country's expat forum was the coolest of them all.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank adrianlondon for this useful post:
  #824  
Old 03.01.2013, 19:33
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CH
Posts: 1,043
Groaned at 253 Times in 119 Posts
Thanked 688 Times in 428 Posts
Bucentaure is considered unworthyBucentaure is considered unworthyBucentaure is considered unworthy
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

The main problem is not so much those psychos that kill as many as possible because they are mentally sick (of course with a more severe legislation they won't use atomic bombs but rather Sackmesser - which can always be used as a weapon, but rather not for mass murder),

but that micro-criminality which in European countries is rather harmless, as no easy or really easy access to fire arms, shotguns ed. al.
And of course those of raptus in families. It's in the robbery and small-criminality category where the main portion of victims of murderers happen to occur in South Africa and others, and I guess also in the US.


Btw. - again - it's not that every Swiss household has a weapon. It's only that category that has male family members in age of military duty, non-civilian servicing, non-civil protection, non-foreigners and able to do military service.


Maybe the American can help me with that:

No problem that one wants to have a gun or a non-mass destruction weapon, but why without a license or any test?

I have a right to use public infrastructure as by means of a car, e.g., but if I want, I have to get a license first. No problem with that. And up from a certain weight of the car/lorry or dependent on professional use I am required to do check-ups. This is fine with me.

So why can't a person from the US who thinks that it's his freedom to have guns not do checks, also for his own good (personal safety check, gun maintaining, what to do when minors in the house or Estelle Getty comes for a visit cleaning ...)
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Bucentaure for this useful post:
  #825  
Old 03.01.2013, 20:07
crazykittylady's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glatt
Posts: 770
Groaned at 117 Times in 68 Posts
Thanked 687 Times in 341 Posts
crazykittylady has a reputation beyond reputecrazykittylady has a reputation beyond reputecrazykittylady has a reputation beyond reputecrazykittylady has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
having lived the first half of my life in and around Detroit, I gotta tell you that the only time I was ever caught in the middle of serious gunfire...

...was in Toronto. at the time the Chinese v Vietnamese gang fighting was very intense.
This is seriously weird. I lived in Toronto for 20 years and never had I even seen a gun until Switzerland. (they're completely covered in the police's uniform)

I had a friend who's father had a gun safe, we all thought he was a redneck.
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 03.01.2013, 22:17
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Jazzer has earned some respectJazzer has earned some respect
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
The main problem is not so much those psychos that kill as many as possible because they are mentally sick (of course with a more severe legislation they won't use atomic bombs but rather Sackmesser - which can always be used as a weapon, but rather not for mass murder),

but that micro-criminality which in European countries is rather harmless, as no easy or really easy access to fire arms, shotguns ed. al.
And of course those of raptus in families. It's in the robbery and small-criminality category where the main portion of victims of murderers happen to occur in South Africa and others, and I guess also in the US.


Btw. - again - it's not that every Swiss household has a weapon. It's only that category that has male family members in age of military duty, non-civilian servicing, non-civil protection, non-foreigners and able to do military service.


Maybe the American can help me with that:

No problem that one wants to have a gun or a non-mass destruction weapon, but why without a license or any test?

I have a right to use public infrastructure as by means of a car, e.g., but if I want, I have to get a license first. No problem with that. And up from a certain weight of the car/lorry or dependent on professional use I am required to do check-ups. This is fine with me.

So why can't a person from the US who thinks that it's his freedom to have guns not do checks, also for his own good (personal safety check, gun maintaining, what to do when minors in the house or Estelle Getty comes for a visit cleaning ...)
I guess this was directed at me since I'm "the American". One of the big issues is that the U.S. doesn't have many federal gun laws. States can make their own regulations and then cities can also regulate. Everyone is suppose to have a background check for crimminal records etc. BUT if you buy a gun at a Gun Show which is where private sellers are you don't need a background check, since it is considered a private transaction. Also, in a private transaction I don't think you have to register the gun. There is not mental checks and unless you are going to carry a concealed gun you don't have to have any training. In other words I could go buy an assualt rifle and not have to prove I know how to use it.

Right now there is alot of people who don't like the laws about registration because they don't want the gov't to know how many guns they have.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Jazzer for this useful post:
  #827  
Old 03.01.2013, 22:38
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CH
Posts: 1,043
Groaned at 253 Times in 119 Posts
Thanked 688 Times in 428 Posts
Bucentaure is considered unworthyBucentaure is considered unworthyBucentaure is considered unworthy
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Thanks for replying.

