And you know this how?
Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!
- Thread starter JD_2B
- Start date
germanguy
VIP Member
It pretty runs down to the question if you trust your next neighbor or your government.
I personally do not feel unsafe in a way, that I see the necessity to carry a gun.
Also, I do not mistrust my government in a way, that I feel the need to carry a gun in case a copper misbehaves himself.
As there are areas in the US, where the next police officer might be hours away, a gun might be understandable. Also, in areas where people know each other, I can see that this will not cause a problem.
In a large urban area, possessing a gun, makes no sense at all.
Large cities like Berlin or Hamburg are full of people I would not even hand out cutlery.
And these are citizens as well.
As I see it, the gun-possessing thing is pretty much a middle-class thing.
Property, citizenship and the gun to protect both against anybody seems to be connected in the US mind. Also, a certain distrust to any government seems to me embedded as well.
But to consider an unarmed man not to be a free man is plain stupid IMHO.
Actually it is rather arrogant.
It is the spirit and the will which makes you free, not a gun. My fellow countrymen have proven in 1989 that any opressive government can be brought down with bare hands.
This also was done in nearly every country of the Eastern Block.
Also, if I just see the statistics, I hope that the number of arms in private ownership in the US is not a measurement of the distrust of the government. Or even worse a measurement to the distrust people have in each other.
regards
ze germanguy
I personally do not feel unsafe in a way, that I see the necessity to carry a gun.
Also, I do not mistrust my government in a way, that I feel the need to carry a gun in case a copper misbehaves himself.
As there are areas in the US, where the next police officer might be hours away, a gun might be understandable. Also, in areas where people know each other, I can see that this will not cause a problem.
In a large urban area, possessing a gun, makes no sense at all.
Large cities like Berlin or Hamburg are full of people I would not even hand out cutlery.
And these are citizens as well.
As I see it, the gun-possessing thing is pretty much a middle-class thing.
Property, citizenship and the gun to protect both against anybody seems to be connected in the US mind. Also, a certain distrust to any government seems to me embedded as well.
But to consider an unarmed man not to be a free man is plain stupid IMHO.
Actually it is rather arrogant.
It is the spirit and the will which makes you free, not a gun. My fellow countrymen have proven in 1989 that any opressive government can be brought down with bare hands.
This also was done in nearly every country of the Eastern Block.
Also, if I just see the statistics, I hope that the number of arms in private ownership in the US is not a measurement of the distrust of the government. Or even worse a measurement to the distrust people have in each other.
regards
ze germanguy
You're misunderstanding this. No one in his right mind is going to shoot a police officer. That's just dumb.
But giving government a monopoly on the means of violence only increases government's arrogance and confidence to do what they want. An armed citizenry is a counter weight to that.
Just like these folks protesting a state income tax. It failed, largely because legislators were scared of the consequences.
You do not trust your fellow citizens to own guns. That is sad. In fact, the number of legally armed citizens in my state (or any other) who have used their guns unlawfully is minimal. The number of crimes stopped by people legally armed is enormous. Cops show up after crimes are committed, which can happen in moments.
I don't see any justification for preventing law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns.
But giving government a monopoly on the means of violence only increases government's arrogance and confidence to do what they want. An armed citizenry is a counter weight to that.
Just like these folks protesting a state income tax. It failed, largely because legislators were scared of the consequences.
You do not trust your fellow citizens to own guns. That is sad. In fact, the number of legally armed citizens in my state (or any other) who have used their guns unlawfully is minimal. The number of crimes stopped by people legally armed is enormous. Cops show up after crimes are committed, which can happen in moments.
I don't see any justification for preventing law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns.
Last edited:
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
That is not a problem, it is your right to be naive and careless.
There would be a problem if you attempted to prevent Germans from bearing arms.
germanguy
VIP Member
You're misunderstanding this. No one in his right mind is going to shoot a police officer. That's just dumb.
