An anti amongst us: play nice

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Please welcome HelgeS, who posted the following in the Julie thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Hi everybody,
I came here pretty much by accident. I guess I am what you would call an "anti-gun person", a rare minority on this board it seems. Well, just for the protocol, I am a physics researcher at university in Canada. Worked and studies in the US for the last couple of yours after coming from the NATO crisis reaction forces. I am German myself, though I lived aswell in Russia, france, britain and several other countries during my youth. I fought in Somalia, in Jugoslavia and in Isreal. Yet still, I don't believe that free gun laws are a good solution to anything. Maybe BECAUSE of what I saw. The time I spend in the US, I spend in various places and depending on the place I would feel like being transfered into another century. In Boston at the MIT I felt like being in the 22 century already. Everybody peaceful, friendly and unarmed. Then New York was really a display of our century. Some controlled violence, some freaks but enough normal and peaceful people to outdo them. And then I came to a facility in Nevada. And suddenly I was in the stone ages. Open (and armed) brawls in the bars, burned out cross in front lawns, open use of weapons in "discussions". I had a farmer point a loaded shotgun at me and my lady (who has a bit of latino blood) on a public street threatening to shot us if "we have that nigger step on his ranch". I felt like hit with a stone. There I was, offering my life in many occasions in countries half the world declares as "uncivilised" and yet in the middle of the US I encountered manners, thought and behaviour that would make those tribesmen in Somalia look like peaceful philosophers. Even the chief of police in the small town tried to tell me all kinds of nonsense about "overreaction of a well meaning person" and I literally had to ignore the chief, call the feds and press charges for armed assault on NATO personel and breach of diplomatic immunity (my lady). It was a worse nightmare than seeing open slaughter in africa. Here I stood, in a civilised country witnessing behavior like that of barbarian tribes.

It brought me to one conclusion: Weapons require each and every user to be absolutely responsible and knowledgable about the effects of weapons. And making a little certificate really isn't enough here. First of all, if you want a gun then prove that you are mentally capable of judging the effects of the gun. A degree in ethics would be appropiate there. Dumb people don't get high political positions where they can cause trouble, so why give them weapons with which they can cause trouble? If you are mentally not capable of understanding the mechanism of a weapon, the social implications of possessing one, the consequences of using one, etc then you should get one. UNLESS your actions with it (ALL your actions) are controlled by somebody who IS capable of such understand (ie, the military, etc).
Next, if you show any kind of instability, be it aggressive behaviour, fast driving, anything like that, well, then you are not fir for carrying a gun either. If you are once thrown out of a bar for brawling, drinking too much, etc then you clearly demonstrated that you do not have the self control required to own a gun.
Next, you need a high level of maturity. Road races, brawls, etc simply display an absolute lack of that. So no gun for those people either.

Once all these parameters are checked, then I would feel at ease with the knowledge that guns are owned by private people. Because I could be reasonably sure that those few people are capable of knowing when NOT to use the gun.

Finally, just to make a very simple statement derived from observation:

The number per head of fatal crimes in the US is 4 times higher than the same rate in the european union. The european union has a very strict gun law. Simple as that.

I am more than willing to discuss this issue with anybody willing to do so in a friendly manner of philosophical discussion. Any flaming and other such display of immaturity will mearly result in a shrug and a report to the ISP. I don't think I will find my way back to this board, so please email me at hseetzen@physics.ubc.ca if you are interested in a discussion (I value all opinions brought forward with rational arguments in a friendly manner).

cheers

Helge

PS: What if Julie's sister buys a gun after the incident and the next night shoots a thief in the dark who turns out to be her own husband going for a cup of water?
Statistically, chances are higher (in the US) to die from a gun "accident" then a really planned (criminal) use of a gun...
[/quote]

Remember, the eyes of the Staff are upon thee. ;)
 
You sure that post is not just some bait thrown out to get a response?

[This message has been edited by Jack M (edited July 14, 2000).]
 
Coinneach,
I really don't care how comfortable this person feels. :(

I wouldn't touch this one with a 10 foot pole. Good luck to those of you that do.

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
Herewith, I'll cast the first stones.

In Boston at the MIT I felt like being in the 22 century already.

And how exactly do you know what the 22nd Century will be like? Access to some supercool time machine?

And suddenly I was in the stone ages. Open (and armed) brawls in the bars

Armed with what, exactly? Guns are illegal in NV bars, to the best of my knowledge. Besides, armed brawls are also common in English pubs, the weapon of choice being beer mugs. Planning to do away with pints?

