gun control in america

Originally posted by normbenign
Silly twit. It is never "impossible" that someone will kill lots of people with a firearm anywhere. It is made more likely when the public is disarmed. Passing restrictive gun laws doesn't make it impossible, but does increase the likelihood of a high body count.

That must explain why the gun homicide rate in Norway is a tiny fraction of what it is in Arizona (and will be even after including this tragedy).

Plus the public in Norway is hardly "disarmed". Gun ownership is fairly common.

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Absolutely comical...an NRA 'advert', word for word it sounds...

I wasn't attempting humor, and if you found it, you reveal your own serious lack of thinking, or the unwillingness to address issues of the mind rationally. Dismissing things as laughable is scandalous, and just will not work.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That must explain why the gun homicide rate in Norway is a tiny fraction of what it is in Arizona (and will be even after including this tragedy).

Plus the public in Norway is hardly "disarmed". Gun ownership is fairly common.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote or chose to ignore it. There are cultural reasons, longstanding, why crime, including gun crime is low in Norway. The point which you attempt to ignore is that when somebody decided to start shooting in Norway, he chose an isolated island, where it was unlikely that anyone would shoot back, and where police response would be slow.

That MO is typical of gun toting mass murderers.

Inspite of the presence of many guns in Norway, the laws of their storage make them of no practical use for selfdefense, or stopping a random maniac.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That must explain why the gun homicide rate in Norway is a tiny fraction of what it is in Arizona (and will be even after including this tragedy).

Plus the public in Norway is hardly "disarmed". Gun ownership is fairly common.

Try reading before replying.

To be clear, by and large I oppose most gun control regulations. The Natural Right to self-defense is one of basic importance and it seems an obvious corollary that one should be able to possess tools that reasonably support that right.

Nonetheless, the simple minded assertions that we don't pay a price in blood in the US for our lax gun laws is a fantasy.

Originally posted by normbenign
You clearly didn't read what I wrote or chose to ignore it. There are cultural reasons, longstanding, why crime, including gun crime is low in Norway. The point which you attempt to ignore is that when somebody decided to start shooting in Norway, he chose an isolated island, where it was unlikely that anyone would shoot back, and where police response ...[text shortened]... ws of their storage make them of no practical use for selfdefense, or stopping a random maniac.

How, pray tell, did this person know that no guns would be on the island? And how, pray tell, do you know there weren't?

Originally posted by normbenign
Try reading before replying.

I read a bunch of assertions without any solid basis in fact. Needless to say, I'm unimpressed.

I do not see how the gun regulations in Norway make it impossible to use a firearm for self-defense. While the gun and a "vital part" must be stored separately (one in a safe), it certainly possible for someone to unlock the safe and be armed in a short period of time (ammo must be stored but it can be stored with the firearm). Since gun crime is pretty rare in Norway, this seems reasonable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
To be clear, by and large I oppose most gun control regulations. The Natural Right to self-defense is one of basic importance and it seems an obvious corollary that one should be able to possess tools that reasonably support that right.

Nonetheless, the simple minded assertions that we don't pay a price in blood in the US for our lax gun laws is a fantasy.

Gun laws permitting ownig and carrying aren't lax. Misuse of guns is felonious conduct and carries harsh penalties. There isn't any evidence that restricting gun ownership, or who may carry them prevents crime or increases bloodshed. In fact, the opposite is true.

Originally posted by normbenign
Gun laws permitting ownig and carrying aren't lax. Misuse of guns is felonious conduct and carries harsh penalties. There isn't any evidence that restricting gun ownership, or who may carry them prevents crime or increases bloodshed. In fact, the opposite is true.

This is just right wing "holding yer breath until you turn blue". The death rates from guns in the US, esp. in those States with few restrictions on gun ownership, are sufficiently higher than in those places with gun ownership restrictions (like say Norway) to render such an argument absurd on its face.

Originally posted by normbenign
I wasn't attempting humor, and if you found it, you reveal your own serious lack of thinking, or the unwillingness to address issues of the mind rationally. Dismissing things as laughable is scandalous, and just will not work.