Quote:
View Post
I guess this was directed at me since I'm "the American".
...
Sorry, I meant generally "the Americans" on the forum. "s" missing (sometimes I mix them up with the British without "s". ).


Quote:
View Post
...
One of the big issues is that the U.S. doesn't have many federal gun laws.
...
Time for a change, I guess, unless the US doesn't want to continue being on a 3d world country level on that, who cares about death, why being there any law.


Quote:
View Post
...
States can make their own regulations and then cities can also regulate. Everyone is suppose to have a background check for crimminal records etc. BUT if you buy a gun at a Gun Show which is where private sellers are you don't need a background check, since it is considered a private transaction. Also, in a private transaction I don't think you have to register the gun. There is not mental checks and unless you are going to carry a concealed gun you don't have to have any training. In other words I could go buy an assualt rifle and not have to prove I know how to use it.

Right now there is alot of people who don't like the laws about registration because they don't want the gov't to know how many guns they have.
Well, actually, besides that there is a difference between guns and cars (guns are produced to threaten or do harm people or animals),

what's the issue when I buy a car in the US?

Can I just buy it, drive off the showroom, no license, no insurance, no plates, no registration because I fear the State could know how many cars I have and what's my personal income and all that stuff, and the police tells me "Well done"?
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 03.01.2013, 23:59
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,981
Groaned at 68 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 5,049 Times in 1,795 Posts
crazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

the biggest hurdle in the US is its continued misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. the right to bear arms was only ever intended to be exercised in connection with possible military service, in order to avoid the need for a standing army. this position, btw, is consistent with the way that the right is constructed in many westernized democracies. unfortunately, of course, the US has entirely missed the boat on the Second Amendment and also maintains perhaps the largest and most expensive standing army in the world (and certainly most active).

if Obama truly wanted to initiate meaningful discussion on the root issue, he would put forth a comprehensive gun reform package that ties receipt of federal tax dollars by the states to their compliance with the law and letter of the program. Congress`taxing power was the basis for the upholding of Obamacare by the Supreme Court, and is the best avenue for gun reform (absent the death of Scalia and a complete 180 by the Supreme on the issue of individual vs. collective gun rights).

I wouldn't hold my breath.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank crazygringo for this useful post:
  #829  
Old 04.01.2013, 02:49
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 2,804
Groaned at 55 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,037 Times in 1,532 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
the biggest hurdle in the US is its continued misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. the right to bear arms was only ever intended to be exercised in connection with possible military service, in order to avoid the need for a standing army. this position, btw, is consistent with the way that the right is constructed in many westernized democracies. unfortunately, of course, the US has entirely missed the boat on the Second Amendment and also maintains perhaps the largest and most expensive standing army in the world (and certainly most active).
Well having just read the amendment I would agree with you, it is hard to see how you can just pick out one phrase from a sentence that would appear to associate the right to bear arms with membership of a militia for the purpose of securing the freedom of the State and make it into an absolute right to bear arms for whatever purpose you like and the dissenting judges would agree with you.

However that is what happens when judicial appointments are so politicised!
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 04.01.2013, 15:29
Desert Rat's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scottsdale, USA/Geneva CH
Posts: 713
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 1,733 Times in 510 Posts
Desert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
... you were expecting that they would hire Ninja's?
If you guys can't see the irony and hypocrisy in this, then no amount of explaining on my part will change that. Maybe it's just me.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
  #831  
Old 04.01.2013, 15:39
Tom1234's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kanton Luzern
Posts: 11,591
Groaned at 316 Times in 253 Posts
Thanked 16,075 Times in 6,580 Posts
Tom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
If you guys can't see the irony and hypocrisy in this, then no amount of explaining on my part will change that. Maybe it's just me.

I find it more ironic that the pro-gun people (i.e.those that keep guns), resort to threats * after the publication of the list when, they keep harping on that their ownership of guns is purely for self-defense.


* Of course I'm making a massive assumption that the threats are coming from those pro-gun rather than anti-gun. **

** That's sarcasm.
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 04.01.2013, 23:04
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Jazzer has earned some respectJazzer has earned some respect
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

I don' agree with this paper printing names and addresses of gun owners. It is considered public information but they went to far. They could have just printed how to go find the information on your own if you wish to do so. I don't know what exactly they are trying to prove by printing the names.

