London Olympics: Gun Events Illegal

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for calling all the US population idiots (PA),

Assuming PA stands for Personal Attack, I suggest looking up the definition of Personal. I think you will find it hard to explain how an attack on a whole population can be a Personal Attack.

Even if not a PA, it certainly was a classy way to convince more people to his point of view. I mean belittlement and name calling is the debate tactic of the world's most intelligent and successful people isn't it? Gun debates sure draw out the best personal qualities in both sides of the argument.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>Thanks for calling all the US population idiots (PA), but don't need to
>fear as Billvon most likely praise your insults....

From the READ THIS BEFORE POSTING thread at the top of the forum:

----------------------
Also note that personal attacks do NOT include attacks against political groups, prominent people who are not DZ.com posters, ideas, religions or theories. Since this board is intended for political discussions, more leeway is given to posters who (for example) attack the democratic party, or creationism. However, the prohibition against hate posts still applies (see here for a discussion of hate posts.)
----------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Even if not a PA, it certainly was a classy way to convince more people to his point of view. I mean belittlement and name calling is the debate tactic of the world's most intelligent and successful people isn't it? Gun debates sure draw out the best personal qualities in both sides of the argument.

LOL true, though I think these debates centre around many non-americans not understanding why you would want to have all these guns around and Americans not understanding why people would NOT want to have guns around.

The discussion is far more interesting when it is about what happens within one country.

If brittain upholds their gun laws, and these events are not allowed, then the US is more than welcome to withdraw their total Olympic team in protest.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think these debates centre around many non-americans not understanding why you would want to have all these guns around and Americans not understanding why people would NOT want to have guns around.

naw - it just looks like sheer bull headedness and an unwillingness to concede even good points from either position. Nothing good comes from it. So in the end, for me, I'd rather have it be a personal choice one way or the other.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[waltappel 1]

Quote

LOL true, though I think these debates centre around many non-americans not understanding why you would want to have all these guns around and Americans not understanding why people would NOT want to have guns around.

I think that's a very good point. There are a variety of reasons that most of us in the US don't wan't to give up our guns. They range from a need to protect ones self, family, and property to a very profound mistrust of the government.

For people who live in areas where violent crime is extremely rare and where they have confidence in the moral fiber of their government and they just don't have any interest in guns, I can understand their confusion. They live in an area where guns aren't a necessity.

Even in those areas, if they do exist, I think guns should be an option, but I'll be happy to leave it to the locals to figure out how they want to run things.

For those of us in the US, we have a hard time imagining an environment where violent crime doesn't exist and the government can be completely trusted. Even then, many of us (like me!!!) really do enjoy our guns. I'm not a hunter, nor do I get any kind of power trip from guns. I just think they are really cool and a lot of fun to shoot recreationally.

Walt

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There is a lot of speculation about the rise of violent crime in the US...

Actually, violent crime in the U.S. is at its lowest level in about 25 years. Despite all our guns. Go figure, 'zealanders!

There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels. Not here. Not anywhere.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Well that was cetainly a very effective rebuttal.

[shropshire 0]

Hi John,

Quote

There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels.

That would appear to be counter-intuative. Would you please explain a bit more. Maybe I'm wrong, but (and I dont think that I'm being obtuse) gun crime can only come from gun ownership, cann't it?

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That would appear to be counter-intuative. Would you please explain a bit more. Maybe I'm wrong, but (and I dont think that I'm being obtuse) gun crime can only come from gun ownership, cann't it?

I suspect that John defines "gun ownership" as "legal" gun ownership. Isn't this the crux of the debate? Those that won't acknowledge any good from "legal" gun ownership.

Just like legal immigration is a good thing and illegal immigration is a bad thing. Those that are opposed to the second point will not acknowledge that these are two completely different events. Just like 'having' a gun is not "legal gun ownership".

Until this point is acknowledged, the gun debate is a futile exercise. That acknowledgement must come from the anti-gun crowd, though, as painful as it sounds.

Then we can focus on removing 'illegal' (or at least irresponsible) gun possession which is the sole problem.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I suspect that John defines "gun ownership" as "legal" gun ownership. Isn't this the crux of the debate? Those that won't acknowledge any good from "legal" gun ownership.

- O.K Good point

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Hi John,

Quote

There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels.

That would appear to be counter-intuative. Would you please explain a bit more. Maybe I'm wrong, but (and I dont think that I'm being obtuse) gun crime can only come from gun ownership, cann't it?

Your question implies that if a government bans guns, that no more guns will be available, and therefore gun crime will be impossible. This is a false hypothesis and a naive view of criminals. Banning guns doesn't prevent criminals from getting them. That's why they're criminals - they do things that are explicitly forbidden. Laws don't mean anything to them.