But giving government a monopoly on the means of violence only increases government's arrogance and confidence to do what they want. An armed citizenry is a counter weight to that.
Just like these folks protesting a state income tax. It failed, largely because legislators were scared of the consequences.
You do not trust your fellow citizens to own guns. That is sad. In fact, the number of legally armed citizens in my state (or any other) who have used their guns unlawfully is minimal. The number of crimes stopped by people legally armed is enormous. Cops show up after crimes are committed, which can happen in moments.
I don't see any justification for preventing law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns.
Just to juggle some numbers:
Crimes with use of firearms in Germany:
6664 (Bundeskriminalamt) Population: 82 million
Crimes with the use of firearms in TN
15710 (Crime Statistics Unit) Population: 6,2 million
More than two times the number but with a 13th of the population.
Also, number of guns in circulation:
United States:
Approx 200 million (population 300 million)
Germany:
Approx 20 million (population 82 million)
Of these about 10 million are registered.
Automatic weapons are prohibited (as weapons of War) and limited to the Military and Police.
So, I would say, that the number of firearms in circulation might have a certain influence on your crime statistics.
But to your first point:
In a democracy the government has it´s power from the people.
So the use of power or force is done in accordance with the will of the people.
Therefore the state owns the monopole to use force. This force is limited by the constitution, the laws and regulations.
In your case, what would happen if the income tax passes by one vote ?
Would the protesters arrive in front of the State House and open fire ?
I therefore pretty much trust more a policeman than I would trust my neighbour when carrying a gun.
This simply because a policeman in Germany rarely is alone, but they nearly come as two.
As policemen are acting under strict rules and regulations and they in most cases have a colleague with them, I rather doubt, that they misuse their firearms.
My neighbor might be trusted as well, because he is a responsible citizen.
But how can I know that his son/daughter do not use his arsenal ? Or that a little punk wants to rob me. I might be able to stop him with my gun, but it might happen otherwise as well. I think a gun always brings at once lethal danger into the equasion and this I do not like.
regards
ze germanguy
Last edited:
That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. We would still have more crime than you do because our culture is different.
Look instead at the number of crimes committed by permit holders and that committed by law enforcement officers. The permit holders commit fewer.
Wasn't there just a shooting by some teenaged kid in Germany? How can that be, given that firearms are practically outlawed??
Look instead at the number of crimes committed by permit holders and that committed by law enforcement officers. The permit holders commit fewer.
Wasn't there just a shooting by some teenaged kid in Germany? How can that be, given that firearms are practically outlawed??
Emma
Evil Liberal Leftist™
Interesting. What's the response from those who claim an armed population reduces crime?
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Criminals are criminals and will break the law with or without a gun.
The question is do you want to be a helpless victim or do you want to protect yourself?
That you have to compare apples to apples. In every state that has adopted "shall issue" laws the crime rate has declined. In states that haven't, while the crime rate may have declined due to other factors, it has not done so as much as those with liberal carry laws.
And no state has experienced more crime since adopting those laws. This puts the lie to the "there will be shootouts in the streets if we vote for this" nonsense.
No amendment is absolute.
Freedom of Speech doesn't allow you to scream fire in an open crowd, defame a person or threaten a person.
Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human sacrifice.
Freedom of the Press doesn't allow slander or libel.
Freedom against unreasonable search and seizures, doesn't mean one can't get patted down when entering a sporting event or public arena.
Point is no amendment is absolute and that includes the 2nd amendment. I am a gun owner and very close to joining the NRA, but I think its beyond irresponsible to allow people to carry guns freely. In some instances guns will protect the victim, but I would stay in most instances guns will be used to harm victims.
I am for strategic placement of gunsholders, such as, but not limited to:
(1) Teachers and Professors in schools:
If school shooting have taught us anything they are hard to stop and are devastating, but the solution of allowing students to have guns is reckless. Best solution let the teachers pack!