Weapons require each and every user to be absolutely responsible and knowledgable about the effects of weapons. And making a little certificate really isn't enough here.

Which is exactly why the much-touted Licensing! And! Registration! is useless. It doesn't stop drunk drivers or vehicular manslaughter, and it won't stop the (very) occasional aberrant from shooting up his former workplace.

First of all, if you want a gun then prove that you are mentally capable of judging the effects of the gun.

Prove to whom? If you give that power to some bureaucrat, said bureaucrat can at will and whim decide to deny you the ability to defend yourself. My self-defense is more important than John Q Pencilpusher's opinion of me.

Once all these parameters are checked, then I would feel at ease with the knowledge that guns are owned by private people. Because I could be reasonably sure that those few people are capable of knowing when NOT to use the gun.

MOST gun owners --some 99.5%-- know when not to use their guns. The few that you hear about generally have extremely long criminal histories but are loose on the streets anyway. And of course, there's no way in hell you can prevent a criminal from getting a gun. It just isn't possible.

The number per head of fatal crimes in the US is 4 times higher than the same rate in the european union. The european union has a very strict gun law. Simple as that.

Sources and cites, please. Simple as that.

I am more than willing to discuss this issue with anybody willing to do so in a friendly manner of philosophical discussion. Any flaming and other such display of immaturity will mearly result in a shrug and a report to the ISP.

Any flaming will be dealt with in our usual firm manner. TFL is a self-policing forum, FTMP. Preemptively threatening to tattle to our upstream provider isn't a good way to Make Friends And Influence People.

PS: What if Julie's sister buys a gun after the incident and the next night shoots a thief in the dark who turns out to be her own husband going for a cup of water?
Statistically, chances are higher (in the US) to die from a gun "accident" then a really planned (criminal) use of a gun...

Let me guess: 43 times higher, right? Again, MOST gun owners are more intelligent than you seem to give us credit for being. We don't go nuts and start shooting at things that go bump in the night. If we did as often as the pro-crime people think, we wouldn't rate so much as a single column-inch in the NY Times. Remember, you only hear about aberrations, not the norm.

Think on these things, Helge.
 
Ok, no flame. Glad to have you here, as a matter of fact, instead of the choir preaching to the choir.

1. Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So do the constitutions of 44 of the 50 states. European style gun control, near complete disarmiment of everybody but the government, requires either massive constitutional violations, with significant implications concerning the fundamental honesty of public officials who have sworn oaths to uphold same, or massive alterations of those constitutions.

2. We had our last major war over here over 100 years ago. You've had two major wars this century, and more genocides taking place than I want to think about. Look at the statistics, HelgeS; More people have died at the hands of their own governments in this century, than died of invading armies. Died at the hands of EUROPEAN governments, that is. Dying at the hands of other private citizens is WAY down the list. So why is it you trust the institutions which kill most of the people with a monopoly on weapons?

3. Look at Switzerland and Israel; Armed to the teeth and low murder rates. That establishes that the two can co-exist. So, something ELSE is causing the murders!

4. Similarly, we have dramatic variations in both violent crime rates, and gun ownership rates, across this country. Hate to spoil your assumptions, but they are NOT correlated!

5. No, the chances of dying from a firearms accident are NOT higher than that from a planned criminal act, not by a long shot. You may have been suckered by one of the exercises in statistical fraud the gun control movement is fond of.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited July 14, 2000).]
 
-------------------------------------------
The number per head of fatal crimes in the US is 4 times higher than the same rate in the european union. The european union has a very strict gun law. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------

I hear this alot, but seldom see any attribution for the study. I would have
to include ALL of Europe, not just western Europe, as it is ALL of the United States, not just the Eastern US, and I would
ask,

Over what period of time, The last
Year? Last 5 Years? Last 10 Years
or, , , ,

The last 50 years??????

Nuff said.

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

Also, whatever European "Union" there
is, is principally a product of American
foreign policy, and American arms keeping
the Soviet out of western Europe -after the
last time these wonderfully peaceful
people tried to kill each other off -until
that other great proponent of gun control
bellied up, done in by it's own corruption.

So in essence, there is nothing to the
European argument whatsoever.
 
Wasn't sure where to respond ... in my original trend or here but since that trend is getting pretty filled up and will likely be closed soon, I decided to reply here.

[Coinneach, before closing that other trend, you may want to post a link to this trend for HelgeS to follow]

Assuming that Julie survives her "encounter", there is always the possibility that she might accidentally shoot a family member. However, I would like to point out that "accidental" deaths from firearms is relatively low compared to other types of deaths. For example, over 40 times as many people are accidentally by cars than by guns. Even if you factor in intentional gun deaths, cars still claim four times as many deaths as guns ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
I like to use this to help people re-assess exactly how likely their chances of being a gunshot injury victim are. All the sources are cited and linked where possible. Note the National Safety Council's yearly accident report uses numbers from the previous year.