With that said, what are law abiding gun owners doing by making violent threats that would warrant armed guards? To me that is the irony. Gun owners are always talking about how they are law abiding and now they are making threats? Doesn't sound very law abiding to me.
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 05.01.2013, 22:25
Desert Rat's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scottsdale, USA/Geneva CH
Posts: 713
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 1,733 Times in 510 Posts
Desert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Look guys,

I'm not for threatening anybody, nor do I advocate violence. I'm simply pointing out the facts as reported. Interpret it how you will. As for me, I find it ironic.
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 05.01.2013, 23:34
Pachyderm's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 989
Groaned at 50 Times in 32 Posts
Thanked 2,136 Times in 740 Posts
Pachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
Look guys,

I'm not for threatening anybody, nor do I advocate violence. I'm simply pointing out the facts as reported. Interpret it how you will. As for me, I find it ironic.
Depends what slant one puts on it. I'm guessing your line of thinking is: So they disapprove of guns but are happy to use them (or have others use them on their behalf). Therefore this is being hypocritical -- or ironic, as you would have it.

There is another line of thinking which says that if someone is being threatened with guns, the only defence is with guns. In fact, this might be a neat example of the problem in the US -- uncontrolled proliferation based on ever-increasing mutual fear and suspicion.

It seems pretty outrageous that a newspaper would have to hire armed guards to defend an editorial policy. And yet gun advocates wave the banner of 'freedom' in support of their compulsion.

Now to me, that is what's ironic here.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pachyderm for this useful post:
  #835  
Old 05.01.2013, 23:37
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Jazzer has earned some respectJazzer has earned some respect
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
Depends what slant one puts on it. I'm guessing your line of thinking is: So they disapprove of guns but are happy to use them (or have others use them on their behalf). Therefore this is being hypocritical -- or ironic, as you would have it.

There is another line of thinking which says that if someone is being threatened with guns, the only defence is with guns. In fact, this might be a neat example of the problem in the US -- uncontrolled proliferation based on ever-increasing mutual fear and suspicion.

It seems pretty outrageous that a newspaper would have to hire armed guards to defend an editorial policy. And yet gun advocates wave the banner of 'freedom' in support of their compulsion.

Now to me, that is what's ironic here.
Agreed. That's the point I was trying to make.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jazzer for this useful post:
  #836  
Old 05.01.2013, 23:59
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Jazzer has earned some respectJazzer has earned some respect
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
Well having just read the amendment I would agree with you, it is hard to see how you can just pick out one phrase from a sentence that would appear to associate the right to bear arms with membership of a militia for the purpose of securing the freedom of the State and make it into an absolute right to bear arms for whatever purpose you like and the dissenting judges would agree with you.

However that is what happens when judicial appointments are so politicised!
2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What I find humourous is that America is already in violation of the amendment because we don't have a militia. We have a gov't paid standing army that does what the gov't tells it what to do.

Here's where it all gets interesting. In many of Jefferson, Washington, Adams etc. writings they talk about citizens needing guns to fight a tyrannical gov't. In other words citizens being able to rise up agaisnt their own gov't. Think the colonies fighting the British. So that pharse "being necessary to the security of a free State" is more often than not interpruted as NOT fighting a forgien enemy but fighting your own gov't. Supports of this often bring up Nazi Germany and other dictatorships saying, "Well, if they hadn't taken away the people's guns etc."

I personally find this to be a little absured. For one the gov't has tanks, fighter jets etc. I don't care how many guns Private Citizen has, he's no match agaisnt the gov't's firepower. Secondly, what people don't realize when they talk about rising up against the American gov't through force is that it would also invovle many countries around the world. They would all be taking sides because the out come of an American civil war would affect them.
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 06.01.2013, 01:37
Desert Rat's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scottsdale, USA/Geneva CH
Posts: 713
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 1,733 Times in 510 Posts
Desert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

I guess that perhaps I should clarify my personal position. I grew up on a farm where predator control and hunting were common. There were quite a few rifles, shotguns and handguns around.

I still enjoy shooting, both guns and compound bows, but I don't hunt anything anymore. It's too much of a hassle to dress game and I don't believe in shooting something just for "sport." When I'm home for a visit, I will sometimes take a rifle or shotgun out of my dad's gun cabinet and shoot targets or trap, and it's a lot of fun.

As near as I can remember, the last living thing that I shot was a big snapping turtle which had taken up residence in a farm pond and was biting the cattle on the udders when they waded in to cool off in the summer. That was probably about 25 years ago.

