EPTMost of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
Most of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did. | ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:35 polysciguy wrote: id point out that norway has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and that didn't stop a mad man from killing 92 people in a "gun free zone". Most of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did. I just want to point out that just because one extremely determined man who spent years planning can get weapons, doesn't mean ordinary criminals, burglars, will have guns. In Norway they will probably not. in US they are more likely to. | ||
|
King.Tut
United States11 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:30 KingLol wrote: The title of the thread is "Should be people be allowed to own and carry gun?", not "How should we ban guns in the USA". The original poster isn't even from the USA and actually refers to Finland in his original post. In a practical sense, implementing gun control laws in the USA is a lot more complex since the country is utterly infested with firearms and would have to be a long process probably starting with the regulation of ammunition or similar. edit: I'm also not sure how you think that restricting the sale of guns would lead to more being available on the black market. If less people are buying guns, the supply will drop correspondingly from the manufacturers. Let me try to explain. If people are not allowed to carry guns, criminals will still get guns rendering the average citizen defenseless (to an extent). I'm all for removing all guns (from criminals and ordinary citizens), but thats not possible. A black market is exactly that, a market or an opportunity. I think making guns illegal would make a larger opportunity in the black market, the same way it does drugs in the US. Sorry if I regionalized it, but I dont think it changes my argument. | ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:35 polysciguy wrote: id point out that norway has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and that didn't stop a mad man from killing 92 people in a "gun free zone". Most of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did. Your imagination isn't as advanced as some people on this board who think it is possible to remove all guns everywhere at the same time. Kidding aside, you are right. Gun control doesn't work because people respond to fear. A petty thief who knows that the store clerk can't legally have a gun is more emboldened to commit a crime than a thief who knows that the clerk is probably packing heat. Even though fear doesn't prevent the lunatic from doing a mass shooting, it does prevent countless other violent altercations. | ||
|
KingLol
54 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:35 polysciguy wrote: id point out that norway has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and that didn't stop a mad man from killing 92 people in a "gun free zone". Most of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did. Breivik obtained both of his weapons legally and killed 69 people with them. Are you implying that this is somehow evidence that there should be even more accessibility to firearms? Are you insane??? | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:18 sereniity wrote: It's an excellent example of how having a gun and pointing it at anything that is out of the ordinary will only put your life at risk, rather than making you safer.. Why wouldn't he ask who's knocking before throwing up his door with a gun pointed out? Why wouldn't he look out the window to see who's there? If the person would have stood there with a knife instead I doubt the police would've shot him instantly. It's a perfect example of how a person is taking the law in his own hands, and getting punished for it. If he instead would've called the police as fast as he heard someone knocking at his door in the middle of the night, and then proceeded to ask who's knocking calmly, instead of acting like Jason Statham, he would still be alive today. The police were in the wrong. The policy of 'I don't have to announce who I am' should be changed. At 130 in the morning you should identify yourselves as the police AS you knock so he knows he doesn't need the gun. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and I doubt that Herrell was telling it exactly as it happened (whipped the door open and pointed a gun right in his face).... They shouldn't have reacted so quickly. Blaming the victim here for exercising his right and displaying a gun in his own home at 130 in the morning is just pointless. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:35 polysciguy wrote: id point out that norway has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books and that didn't stop a mad man from killing 92 people in a "gun free zone". Most of the illegal firearms in norway are stolen from military bases and then sold on the black market. This means that all of those gun control laws on automatic weapons there, are kinda useless at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. sure it might prevent joe schmoe from up the street finally flipping grabbing his gun and shooting up his office, but it doesn't stop someone who buys their gun stolen, on the black market, from doing what the guy in oslo did. Joe Schmoe the bored, stressed-out postal worker is exactly who these laws are aimed at. Career criminals are going to get their hands on guns if they really want to, and the only effect legislation has is to influence the price and availability of different classes of weapon indirectly. Joe is not a career criminal and hasn't managed to stockpile illegal weaponry in his shed. He has got a few legal pieces though - flashy looking ones that are more about looking the part than anything else. In a country with guns heavily restricted, those weapons probably consist of a couple of swords or a large knife. In other places, they probably include the largest gun you can get without having to put much effort in. There's a round of redundancies at work, Joe's wife divorces him, or perhaps the boredom of a career that's going nowhere and day-to-day tasks that wouldn't interest a robot designed specifically to love them just gets to be too much. Joe is going to make a stand. He takes his mostly-for-show weapons and heads to somewhere - could be work, could be a preschool, could be any place he knows there will be lots of people. He doesn't particularly plan to survive so it doesn't matter if anyone there can take him down, they have no deterrent effect. In the country with the gun laws, he will probably be stopped with few if any people injured and few to no people dead. In the other country, there's almost as many injured as he fired bullets and some of them are almost certain to die. Joe Schmoe wasn't Breivik. He didn't spend years planning. He just snapped. There are a lot more Joe Schmoes than there are Breiviks. We can't prevent every act by someone like Breivik because they have the patience, the dedication, and the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve their ends and police around the world do more good by dealing with the small everyday crimes and murders than they would trying to pre-empt every possible terrorist attack. We can reduce the damage that the Joes that snap will do. I believe that semi- or fully automatic weaponry, and weapons like RPGs have no place in civilian homes. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to have those weapons outside a shooting range. Self defense can be done with handguns, if it is to be done with guns at all. Pest control and hunting are better performed with as few shots fired as possible. Target shooting is already done at the range, why not leave the weapons there. | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:43 King.Tut wrote: Let me try to explain. If people are not allowed to carry guns, criminals will still get guns rendering the average citizen defenseless (to an extent). I'm all for removing all guns (from criminals and ordinary citizens), but thats not possible. A black market is exactly that, a market or an opportunity. I think making guns illegal would make a larger opportunity in the black market, the same way it does drugs in the US. Sorry if I regionalized it, but I dont think it changes my argument. That's why we pay taxes right? We all live in countries with laws, and we pay taxes in order to pay some guys (good guys most of the time) like cops/judges/soldiers/sheriffs etc... Is it perfect? ofc not. But it's how it's supposed to work in a democracy. Police is supposed to end black market, catch drug dealers and protect us. It makes sens to me at least. If i were allowed to own a gun to protect myself, why should i spend money for police? That's really the point i don't get in all the "free gun" stuff. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
sure you can talk about "can" versus "need" and the second amendment, but really? | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
| ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:08 Agathon wrote: It makes sens to me at least. If i were allowed to own a gun to protect myself, why should i spend money for police? That's really the point i don't get in all the "free gun" stuff. Police take time to respond. With life threatening or bodily harm threatening situations, don't you want the power to defend your life right then instead of waiting 10-15 minutes for someone to come defend your life or wellbeing for you? | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Didnt read very well, he asked who was there but the police did not announce themselves (which apparently they don't have too there?) so he brought his gun because it could have been an intruder. How was he suppose to know it was the police at like 3 AM in the morning beating on his door? Perfect example of not reading what you're talking about. It doesn't say that he asked who it was, it just says that the police didn't announce themselves, as in they didn't say "bla bla it's the police" after they knocked on the door (which they usually do). It depends on how you interpret it I guess. On July 23 2012 02:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Well if you presume you'll hit each target with a single round (which seems unlikely because even the US military hits about 1 insurgent for every 250,000 rounds fired. So take that to the gun holding civilian? 4-5 attackers, 1 clip? might want those extra rounds. If you're that inaccurate with a gun you shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place, seeing as you put other civilians at risk of collateral damage. My line goes at having a handgun, and even that in my opinion is over the top; I'm really confused how people like you can support legality of automatic weapons, drum magazines and so on, after all you're just saying that you need the weapons for self-defence, in case of a break in or something similiar? I doubt you need a shotgun or an automatic rifle with a drum on it for that. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:11 ticklishmusic wrote: i'm alright with people owning a pistol, but the fact you can have an assault rifle for "self defense" is just a little ridiculous. it has the word "assault" in its name for goodness sake. sure you can talk about "can" versus "need" and the second amendment, but really? There isn't much call for it in my opinion. Just informing here since I don't particularly agree with all schools of pro-gun thought, but the main reason a pro-gun individual would justify assault rifle purchases is 1) home invasion protection for multiple assailants at a distance (gang, posse of thugs, etc) or 2) defense against a tyrranical government that would try to seize their home or weapons 3) militia purposes: operating as part of a group in defense against tyrranical government or invading force (Minutemen if you will). These functions can't be performed with a pistol. | ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
| ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
Would you be willing to display on your front door: We are proud to keep our home gun free. Why or why not? | ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:25 StarStrider wrote: Anyone who is against gun ownership: Would you be willing to display on your front door: We are proud to keep our home gun free. Why or why not? How is this question even related to the argument...? This is completely retarded. Either way, yes I would. But I still don't see how this makes any sense rofl... You people seem very paranoid. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:31 sereniity wrote: How is this question even related to the argument...? This is completely retarded. Either way, yes I would. But I still don't see how this makes any sense rofl... You people seem very paranoid. It makes complete sense. Someone who a criminal will know not to have a gun, is much more likely to be robbed. Exactly why if you outlaw guns, crime will go UP as now all law abiding citizens will be unarmed and criminals will continue to have easy access to guns. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:25 StarStrider wrote: Anyone who is against gun ownership: Would you be willing to display on your front door: We are proud to keep our home gun free. Why or why not? I mean where I live it's pretty safe I can probably sleep unlocked anyways. What I'm most afraid is going to a batman movie and got shot by someone not really a criminal And it's sort of a strange thought that America, with it's tip top spendings in military can't invest enough law-enforcement to protect its people so that they don't have to buy a guy to protect themselves. | ||
|
KingLol
54 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:20 hunts wrote: I don't get how people can think that by making guns illegal it will somehow PROTECT the law abiding citizens, from the criminals that would have guns anyway due to black market. Let me ask you something. Drugs are illegal, do you think that no one uses drugs? Do you think not being allowed to buy heroin or other drugs stops the druggies from doing it, or just stops normal law abiding citizens? All that banning guns would do is make crime go up because criminals would now have complete reign knowing every law abiding citizen is unarmed. I live in a country where owning a gun is effectively banned and I feel far safer than I would if both I and the criminals were given guns. Only a tiny TINY minority of criminals in gangs and organised crime have any chance of getting guns & ammunition in this country and due to the difficulty in obtaining them, their use is limited because it attracts a lot of attention. | ||
| ||