"Firearms-Related Deaths compared to other causes of accidental death (1997)

1. Motor vehicles 43,200 deaths
2. Falls 14,900 deaths
3. Firearms-related homicides AND accidental death: 11,896
4. Poisoning by solids or liquids 8,600 deaths
5. Drowning 4,000 deaths
6. Fires, burns and related deaths 3,700
7. Suffocation by swallowing object 3,300 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical misadventures) 13,900

total deaths 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
(Source for firearms-related homicides and non-negligent manslaughter: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3130.pdf)
Unintentional Firearm-related death (1997): 1,500
Firearms-related homicide and non-negligent manslaughter (1997): 10,396

Thanks stychz.


Results for 1998 are:

1. Motor Vehicles: 41,200 deaths
2. Falls: 16,600 deaths
3. Firearms homicides and accidents COMBINED: 10,143 deaths
4. Poisoning: 9,000 deaths
5. Drowning: 4,100 deaths
6. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700
7. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,200 deaths

Fatal firearm accidents for 1998 fell to an all-time low of 900, down from 2,513 in 1974.
Firearms homicide and non-negligent manslaughter (1998): 9,143

(Source for accidents: National Safety Council 1999 Accident Facts http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/99report.htm
Source for firearms-related homicide and non-negligent manslaughter: FBI 1998 UCR http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius07.pdf)

Thanks rolltr"[/quote]If we are really interested in saving lives, then private ownership of cars should be ban first before going after guns since more lives can be saved. Those that argue that private ownership of cars serves a useful purpose with regard to transportation. I submit that guns also serve a useful purpose. Our various Law enforcement agencies can not provide peronal protection to each an every citizen. If that type of protection can not be ensured, than the means for a private citizen should not be restricted in any way. In a majority of self defense case (around 90% of them), not a single shot has to be fired!
 
This is the reply that I sent to him:

"A degree in ethics would be appropiate there."
Simply having a degree in ethics does nothing to show that someone has a "correct" view of right and wrong. It would be safe to say that most Catholic priests have at least the equivalent to a degree in ethics, and every once in a while one of them molests a choir boy. How would giving someone like Mike Tyson a degree in ethics make him any less violent?


"Dumb people don't get high political positions where they can cause trouble, so why give them weapons with which they can cause trouble? "

I think you mis-stated this question. The implication here is that people in high political office are smart and that they shouldn't be given guns because of that. Is that your intent?


"If you are once thrown out of a bar for brawling, drinking too much..."

I think that eliminates a large percentage of the world's military. That sounds like a weekend out on the town for many recruits.

What if you did things like this when you were 21, but now you're 83 and living in a bad neighborhood? Does it still make sense to keep guns away from someone like that? What if you are involved in a brawl that you didn't start? BTW, what's wrong with drinking too much?


The biggest problem with your assertions is that you want to set these high standards for people who are not government employees, but don't seem concerned with people in police and military roles who have access to significantly more powerful weapons, and have a proven track record of accidentally killing people or even bombing the wrong country. If these non-ethically trained people are allowed access to weapons of mass destruction, what's to keep them from using them against us?

The president of our country is known to have used illegal drugs, yet he controls our military. The governor of Maryland couldn't remove a trigger lock from a gun, yet he controls the state police.


"The number per head of fatal crimes in the US is 4 times higher than the same rate in the european union. The european union has a very strict gun law. Simple as that."

Not simple as that. Even without fatal gun crimes, the United States still has double the number of murders as Europe, and to think that crimes that were commited with guns wouldn't be if they had to use a knife is simply wishful thinking. American culture is violent for reasons no one has figured out yet, and it is that culture that must be altered if we wish to reduce our murder rate.
 
There was once a farmer who tried to teach his pig to sing. In the end he gave up because he was (1) wasting his time and (2) annoying the pig.

HelgeS, so sorry you don't like the U.S. and felt you "had to ignore the chief, call the feds and press charges for armed assault on NATO personel and breach of diplomatic immunity (my lady)."

Please keep us posted on the prosecution of those scoundrels who offended you so. Would love to know whether or not they are convicted of anything. Oh, and have a nice flight back home. :)
 
"Next, if you show any kind of instability, be it aggressive behaviour, fast driving, anything like that, well, then you are not fir for carrying a gun either. If you are once thrown out of a bar for brawling, drinking too much, etc then you clearly demonstrated that you do not have the self control required to own a gun. Next, you need a high level of maturity. Road races, brawls, etc simply display an absolute lack of that. So no gun for those people either."