I currently own a .22 target pistol and a 9mm semi automatic (both located in the states). The 22 is a pure target pistol and the 9mm is for home defense and also to carry when I'm hiking in the desert in case I ever run into a bobcat, rattlesnake or javalina that decides it wants a fight. I bought this particular model because it's reliable, easy to break down for cleaning, and has a lot of safety features. Coincidentally, it also holds 15 rounds. I usually only load it with 10, simply because it's a nice round number and don't really care if it could hold more.

These seem like pretty legitimate reasons to own a firearm as far as I'm concerned. I understand that a lot of people probably don't agree with me, and that's fine.

However, here is where I take issue;

If I'd happened to live in the town mentioned in the article, then my home address would have been published in the "bad" list, as would have that of my 81 year old father.

This is what bothers me. I'm a law abiding citizen, I try to fit into society, and I've been told that I'm mostly a nice guy.Yet this particular media outlet has, by proxy, lumped me in with someone who shoots up schools and movie theaters.

That isn't me, nor is it the vast majority of people who have firearm permits. I fully agree that the NRA is a lobby with an agenda, which is why I don't support them. But I also recognize that there is another agenda at work here. One that says I'm a bad person because of my legal choice to own a gun.

I'd be just as happy to see the assault rifles go away. In my mind, any legitimate sport or hobby function that they may have (does anybody anywhere really believe that this thing is a hunting rifle?) is far outweighed by the damage that they can do. But I don't think that owning one of them, or any gun automatically makes you a nut or homicidal. Anyone who implies differently is just plain wrong.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
  #838  
Old 06.01.2013, 02:20
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Jazzer has earned some respectJazzer has earned some respect
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
I guess that perhaps I should clarify my personal position. I grew up on a farm where predator control and hunting were common. There were quite a few rifles, shotguns and handguns around.

I still enjoy shooting, both guns and compound bows, but I don't hunt anything anymore. It's too much of a hassle to dress game and I don't believe in shooting something just for "sport." When I'm home for a visit, I will sometimes take a rifle or shotgun out of my dad's gun cabinet and shoot targets or trap, and it's a lot of fun.

As near as I can remember, the last living thing that I shot was a big snapping turtle which had taken up residence in a farm pond and was biting the cattle on the udders when they waded in to cool off in the summer. That was probably about 25 years ago.

I currently own a .22 target pistol and a 9mm semi automatic (both located in the states). The 22 is a pure target pistol and the 9mm is for home defense and also to carry when I'm hiking in the desert in case I ever run into a bobcat, rattlesnake or javalina that decides it wants a fight. I bought this particular model because it's reliable, easy to break down for cleaning, and has a lot of safety features. Coincidentally, it also holds 15 rounds. I usually only load it with 10, simply because it's a nice round number and don't really care if it could hold more.

These seem like pretty legitimate reasons to own a firearm as far as I'm concerned. I understand that a lot of people probably don't agree with me, and that's fine.

However, here is where I take issue;

If I'd happened to live in the town mentioned in the article, then my home address would have been published in the "bad" list, as would have that of my 81 year old father.

This is what bothers me. I'm a law abiding citizen, I try to fit into society, and I've been told that I'm mostly a nice guy.Yet this particular media outlet has, by proxy, lumped me in with someone who shoots up schools and movie theaters.

That isn't me, nor is it the vast majority of people who have firearm permits. I fully agree that the NRA is a lobby with an agenda, which is why I don't support them. But I also recognize that there is another agenda at work here. One that says I'm a bad person because of my legal choice to own a gun.

I'd be just as happy to see the assault rifles go away. In my mind, any legitimate sport or hobby function that they may have (does anybody anywhere really believe that this thing is a hunting rifle?) is far outweighed by the damage that they can do. But I don't think that owning one of them, or any gun automatically makes you a nut or homicidal. Anyone who implies differently is just plain wrong.
This is how I grew up and what I was taught about guns. The only guns I ever saw my dad use were his hunting rifles and shotgun. He had a couple of revovlers that he probably took on camping trips before I came along. But he never carried a gun on a daily basis, nor did he ever talk about needing a gun to shoot intruders (although i'm sure he would have if needed but this was never discussed) or to fight the gov't etc. He wasn't a feverent gun owner. And today, he doesn't understand why people think they need all of this fire power, to him a good hunting rifle is all that anyone would need.