(2) Convenient Store, Liquor Store and Gas Station Employees:
They are all big targets, the need for guns is emence.
(3) Bank and Mal lSecurity Guards:
For obvious reasons.
(4) Soldiers on a US Military Base
For obvious reasons
(5) Homeowners in their House:
For obvious reasons
Freedom of Speech doesn't allow you to scream fire in an open crowd, defame a person or threaten a person.
Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human sacrifice.
Freedom of the Press doesn't allow slander or libel.
Freedom against unreasonable search and seizures, doesn't mean one can't get patted down when entering a sporting event or public arena.
Point is no amendment is absolute and that includes the 2nd amendment. I am a gun owner and very close to joining the NRA, but I think its beyond irresponsible to allow people to carry guns freely. In some instances guns will protect the victim, but I would stay in most instances guns will be used to harm victims.
I am for strategic placement of gunsholders, such as, but not limited to:
(1) Teachers and Professors in schools:
If school shooting have taught us anything they are hard to stop and are devastating, but the solution of allowing students to have guns is reckless. Best solution let the teachers pack!
(2) Convenient Store, Liquor Store and Gas Station Employees:
They are all big targets, the need for guns is emence.
(3) Bank and Mal lSecurity Guards:
For obvious reasons.
(4) Soldiers on a US Military Base
For obvious reasons
(5) Homeowners in their House:
For obvious reasons
Missourian
Diamond Member
Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.
Why do the rural communities with twice as many legal gun owners and four times the owned firearms have 25 times less gun crime than urban communities?
Look here for firearm ownership study
Of the 22 Missouri counties with populations between 25K and 50K, having a combined population of 806,764 persons, there were 163 total firearm assaults and 2604 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.
MSHP stats for 22 rural Missouri counties
During the same period, in only the city of St. Louis and the city of Kansas City contained within the state of Missouri (half is in Kansas of course), with a combined population of 793,587 persons, there were a total of 4,143 firearm assaults and 8986 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.
MSHP stats for St. Louis
MSHP stats for KC, MO
The 2006 stats on Missouri crime came from this website : Missouri State Highway Patrol Statisical Analysis Center, they are the most recent available.
The 2004 rural/urban chart came from this website : Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2004 study.
If the links for the MSHP data are broken, you can find the information for 2006 here: MO SAC - Data and Statistics - Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Statistical Query
This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #232
I'm all for Missouri allowing for open carry; having spent a week in St. Louis one night I have no interest in returning. Flying over on a red eye may prove interesting, all those flashes in the night as traffic accidents are settled on the spot.
germanguy
VIP Member
Never said that your crime rate has something to to with the 2nd amendment.
But I have stressed the point, that in the case of TN the number of guns in circulation is reflected in the number of crimes committed while using a firearm.
To compare both numbers one must, that I agree, take into the equation the socio-structure, income levels and all this stuff.
Also, I would agree, that most of your the legal carriers use their firearms in a responsible way. But this seems to be rather obvious, especially in regions where the social structure is more coherent than i.e. an urban area with high unemployment rates, social tensions etc. If you add widespread ownership of guns to this, you will raise the number of victims.
In a pretty WASP rural area, where everybody knows his neighbor, the risk to become a victim of any crime is far lower.
So, as previously stated, the problem are pretty much not the law-abiding citizens, acting in a responsible way, but the ones you would never entrust a firearm, if you look a little closer.
Also Rabbi, as I have said in my post, the German Police estimates that at minimum 20 million firearms are in circulation in Germany. About 10 million of them are registered at the police.
The problem with the kid running amok recently was, that it was a mentally instable young kid, who had access to his fathers Baretta (he kept it in the Bedroom in the drawer, with ammunition). The gun was registered, the father had the proper license to buy and keep it.
He and his son trained at the local Gun Sports Club, so the kid was very well trained in the use of the gun.
