finepooch

one issue i have with anybody being able to carry is that there are a lot of fools out there and we don't need them to have guns. we have enough fools out in the woods here. i go riding with my family on the rzr 4 and i am constantly aware that some fool sees a twig move and he just starts firing away without knowing what he's shooting at! orange, orange, orange. actually, i should get a safety beacon light.


commonplace guns could also add to a general tension in society, which may, or may not, be a good thing.

tweety - chalk me up as one canadian who's house is protected. also, that description you give about the situation of trained service people and their gov supplied arsenals - pretty clear: don't break into houses!

7moore7

+1

killer5280

Gun laws serve only to make government and outlaws safe from law abiding citizens. An armed citizenry can't be tyrannized and victimized by criminals in and out of government. Disarmed people are merely helpless victims of both groups of criminals.

Depending on government for protection is folly, especially since courts have ruled many times that police have no obligation whatsoever to protect people (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html), and, even if they did, logistics preclude them from doing an effective job. Want to find a doughnut shop? Call a cop. Want protection? Do it yourself.

killer5280

hee hee.

The idea that some on this forum have that government is some sort of benevolent daddy entity is naive at best and fatal at worst.
George Washington said it best and nothing about governments before him or since have been different in any measure. Government has historically and is today the greatest instrument of murder and plunder known to man.

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

Big Shepp

You have a point tweety, but here's mine:

What happens when you walk out of the supermarket and a criminal mugs you? In Canada you have no weapon. Where I live I have to explain why the would be mugger has 15 holes in him. Also I'm not talking about Sweden, I'm referring to Canada and/or England. I know Sweden is the most well armed country per capita. But the point it is doesn't matter how many guns you have it you don't have one on your person when it matters. THATS the point of concealed carry.

cliby

watching the current state of the average citizen in terms of operating a deadly instrument (Cars) and how little attention to detail or effort they devote to it, or how little the licensing process insures some degree of expertise,,,,,,, it does not make me feel safer that the average person can carry a firearm. Add in the typical person's ability to think clearly and calmly when stressed?
when the country started the average person operated a pretty simple weapon quite routinely. I don't think it has a much relevance to today and the average person walking around.

7moore7

I'm not sure that regulation is the solution to this...but even with that...

Comparing cars to guns is a hard allusion for me to understand. Cars are designed to be safe and move people around. Cars and roads and laws are made to make us comfortable, and in the U.S. at least, are often a necessity to living. People who don't want to drive often still must to make a living. Citizens don't even recognize their danger when they go off to work in the morning, and even though they are far more likely to be killed in a car than from a gun shot, they do so with ease. Most people who see a car don't think "fear". This, I believe, actually makes them more "unsafe".

I can't find it right now, but I read an article where they did a test on road signs' effect on driving. Turns out, if roads have no signs on them (including stop signs, pavement markings, and the like), people were much safer drivers. The reason that they believed this happened is that people had to focus on the driving rather than expect to be told what to do and then eat french fries and drink a big gulp.

Speaking of that, if you're regulating deadly items, we should be much more focused on even larger killers such as heart disease.

But back to the subject. Guns are designed to kill. People recognize this danger and for the most part are responsible with it. People don't have to own guns, and don't need them to make a living. Unlike cars, which the danger is easily unrecognized as it is not the main point of them, guns are generally held with a respect of the danger that they are.

I didn't know about regulation and gun laws in Sweeden and Canada... never looked it up (pretty low on the list of things to learn). And it seems that the system is setup well for a responsible citizenry.

I don't feel the need to conceal carry. But I think that the U.S. government is setup so that should I want to, I have the right to.

Big Shepp

An excellent example of this is the sport of hunting. In order to legally hunt where I live you must pass a class that teaches safety in hunting. Because of this hunting is the safest sport you can possible participate in in the US.

cliby

the comparison was just using by example the riskiest activity most americans participate in and the level of care with which they do it. Its part of our current culture and it applies to most things. I think the particular activity matters less. People know motorcycles are dangerous too - but they continue to drink and ride, ride above their heads and get killed on them in the highest rates ever - rarely for utilitarian purposes. People in our country that served, law enforcement, even longtime hunters go through a lot of training with guns - for a reason. The average person doesn't have to do anything like that - why is that given their inherent danger? I don't know that regulation is the answer either any more than it is with cars/bikes/alcohol etc. But if people are going to carry I'd feel better if they were carrying muskets with powder that should they decide to go berserk in my vicinity there'd be an inherent limit to how much damage they can do.

finepooch

cliby, i agree with you. focking idiots everywhere without a thought about anything. hence the term sheeple. everything is automatic and not a thought put into it, pass through yellow light, text message, coffee, mcmuffin, gun, etc...

Big Shepp

Actually in the US you have to pass a concealed carry permit test in order to be able to conceal a loaded weapon. It's also legal to carry an unloaded firearm in plain sight, but you can't shoot it without ammo, can you?

So the only way you can have a working, lethal firearm is if you have a concealed permit or have passed your CLEP test, so legally there shouldn't be any average people running around with loaded guns; everyone has passed some sort of training.

And if you're carrying a loaded weapon without one of these permits? Guess what; you're now a criminal.

7moore7

May want to double check that... certain states, including Arizona, there is no requirement to take a CCW class to conceal carry.

Bill, it's making more sense now where you're coming from. I certainly know people that I would not trust with a firearm, and most of that lack of trust is in operational knowledge and safety. Not sure where to go from there, but something doesn't seem right about limiting who can carry and who can't...

