Free speech and sedition?

[IdiotsOpposite]

Didn't we conclude in another thread that it's always physical formulae which kill people?

No, math kills people.

 

[History_Buff]

No, no, no. Its un-aborted fetuses that kill people.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Horror of horrors, I see no issue with this.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Coming from a British perspective I see the “stand your grounds” law up to maximum abuse, with mind to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin. Interestingly the second amendment in the USA was set to allow “the use of militia” then “everyone gets a gun” with the attention of keeping us Brits out of reclaiming America.

One must give their defence in a court, not on the street so they can go home after shooting someone due to racist reasons as was the tragic case of Trayvon Martin. However it should be pointed that Canada owns more guns per hand then America... and has less gun crime. So the issue needs to... be one shorted with caution.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Coming from a British perspective I see the “stand your grounds” law up to maximum abuse, with mind to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin. Interestingly the second amendment in the USA was set to allow “the use of militia” then “everyone gets a gun” with the attention of keeping us Brits out of reclaiming America.

One must give their defence in a court, not on the street so they can go home after shooting someone due to racist reasons as was the tragic case of Trayvon Martin. However it should be pointed that Canada owns more guns per hand then America... and has less gun crime. So the issue needs to... be one shorted with caution.

Canada uses their guns for hunting. So do most rural Americans. It's people with guns in cities that worry me.

 

[kochman]

Why do they scare you?
They also have cars and drive to go to the country for hunting, etc...
Kind of a silly way to look at gun ownership.

 

[History_Buff]

Well, more generically, people with non-automatic long barrel guns don't really bother me. They tend not to be involved in violent crimes (but plenty of accidents). Handguns and semi-automatic weapons are more problematic.

 

[kochman]

Well, more generically, people with non-automatic long barrel guns don't really bother me. They tend not to be involved in violent crimes (but plenty of accidents). Handguns and semi-automatic weapons are more problematic.

Usually people that own bolt action rifles (as we call them) also have semi-autos and handguns.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Well, more generically, people with non-automatic long barrel guns don't really bother me. They tend not to be involved in violent crimes (but plenty of accidents). Handguns and semi-automatic weapons are more problematic.

But without semi-automatic weapons, how will we defend ourselves against Skittles or Arizona tea!?!?!?

/TrayvonMartinderail

 

[History_Buff]

Usually people that own bolt action rifles (as we call them) also have semi-autos and handguns.

Yep, and that's weird.

 

[kochman]

Yep, and that's weird.

There is nothing at all weird about it.
It's pretty hard to defend your house with a bolt action rifle.
Meanwhile, a semi-auto rifle can be used to both hunt or defend your house... for those who aren't well to do and/or want to have less tools for the jobs, it is an obvious choice.

Likewise, some hunters probably need the ability to fire more rapidly due to poor aim.

Regardless, guns aren't only for hunting... at least in the USA, Switzerland, etc.

 

[Angst]

There is nothing at all weird about it.
It's pretty hard to defend your house with a bolt action rifle.
Meanwhile, a semi-auto rifle can be used to both hunt or defend your house... for those who aren't well to do and/or want to have less tools for the jobs, it is an obvious choice.

Likewise, some hunters probably need the ability to fire more rapidly due to poor aim.

Regardless, guns aren't only for hunting... at least in the USA, Switzerland, etc.

I don't have any guns, I live in an underclass neighbourhood with unintegrated and violent minorities. I don't get invaded by rabid robbers constantly. Nor do I need a gun in the chance that my house would be invaded as such. In fact, the chance that I, myself, will be mugged or shot is so small I see it as idiotic to provide my country's robbers and murderers easy access to handguns, especially scary things such as semi-automatic weapons.

If you think that handguns protect your property, you're literally shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[kochman]

Criminals are getting guns one way or the other...
In the USA,they get them illegal, because there are background checks.

In the UK, Denmark, etc... they get them illegal.
Where can you get one legally?

It is better to have it, and not to need it, than to need it and not to have it.

In my case, my handguns have definitely protected, and I have not shot myself in the foot.
Literally.

Nor did a nearby beauty queen shot herself in the foot...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...fatal-fray-at-their-tierra-verde-home/1158689

 

[Angst]

No, criminals get guns legally in USA, because it's really easy to get them in that country. If anything, it's ridiculously easy to get hold of a gun before you're a criminal, and by then, it's too late.

It's legal to own guns in Denmark too if you work towards it, but it's very difficult, as it should be.

Violence brings more violence. Denmark has a much lesser rate of murders, violence and gun killing per capita. What do you explain that with? Difference in racial demographical rates? Isn't that about the only thing Americans can point out? That's a racist argument. The much better arguments towards less arguments are better social equality (supported by a socialist state), which you would never support, and then the arguments about less access to weapons, but you don't buy that either, because obviously universal access to violence brings down violence. Seriously, which brainwashed NRA president came up with that argument?

I watched the first few minutes of the Bowling for Columbine documentary the other day. It's a bad documentary; but some of the material is interesting. The thought that there are people like that in USA...