Now, after some dead, we are all aware now, that the combination of the easy access to a firearm and the psychological profile was leading to disaster.
There were since then other cases of teenagers trying to run amok, but they had no access to firearms (in the latest case a Katana was used, but this was stopped easily), which kept the number of victims to some badly injured and no dead.
So I personally believe, that even here people have an too easy access to firearms.
But as there are too many already around, there will be no easy change. Pandora´s box already is open.
Still - what is a large check is, that any citizen is strictly not allowed to carry a weapon in the open. In rural areas you will still see hunters with their guns, but drawing a gun in public on the street is the best way to get you in very serious trouble.
But it should not be forgotten, that the historical background and the culture is different.
Although here in Germany still quite a lot of weapons are around, most Germans would not accept anybody around carrying a gun in the open.
At least, whatever you think about this fact, at least in proportion much less people are killed or injured by firearms in this country than in yours.
regards
ze germanguy
germanguy
VIP Member
May I ask what a "shall issue" law is ? I have not heard the expression.
regards
ze germanguy
"Shall issue" means that the legislature directs the appropriate authority to issue a carry permit to anyone who meets whatever criteria they set.
This is as opposed to "may issue" where some judge or sherriff or police chief gets to say who can and cannot carry a gun. Los Angeles County is a may issue county. There are something like 28 permits total for the county, all of them issued to cronies of the city council and the like. That isn't democracy.
But to refute your earlier statement, the states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws, like NY and Chicago, also experience the highest levels of gun-related crime. Conversely, areas with relatively unrestricted access, like Texas, have correspondingly low levels of gun related crime. It is not the gun which commits the crime but the criminal. And as in England, if he doesn't have a gun he uses a knife or bludgeon.
germanguy
VIP Member
Sorry to say so, but this kind of law-making sounds stupid.
First you have a constitutional right to own guns. Then you have regional legislatures regulating this right as it suits them. So, moving from Texas to NY means totally different gun laws ? Strange idea...At least there should be the same injustice to everyone...
But back to your point.
I do not know much about different regions in the US, having visited only some of the regions in the neighborhood to Canada.
As far as I remeber there were areas in towns like Chicago police officers told me to get the hell out of there, because walking around there would cause trouble and also areas some kilometers away, where people left cars and house unlocked. In these areas I suppose, a lot of people had their firearms at home, but pretty much nothing happened.
But could it not be, that the general availability of firearms and the right that everyone can have these simply puts a lot of them to the street ? And that they end in the hands of people who definitely should not have these ?
So, in the end - to me - it pretty much is a problem of the overall availability of firearms which causes problems. But the problems are, that agreed, more concentrated in areas where the crime rate in general is high.
regards
ze germanguy
Your reaction is odd, coming from someone who lives in a country that was a collection of states and principalities as late as 1870.
Each state has its own constitution and has sovereignty over many aspects of the law. What is legal in one state might be illegal in another.
It's worked fine for 200 years.
as to the other, why should law-abiding citizens in bad parts of Chicago have less right to defend themselves than white people in suburban or rural areas? This is especially so since the blacks are far more likely to be victims of crime.
Each state has its own constitution and has sovereignty over many aspects of the law. What is legal in one state might be illegal in another.
It's worked fine for 200 years.
as to the other, why should law-abiding citizens in bad parts of Chicago have less right to defend themselves than white people in suburban or rural areas? This is especially so since the blacks are far more likely to be victims of crime.
Emma
Evil Liberal Leftist™
IMO, the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th. It's high time the SCOTUS recognized this.
Emma
Evil Liberal Leftist™
That doesn't address his point.
Emma
Evil Liberal Leftist™
The examples you point out infringe upon the rights of others. Me owning a weapon doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
The American Disgrace: Manipulation, Lies, and Deceit.- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 21
-
-
Well . . . at Least "Transboys" (girls who believe they are really boys) Won't Get Pregnant. Right?- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 3
-