As for the paper, they were wrong for publishing the names and addresses. It is bad journalism. But it is also wrong of their critics to be sending them violent threats and presumably the people who are sending the violent threats are gun owners.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jazzer for this useful post:
  #839  
Old 06.01.2013, 03:16
Pachyderm's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 989
Groaned at 50 Times in 32 Posts
Thanked 2,136 Times in 740 Posts
Pachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Anti gun newspaper hires armed guards

Quote:
View Post
I guess that perhaps I should clarify my personal position. I grew up on a farm where predator control and hunting were common. There were quite a few rifles, shotguns and handguns around.

I still enjoy shooting, both guns and compound bows, but I don't hunt anything anymore. It's too much of a hassle to dress game and I don't believe in shooting something just for "sport." When I'm home for a visit, I will sometimes take a rifle or shotgun out of my dad's gun cabinet and shoot targets or trap, and it's a lot of fun.

As near as I can remember, the last living thing that I shot was a big snapping turtle which had taken up residence in a farm pond and was biting the cattle on the udders when they waded in to cool off in the summer. That was probably about 25 years ago.

I currently own a .22 target pistol and a 9mm semi automatic (both located in the states). The 22 is a pure target pistol and the 9mm is for home defense and also to carry when I'm hiking in the desert in case I ever run into a bobcat, rattlesnake or javalina that decides it wants a fight. I bought this particular model because it's reliable, easy to break down for cleaning, and has a lot of safety features. Coincidentally, it also holds 15 rounds. I usually only load it with 10, simply because it's a nice round number and don't really care if it could hold more.

These seem like pretty legitimate reasons to own a firearm as far as I'm concerned. I understand that a lot of people probably don't agree with me, and that's fine.

However, here is where I take issue;

If I'd happened to live in the town mentioned in the article, then my home address would have been published in the "bad" list, as would have that of my 81 year old father.

This is what bothers me. I'm a law abiding citizen, I try to fit into society, and I've been told that I'm mostly a nice guy.Yet this particular media outlet has, by proxy, lumped me in with someone who shoots up schools and movie theaters.

That isn't me, nor is it the vast majority of people who have firearm permits. I fully agree that the NRA is a lobby with an agenda, which is why I don't support them. But I also recognize that there is another agenda at work here. One that says I'm a bad person because of my legal choice to own a gun.

I'd be just as happy to see the assault rifles go away. In my mind, any legitimate sport or hobby function that they may have (does anybody anywhere really believe that this thing is a hunting rifle?) is far outweighed by the damage that they can do. But I don't think that owning one of them, or any gun automatically makes you a nut or homicidal. Anyone who implies differently is just plain wrong.
Good post, and interesting to someone who has existed 50 years barely having seen a single gun, never mind used one or having had the slightest desire to use one. Even though I also have strong reservations about a newspaper printing personal information about owners of legally-held firearms.

The discussion has switched a bit, but we can at least agree on something.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pachyderm for this useful post:
  #840  
Old 06.01.2013, 10:03
Megsandbacon's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Baar
Posts: 273
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 319 Times in 125 Posts
Megsandbacon has an excellent reputationMegsandbacon has an excellent reputationMegsandbacon has an excellent reputationMegsandbacon has an excellent reputation
Re: Impression of U.S. gun owners

Quote:
View Post
what's the issue when I buy a car in the US?

Can I just buy it, drive off the showroom, no license, no insurance, no plates, no registration because I fear the State could know how many cars I have and what's my personal income and all that stuff, and the police tells me "Well done"?
Technically, yes, you COULD do this, if you wanted to keep the car in your garage or personal showroom or something. You only need the license, insurance, plates and registration to drive the car, not to buy it.

At least in my state, you need a permit to purchase a handgun, and then a separate permit to carry it. The Purchase permit is registered with the Police department of the city you live in, and the Carry permit (for which you need both classroom and range training) is registered with the Sheriff's department of the county you live in. Both permits are entirely discretionary--meaning the police or sheriff can turn you down even if you meet all qualifications.

Of course, there are people who illegally drive, and illegally buy and carry handguns, but these people are, by definition, criminals...so no amount of gun control laws (or car control laws) are going to stop them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
brown, darren wilson, ferguson, gun control, guns, kids, police, shooting range, usa




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 2nd Amendment as explained by a Brit Sean Connery Other/general 126 07.12.2012 15:41
Gun import from the US DantesDame Other/general 4 04.12.2012 18:02
US Gun Control Laws Caviarchips International affairs/politics 179 20.08.2012 23:48
The US taking control of the Interwebz? Nelly_Da_Hefferlump International affairs/politics 4 14.10.2010 01:30
Washington Post story about gun control in Switzerland Bartholemew Swiss politics/news 39 23.05.2007 14:24


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0