"We should learn to use handguns. Because who's gonna defend us against the many evil robbers and rapists? The feds? The cops? Hah!"

What kind of logic is that? Why do you even need a police department if they're not capable enough to protect your civilians against gunfire? The American ideal of "I need a gun to protect my individual integrity and safety" is despicable, backwards and wrong. The amendment was provided to ensure a militia movement. Against the freaking English.

If some guys shows up at my home (Which happens ridiculously rarely in Denmark, and not only because of our proportionately smaller population) and beats me up, I'm going to call the cops and let them handle it. I'm not going to shoot him, because it's not in the position to overrule all judgments the schooled legal system has spent several decades learning how to deal with. It's pretentious and overconfident of me to ever believe I have the right to shoot anyone. Thinking anything else is immature.

And again; before you go off with your ideological mumbojumbo that everyone should have the right to protect oneself; it doesn't work. Drop it. You're only hurting your own people.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Criminals are getting guns one way or the other...
In the USA,they get them illegal, because there are background checks.

In the UK, Denmark, etc... they get them illegal.
Where can you get one legally?

It is better to have it, and not to need it, than to need it and not to have it.

In my case, my handguns have definitely protected, and I have not shot myself in the foot.
Literally.

Nor did a nearby beauty queen shot herself in the foot...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...fatal-fray-at-their-tierra-verde-home/1158689

Considering the UK lacks the violent crime rates in America then we do not need it. Yes we have gang problems but our knife crime rates reach not the infamous rates of gun crime in America.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given the Second Amendmend, I do not see how possession of a gun should be criminal at all, yet many so-called gun nuts support the criminalization of possession. Their logic for such criminalization often resembles the gun grabbing logic they generally despise.

 

[kochman]

No, criminals get guns legally in USA, because it's really easy to get them in that country.

No, they don't. I don't think you know what you are talking about. I live here, I have purchased guns, and work in law enforcement. It isn't easy for criminals.

If anything, it's ridiculously easy to get hold of a gun before you're a criminal, and by then, it's too late.

Ah, so restrict the freedom of everyone based on the potential of a few to do the wrong thing, with legal purchases, once... every future purchase being illegal, and still completely possible in countries that don't allow guns.

Violence brings more violence. Denmark has a much lesser rate of murders, violence and gun killing per capita. What do you explain that with?

Cultural differences.
How do you explain Switzerland?

Difference in racial demographical rates? Isn't that about the only thing Americans can point out? That's a racist argument.

What the hell are you even talking about? Who is making that argument? Not I. Please stop trying to paint my entire country as racist, it is ridiculous. We, for the record, have a much better record of accepting immigrants than Denmark...

Why do you even need a police department if they're not capable enough to protect your civilians against gunfire?

When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away... if you happen to have a phone with reception/service at the time.

Police, 99% of the time, investigate crimes which have already happened. Their physical presence obviously prevents crime, when and where they are...

If some guys shows up at my home (Which happens ridiculously rarely in Denmark, and not only because of our proportionately smaller population) and beats me up, I'm going to call the cops and let them handle it. I'm not going to shoot him.

What about the guy who wants to come, and not just beat you up, but rape your wife and daughter before killing you? Oh, the police will handle it.

It's pretentious and overconfident of me to ever believe I have the right to shoot anyone. Thinking anything else is immature.

The pretentious and immature thing here is you deciding to what level a citizen should be able to protect his family...
If you don't want a gun, don't get one.

And again; before you go off with your ideological mumbojumbo that everyone should have the right to protect oneself; it doesn't work. Drop it. You're only hurting your own people.

I love statements like this, no facts whatsoever... just pure opinion, your own, not taking into consideration anyone else's.
Why do you seek to infringe upon my ability to protect myself and my family? I've never broken the law, I served in my military, am well trained, and have the right to defend myself.
I don't seek to infringe upon your freedoms... why do you insist, with much claiming of the moral high ground and intellectual superiority, on infringing upon others?

On second thought, never mind. Feel free to have the last word. End of the story is... I have guns, whether you like it or not. I hope and pray that you nor I ever have to use them in defense... but should it come to that, I'll be able to, and there is zero you can do to stop that, so feel free to foam at the mouth over it all you want...

 

[kochman]

Considering the UK lacks the violent crime rates in America then we do not need it. Yes we have gang problems but our knife crime rates reach not the infamous rates of gun crime in America.

Yeah, when I lived in Europe, I didn't have a gun, nor did I ever feel the need for one. It is something I envy, the less crime ridden culture that you all have.

However, here, there are times where I know for a fact that just the knowledge of me having a gun has protected me, without ever having to use it (thankfully) or even brandish it.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't seek to infringe upon your freedoms... why do you insist, with much claiming of the moral high ground and intellectual superiority, on infringing upon others?

So you agree with me that no one should be denied possession of a gun?

 

[kochman]

There are many things that convicted felons give up... the right to bear arms, vote, etc... They made their choices, knowing the consequences.