As for the lack of correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels:

There are countries with no legal guns and few gun crimes.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun crimes.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun crimes.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun crimes.

Therefore, one cannot conclude that legal gun ownership is a determining factor in gun crimes.

[rhys 0]

i am far from embarrassed, i do think the us population as a whole is quite ignorant and stupid. i don't think this is the fault of the u.s. population but a product of the immense brainwashing that you are subject to.

i have many friends from the u.s. and i think it is a beautiful place and many other counties are just as bad or even worse.

in this neck of the woods americans are called seppos, short for septic tank rhymes with yank. and they are both full of ....

i am 'proud' that my country has minimal voilent crime but that is increasing due to the exposure of the violence you have in your country and the portreyal of violence being cool. i.e. gangsta rap and all that SHIT.


back to the debate. i think it is great that these stupid event are being ommitted from the london olympics. there is NOTHING athletic about shooting a gun.

and yes it is my informed decision to live here i could live anywhere i like. i have a dutch passport and could live and work anywher in europe. i think i will just visit though i think, because i live in paradise.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[waltappel 1]

Quote

i am far from embarrassed, i do think the us population as a whole is quite ignorant and stupid. i don't think this is the fault of the u.s. population but a product of the immense brainwashing that you are subject to.

i have many friends from the u.s. and i think it is a beautiful place and many other counties are just as bad or even worse.

in this neck of the woods americans are called seppos, short for septic tank rhymes with yank. and they are both full of ....

i am 'proud' that my country has minimal voilent crime but that is increasing due to the exposure of the violence you have in your country and the portreyal of violence being cool. i.e. gangsta rap and all that SHIT.


back to the debate. i think it is great that these stupid event are being ommitted from the london olympics. there is NOTHING athletic about shooting a gun.

and yes it is my informed decision to live here i could live anywhere i like. i have a dutch passport and could live and work anywher in europe. i think i will just visit though i think, because i live in paradise.

Keep on talkin'!

Walt

[christelsabine 1]

Don't stop talking!
Take your lousy Dutch cheese passport and come to Germany.

Your welcome.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,132]

>there is NOTHING athletic about shooting a gun.

Well, they're ain't much athletic about skydiving either, but you hear people pushing that as an olympic sport.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Your question implies that if a government bans guns, that no more guns will be available, and therefore gun crime will be impossible. This is a false hypothesis and a naive view of criminals. Banning guns doesn't prevent criminals from getting them. That's why they're criminals - they do things that are explicitly forbidden. Laws don't mean anything to them.

No, I didn't mean to imply anything of the kind - I happen to agree with you.. I simply questioned your initial assertion <>

Which has now changed to <Legal gun ownership levels and gun crime levels.>> - and that's fine.

Clearly my smartarse inference that gun crime is related to gun ownership - albeit illegal, fell flat on it's arse ...... I'll just get my coat.....

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Hi John,

Quote

There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels.

That would appear to be counter-intuative. Would you please explain a bit more. Maybe I'm wrong, but (and I dont think that I'm being obtuse) gun crime can only come from gun ownership, cann't it?

Regards,

Sure,

If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot it. People still can commit murder with a variety of other weapons and beatings, muggings and rapes will occur with or without guns.

The trick is to give the guns to the right people, so they can shoot the wrong ones.

I haven't figured that one out yet but as long as there are people out there that shouldn't have a gun, but do anyway, I'm keeping mine handy

illegible usually

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

as long as there are people out there that shouldn't have a gun, but do anyway, I'm keeping mine handy

And since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i do think the us population as a whole is quite ignorant and stupid. i don't think this is the fault of the u.s. population but a product of the immense brainwashing that you are subject to.

in this neck of the woods americans are called seppos, short for septic tank rhymes with yank. and they are both full of ....

i think it is great that these stupid event are being ommitted from the london olympics. there is NOTHING athletic about shooting a gun.

I just love it when the anti-gun folk reveal their true colors with opinions like these. Thank you, rhys, for destroying your own credibility - we didn't have to lift a finger!

Quote

i am 'proud' that my country has minimal voilent crime but that is increasing due to the exposure of the violence you have in your country and the portreyal of violence being cool. i.e. gangsta rap and all that SHIT.

Oh, so you admit that violence isn't so much about the mere presence of guns, but rather about culture.

Forty years ago here in the U.S. you could buy guns in any hardware store, without a background check. And violent crime was a fraction of what it is today, with our now much more severe gun purchase restrictions. Once again this proves that violence isn't about guns. It's about culture. That's what needs to be changed.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I just love it when the anti-gun folk reveal their true colors with opinions like these. Thank you, rhys, for destroying your own credibility - we didn't have to lift a finger!