Tweety, I'm curious now, how are home defense cases handled in Sweden?

1971allchaos

+1 IMOP -it should be a manditory 2 years in the Marnie Corps then, an additional two in the service of choice / or reserve status in the US..

racer187x

I live in L.A. where it is impossible to get a concealed carry permit. I understand both sides of the argument, I really do. And in some/most areas of the U.S. having a weapon concealed might not be really needed (although I strongly advocate the right to do so).

That being said, criminals don't follow the law. That's kinda the point of being a criminal. They don't give a flying sh*t whether they have a concealed carry permit or not. That's what gets me. Why limit those that want to follow the law? People who follow the law and pay the money, get the permit, take the classes etc. aren't likely to just start shooting people because they have a weapon on them. They aren't the demographic to be worried about! It is still the criminal that we have to be worried about.

xeris

I think I'll use the same tactful reply technique.

What a pile of BS.
Ignorant, yes, as you got almost all of your facts wrong.

Canada, as of 2007 was 13th in the world in per capita gun ownership.Sweden was 10th. Which was only 2.5% ahead of Canada.


Civilian gun ownership in the US is nearly 100 times that of Sweden.
2.8 million vs 270 million.

I have no idea what "access to" means, as you failed detail the statement.
Does it me that when you want a firearm you hurry on down to the local armory and sign one out, or get it out of the hall closet?


I didn't see where the post you commented on states anything about one system or the other being better.

My guess is that you're an irritable man that needs to go for a ride.

Big Shepp

So you want mandatory military service? Sounds like government slavery, much like Rome when it took slaves and through conscription in the military gave them "citizenship." I grew up in a military town and I've seen the great things it can do for people and I'm considering service myself when I finish school, but forcing anyone into the military for anything less than a worldwide conflict that threatens our homeland is a violation of the Constitution.

Tweety

Actually, I have just been for a ride...

Big Shepp, who I was replying to, was in his post comparing the US system to the Canadian, and making a false comparasion, based on facts about Canada which he simply guessed... And in doing so, stated that he preffered the US system... (It was blatantly obvious... if you missed it, you had to make an effort...)

I don't know all details about Canada, or the US, but I'd say in general a Canadian or in my case Swede, knows a whole lot more about the US system than the average US citizen knows about any other system...

It's pretty clear to me that I know more about the Canadian system than Big Shepp... So to him, and you, and others my statement stands... Before you go toting the US system as better than whatever other, learn about the other system first, or look like a dofus... I'm obviously still learning about the US systems more intricate details, so I'm still asking questions... A couple of people around here is doing the same, wanting to learn...

I'm not saying the Swedish system is better, or the Canadian, or whatever... I'm saying unless you know what you are comparing to, don't make statements you cant back up, or be prepared to be made a fool of...

Edit: Ok, after re-reading your post once more xeris, i have a few questions...

First, "What a pile of BS. Ignorant, yes, as you got almost all of your facts wrong." is considered "tactful"? If that is you honest opinion, then i tactfully call you a moron... If it's not, I'll refrain... Your choice...

While my "facts" is certainly disputable, you have got a few of your own wrong... Sweden have a population of 9,4 million (2011, dunno what year your figures are) the US has a population of 313 million... So comparing those numbers like you did and saying "The US has 100 times the number" is fairly useless, and stems from either ignorance, or from trying to prove a point by skewing the numbers... If Sweden should have 270 million firearms, it would mean roughly 30 guns per head... Now, I know there are collectors around the US with more than that, but the number is ridiculous...

Comparing the percentage tells you more about the actual situation... You are obviously "pro", so answer this... If Sweden with it's heavy regulation, has that many guns, do you still think your blanket statement that regulation means the governement takes away your guns holds true? I doubt it...

"Access" in this case means a lot of different things... In my case I have the gunsafe in a closet next to the master bed, so it takes almost no time for me to arm... An at the same time, I fulfill all the legal requirements in Sweden for storage... The comment about the "armory" is just ridiculous... You see me asking if your supermarket keeps the ammunition in the toy isle or with produces? Don't make yourself dumber than you are...

As for the part about "Hemvärnet", well, it's about giving a complete picture about how Sweden works in comparasion to the US, since I doubt you know much about Sweden? Feel free to prove me wrong...

My statement stands, the post I replied to was a comparasion between different countries systems, and it was skewed... Before you or anyone makes that kind of comparasion, learn about the rest of the world... My reply to Big Shepp is in another post, this is directed directly at Xeris...

BTW, yes, gun ownership affects criminal activity... That very limited statement is true... But you and I are drawing very different conclusions from it, and while you prefer to state that mine are wrong, I prefer to discuss the validity of both, trying to learn from it, and in turn have you learn something... If you don't want that, ignore me... If you however choose not too, please refrain from the type of tactfulness you displayed above...

Tweety

Well, it's fairly simple... My property my rules, is the basic principle... The second principle that applies is "justified force", ie if there is risk to me or other parts of my family, and I shot the guy in the leg/arm or similar and call the police and ambulance, it's usually OK...

If I where to however kill the guy with a single shot to the head, it's probably going to be problems... And no, I'm not talking about "execution"... But a hunting rifle with a scope is fairly accurate from a few rooms away...

That doesn't change the fact that it's commonly a deadly error for the burglar to break into an armed Swede's home... A hunting rifle kills people just as easy as deer...