Are you sure you're 'informed' or not merely brainwashed ?? I was suggesting you're a victim of a culture that is both archaic and without merit in the civilised sense...remember that, 'civilised' ! 'How do we deal with the gun toting scum that rob us and also all the armed gangs ?' is a common response.. well sir, you put the tools of their trade in their hands...'don;t blame the tools for people actions !' The 'peoples' actions use the tools that effectively do the job, if the gun is as available as it is to buy pizza, then what hope have you of this amazing legal quandary called control !? American gun makers rule your roost and then spiel out the same diatribe as your not so considered response.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I read a bunch of assertions without any solid basis in fact. Needless to say, I'm unimpressed.

I do not see how the gun regulations in Norway make it impossible to use a firearm for self-defense. While the gun and a "vital part" must be stored separately (one in a safe), it certainly possible for someone to unlock the safe and be armed in ...[text shortened]... be stored with the firearm). Since gun crime is pretty rare in Norway, this seems reasonable.

Ok, now you finally did the reading on Norweigian gun laws.

" While the gun and a "vital part" must be stored separately (one in a safe), it certainly possible for someone to unlock the safe and be armed in a short period of time (ammo must be stored but it can be stored with the firearm)."

When someone starts shooting, or threatens to, is it reasonable to ask someone to go unlock the safe, recover the slide, bolt or other part stored elsewhere, assemble the gun, load it, and ask the assailant to wait????

If this is somehow unclear, ask why police everywhere have loaded sidearms, instead of a disassembled shotgun or rifle locked in the trunk, with the "vital part" elsewhere?

Permits to buy firearms in Norway where the intended purpose is "self defense" are denied.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is just right wing "holding yer breath until you turn blue". The death rates from guns in the US, esp. in those States with few restrictions on gun ownership, are sufficiently higher than in those places with gun ownership restrictions (like say Norway) to render such an argument absurd on its face.

Thats b.s.
We do have strict gun laws here. You talk about gun deaths in the U.S. , what is the percentage of them being done by lawful gun owners committing felonies? The deaths are from criminals illegally carrying guns for the purpose of being predators.

As far as Norway, as soon as the police showed up the whacko gave up. If several people there were holding legally it would of been over soon after it started or never happened at all.

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Unfortunately your name suits, are you sure you're 'informed' or not merely brainwashed ?? I was suggesting you're a victim of a culture that is both archaic and without merit in the civilised sense...remember that, 'civilised' ! 'How do we deal with the gun toting scum that rob us and also all the armed gangs ?' is a common response.. well sir, you put ...[text shortened]... your roost and then spiel out the same diatribe as your not so considered response.

I am pretty sure I'm informed, and not so bad a thinker. Certainly not brainwashed. Believing what the state wants you to without question marks the brainwashed, and my stances are certainly not following the crowd, not even the NRA crowd.

You speak of civilization, and remember that for the largest part amounts to specialization and division of labor. Large parts of the earth are still uncivilized. However, it is the civilized nations which have accelerated the arms race, in the last century alone adding full automatic self loading machine guns, bigger and bigger bombs and artillery, and finally multiple reentry nuclear warheads.

Civilization hasn't made arms less necessary, but rather more so. Statism makes it an absolute requirement that the common people remain armed, and that is the fundamental reason for the 2nd amendment. It isn't about hunting, shooting sports, or even self defense. It is there as are other individual rights as protection against the encroachments of statism.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Thats b.s.
We do have strict gun laws here. You talk about gun deaths in the U.S. , what is the percentage of them being done by lawful gun owners committing felonies? The deaths are from criminals illegally carrying guns for the purpose of being predators.

As far as Norway, as soon as the police showed up the whacko gave up. If several people there were holding legally it would of been over soon after it started or never happened at all.

You are greviously misinformed.

Arizona's almost non-existent gun laws didn't stop Loughner from shooting a bunch of people, did they? And he purchased his gun legally.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, now you finally did the reading on Norweigian gun laws.

" While the gun and a "vital part" must be stored separately (one in a safe), it certainly possible for someone to unlock the safe and be armed in a short period of time (ammo must be stored but it can be stored with the firearm)."

When someone starts shooting, or threatens to, is it reas ...[text shortened]... rmits to buy firearms in Norway where the intended purpose is "self defense" are denied.

Stop playing the fool. I stand by my statement; most self-defense situations do not occur AFTER someone has already started shooting. A homeowner who has a loaded weapon or a weapon with ammo easily available is asking for a tragedy as a local homeowner with a ten year old child found out in my area last year.