Yep, gotta love it. The shame of it is that he didn't take the time and effort to discuss New Zealand's gun laws and why he thinks they make sense. I looked up a synopsis of New Zealand's gun laws. They are far too restrictive for my taste, but I could see them making sense in some countries other than the US. It would have been interesting to hear the views of someone who lives within those laws. He's obviously not a gun owner, but it might have prompted discussion by a gun owner who lives within those laws.

Oh well, you know how those Dutch-passport-holding New Zealanders are.

Walt

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Oh well, you know how those Dutch-passport-holding New Zealanders are.

I'm going to presume that they do not display the and shown here by rhys.

Here's an example of how gun-o-phobia has gripped the Zealanders:

Police will destroy $200,000 worth of firearms when they upgrade to semi-automatics because of a UN convention designed to prevent the illicit trade of weapons.

During the next 12 months police will spend $3 million replacing 880 Remington rifles with semi-automatics.

NZ First MP Ron Mark, and the Sporting Shooters Association have criticised the decision to destroy the Remingtons, saying it's a "politically correct move" that wastes taxpayers' money.

However, police say they have no choice because New Zealand, as a member of the United Nations, is compelled to abide by a convention designed to control firearm numbers and prevent illegal trade in them.

"The question is when police say they have to send a taxi to the Iraena Asher case because they haven't got enough staff on, well $200,000 would have meant perhaps another few officers on that night."

Mr Dyer said the rifles were not military-style weapons and were unlikely to end up in hotspots. "Why are we slavishly destroying them? To make sure that somehow this is of some benefit to situations like Rwanda? The answer is it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference."

Remingtons, which are mainly used for shooting pests such as deer, are sold at licensed gun shops around the country and are legally imported.

"Where is the illicit trafficking in selling to licensed dealers. There is none," said Mr Marks.

Source: Herald

They're even afraid that 3-foot long 7-lb. bolt-action rifles will be used in crime! Elsewhere, they say that the so-called "Saturday night special" is the choice of criminals. I wish they would make up their mind.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

However, police say they have no choice because New Zealand, as a member of the United Nations, is compelled to abide by a convention designed to control firearm numbers and prevent illegal trade in them.

That's actually kind of funny. As we have all learned from the "Oil for Food" scandals, which look like they are not even close to being fully exposed, the UN can be bought.

If US gun manufacturers were as sleazy as the UN (and they are NOT), they would pool some money together and get the UN to pass a "Guns for Children" resolution.

Walt

[mikkey 0]

It would be nice if you guys would stick with your domestic gun debate. Firstly - you display very litlte knowledge about other countries and cultures and secondly - you will have to live with that most industrialised "western" countries have strict gun laws and that the overwhelming majority in these countries support these laws. And btw most of us don't give a rats ass if guns are legal or not in the US.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

It would be nice if you guys would stick with your domestic gun debate. Firstly - you display very litlte knowledge about other countries and cultures and secondly - you will have to live with that most industrialised "western" countries have strict gun laws and that the overwhelming majority in these countries support these laws. And btw most of us don't give a rats ass if guns are legal or not in the US.

The reason most of us in the US who are concerned about the guns laws are interested in gun laws of other countries is not because we have any desire to tell other countries how they should do things.

In the US, many of us legal gun owners are *very* concerned about our rights being taken away. We know it to be a gradual process that starts with gun registration and ends with gun confiscation and we are determined for that not to happen here. To that end, we do watch what is going on in other countries and study how it happened because we do NOT want that to happen here.

As for your comment that we display little knowledge of other countries and cultures, I take exception to that. If you could point out specific examples, it would help me understand your view.

In any case, if you do feel that I am displaying ignorance of your country/culture or any other country/culture you happen to be very familiar with, please point it out and educate me rather than just brushing it off. I'm sure others here feel the same way.

I am glad that most don't care whether guns are legal in the US. Many of us here DO care, in a very big way and want to study the progression of laws in other countries so we do not lose our gun rights here.

Walt

[mikkey 0]

Quote

As for your comment that we display little knowledge of other countries and cultures, I take exception to that. If you could point out specific examples, it would help me understand your view.

It was not just directed to you. John Rich for example constantly comments on other countries gun laws but has no idea. And in regard to you I just refer to the stuff you post in relation to the middle east.

Quote

To that end, we do watch what is going on in other countries and study how it happened because we do NOT want that to happen here.

I find this weird. Firstly if anything can be "learned" from "gun free" countries - it would tend to support the pro gun control side of the argument - no matter how much the NRA and John Rich try to spin it.

Secondly - I actually don't think that the situation in UK, Europe, Australia and NZ can be used in your gun debate for some of the following reason:
1) We don't have the same "history" and culture with guns
2) In modern times we never had the amount of guns in circulation you have - which means that increased restrictions are not faced with the same issues it would in the US.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.