I think what disturbs me the most about this. Is that it appears to be singling a certain personality type. Type A aggressive thrill seekers.
And unlike Germany we don't discriminate based on personailty or race. So I can see how to a European mindset this seems like a normal sane idea. While in America we state that "all Men are Created equal."
 
I just copied this from a post last week in General.
My Grandfather was sent to Europe as a young man to stop them from killing each other in WWI. My father was sent to Europe to stop them from killing each other in WWII. My nephew was sent to Europe to stop them from killing each other in Bosnia. For better or worse that all ended here more than a hundred years ago at Appomattox Courthouse. We should care what Europeans think of us?
 
Strange isn't it that the govt. issue licenses to drivers of motor vehicles who kill and injure several time the number kill by the misuse of firearms. Less than 2 firearms out of a thousand are misused. Apply that to the number of motor vehicles that run red lights, speed, run stop signs,driven carelessly, etc. including drivers who are drunk, impaired drivers with no license or license under suspension. Then again what about the number of criminals the govt. lets out early with gain time who go on to rob, rape, maime and murder.

I have never feared a responsible law abiding citizen with a firearm. Terriorism is alive in many places. Lives have been saved in Israel and also in the United States by law abiding citizens who possessed firearms when 911 was meaningless. At Columbine the police waited something like four hours wasn't it before they proceeded to secure the building.

A firearm in the hands of a responsible citizen as Luby's would have stopped a tragedy.

The way I feel about it is simple. If you feel safer without a firearm, don't own one. Those who are opposed to firearms should be willing to stand up, be truthful and put signs on their mailboxes, houses and cars that they do not own or possess firearms. After all don't they want to make it safer for the burglar.

The problem I have with anti-gunners is they want to force me to live by their unconstitutional laws.
 
Your point about killings occuring by mistaken identity is an interesting one. That kind of gun accident is extremely rare. I seem to recall reading that that kind of death occurs about 30 times a year in this country, at least involving civilian shooters. Among police, the number is much, much higher.

Most of our fatal gun accidents are not of the "mistaken identity" type, but are rather when someone points a loaded gun at someone as a lark and pulls the trigger, and "Oops! I thought it was unloaded! I didn't mean to kill them!" In other words, atrocious gun handling, and violating every saftey rule there is.
 
If he isn't a citizen of this country then he doesn't vote here and I don't really care what he believes.

Gun control seems to have been immensely popular in Germany in the past - let them keep it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The number per head of fatal crimes in the US is 4 times higher than the same rate in the european union. The european union has a very strict gun law. [/quote]

Does that also explain why the non-gun homicide rate here is two to three times that of the EU?
 
Since many posted the statistics which prove the point of gun ownership, I'll not bother, seeing that it probably didn't 'light the bulb' over this persons head...so I imagine they/he/she/whatever are sitting there sort of like this: :confused:

However, if this was a bait of some sort to get violent reactions to be used to prove something...a newspaper article or statistic, too bad. It is not going to happen here...nor will it happen on most firearms forums or boards but perhaps by a very few...and those are usually name none of the 'regulars' know-another 'plant' perhaps.

Third...as far as taking you at your word. I have serious doubts about your story. Much does not ring true. However, if you are from the UN...please leave. We do not need nor want your form of Governing here in this country.

Have a day.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>'... I literally had to ignore the chief, call the feds and press charges for armed assault on NATO personel and breach of diplomatic immunity (my lady). It was a worse nightmare than seeing open slaughter in africa.'[/quote] Interesting perspective.

and,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>'Any flaming and other such display of immaturity will mearly result in a shrug and a report to the ISP.'[/quote] A report to the ISP? Does he want us hauled off in leg irons (in a civilized way, of course old boy).

If he's on the level, this fellow is a pompous, elitist jerk. What next ... he's going to ask for my papers? Tell this pompous a** we have plenty of MBA's, PhD's, captains of industry, not to mention accomplished snipers around here ... if he wants to debate, he can act like a man and jump in here with both intellectual feet.

I've been to Nevada quite a bit, I've been married to a Navajo woman, and I've dated women of all colors when I was single. I've never had the goofy experiences he describes, and relates here as though they are commonplace in the American West.

This has to be one of the all time, most idiotic posts I've ever seen on TFL. I'll pass on this waste of time.

Coinneach, I know you meant well. Thanks anyway.

Regards from AZ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top