Stratovarius Community

Personally, I do not like them, but sometimes they are a necessary evil-----I own 3,and its nobody's damn business......

BTW, the first time anyone gets insulted,or flamed for their personal beliefs, or anyone tries to inflict/force their beliefs on anyone--pro OR con,this potentially interesting topic will be deleted immediately!

They are necessary for evil, yet we need stricter laws for them. Cloumbine was a perfect example not just for guns, but weapons of all types.

I don't like them.

san sebastian wrote:
I don't like them.

Neither do I...

Wouldn't touch them. I generally dislike weapons. So far I have had no use for any weapons either. I can't recall any gun-related incidents happening in the recent past either, so it isn't much of a problem here, I guess.

Thats a interesting question. Two years ago there was a guy who shot 16 students at a school here (Erfurt? Perhaps anyone heard about it) and i fit perfectly the profile of the perpetrator in the media - Listening metal and my father is doing shooting sport (word?) and so on, so this was a stupid situation for me and of course most people who were innocently declared as potential murderers. I see the reasons for something like that mainly in the social development etc, but, different topic

As for me, i dont see a sense in weapons. I will never shoot on another being, i will most certainly never start shooting for fun, because it is boring. But i see that weapons are necessary to obtain order, but most people dont need guns and should really think about it several times before buying weapons. This is also about responsibility. I am mainly satiesfied with the weapon laws here. It is not that easy to get a gun, and the age was set up to at least 21 i think for most weapons.
Stricter laws are of course one sided, because those who will use weapons or plan using them might get them illegaly.

Percentaged, the number of households with weapons arent that high here i think and i am quite happy about that.

For those that live in the United States, guns are the only reason you even have a country. There'd be no war for independence if the colonists hadn't owned guns.

Ironically, there's a discussion almost parallel to this one happening on the Koti forum now, and I'll restate the position I made there: the more people who are armed, the less crime there is in society. It's a proven fact that if a criminal knows his victim may be armed, he's less likely to attempt the crime. I can dig out statistics and personal stories all day long to prove it.

Guns don't cause violence. Irresponsible people cause violence. Murder was around long before the gun was invented, and it will be around long after the gun is superceded. Blaming the gun for the fact that people kill each other is like blaming a spoon for making people fat.

EmperorJamesI wrote:
The more people who are armed, the less crime there is in society. It's a proven fact that if a criminal knows his victim may be armed, he's less likely to attempt the crime. I can dig out statistics and personal stories all day long to prove it.

Yet there is quite much crime in parts of america.

EmperorJamesI wrote:
Guns don't cause violence. Irresponsible people cause violence. Murder was around long before the gun was invented, and it will be around long after the gun is superceded. Blaming the gun for the fact that people kill each other is like blaming a spoon for making people fat.

True.

I only own guns for self-protection--if I get robbed in middle of the night by some SOB carrying a gun of his own, I do not think a karate chop is going to deter him, or protect my son and I from getting murdered.

In all probability, we'd get killed anyway, since I do not keep loaded weapons, and the bullets are hidden away.
I have a good, barking dog, however, that I hope would warn me if an intruder came about--unless,the thief shoots her, or cuts her throat first!!!

Gun´s N´ Roses...they suck!

Well, I hunt, so...
I own a couple of rifles, a couple of shotguns and three handguns. But I am VERY much for strict gun control laws...stupid, irresponsible and criminal should not get their hands on any...

browneyedgirl wrote:
I only own guns for self-protection--if I get robbed in middle of the night by some SOB carrying a gun of his own, I do not think a karate chop is going to deter him, or protect my son and I from getting murdered.

Fortunately, the probability that someone enters my room while I am sleeping is almost zero. I really don't care about things like these. Ok, I can blow up by a bomb-car... but a gun wouldn't avoid such a situation.

This came from a post I made on the Koti forum, for the benefit of those who aren't signed up there as well. The original post is much longer, but here's a potent analogy:

"Lots of crime is carried out with computers, as well. Like guns, computers can be used for positive things as well as for crime. Should we then ban computers?"

I would never want to touch an actual firearm. It's against my standards and my dignity.

EmperorJamesI wrote:
"Lots of crime is carried out with computers, as well. Like guns, computers can be used for positive things as well as for crime. Should we then ban computers?"

But i have the feeling that guns are mainly built for shooting on someone else.
A computer isnt. You cant be creative with a gun. Its not very versatile in its purposes.

Thats not a very good comparison.

EmperorJamesI wrote:
"Lots of crime is carried out with computers, as well. Like guns, computers can be used for positive things as well as for crime. Should we then ban computers?"

What positive things can guns be used for!?!?!

The only purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill a living being.

The ONLY purpose. You can´t argue with that.

Computers, telephones, cars etc are invented for other and better reasons.

In other words, it is idiotic argument. (Note moderator, I am not saying he is idiot. I am saying it is idiotic argument )

Guns are huge probblem for USA people. I shouldn´t care what goes on there, I am just saying!

Guns are a tool. They can be used for hunting, for self-defense, for defense of one's country. They can be used to scare off mountain lions while hiking; they can be used to signal for help (flare guns) when you're lost. The same physics which fire a bullet are used to put communication satellites into orbit, allowing us to talk on cell phones. Guns have at least as many positive uses as computers, you just have to be willing to put aside your preconceived notions.

Like the bow and arrow, the gun was originally made for hunting. It was not made with the intention of killing a person, but it just so happens that you can use it for that purpose. Guess what? You can also use a hammer to kill a person, or a sharpened stick, or (in all cultures that ban guns) a knife. Guns are not the problem; people wanting to kill people is the problem. Just like computers, you can use them for positive things or negative things.

Think about that

If guns don't reduce crime, then why bother to give them to policemen?

There's really no difference between carrying a gun for self defense and carrying a knife. Compare violence rates, you say? Alright, bust out some statistics. Be sure to include numbers on burglary and theft, which are traditionally lower in the US than in many European countries. Also, be sure when analyzing the US statistics, to properly account for ethnic minorities (blacks are responsible for 50% of homicides in the US, and the US has a significantly higher black population than Finland) and other variances in social cultures which might account for differences.

EmperorJamesI wrote:
If guns don't reduce crime, then why bother to give them to policemen?

Because policemen are trained and have to account for every shot they fire.

Because policemen are not allowed to drink or do drugs while they are on duty.

Because policemen don´t use their guns to commit crimes.

And a thousand other reasons like that.

I know you are not that stupid.

There's really no difference between carrying a gun for self defense and carrying a knife.

That´s great! Finally you make some sense. Why not try to replace all the guns in your country with knives?

Compare violence rates, you say? Alright, bust out some statistics.

The USA has more than twice the level of gun violence than Finland.

Be sure to include numbers on burglary and theft, which are traditionally lower in the US than in many European countries. Also, be sure when analyzing the US statistics, to properly account for ethnic minorities (blacks are responsible for 50% of homicides in the US, and the US has a significantly higher black population than Finland) and other variances in social cultures which might account for differences.

Sweden, which don´t have the problem of the russian mafia that we do in Finland, has six times less gun violence than the USA.

There is no way for you to explain that away, doesn´t matter how you try!!

How do you "account" for ethnic minorities? Is there some formula?

These diagrams look funny but press control-A and you will see them more clearly.

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age

Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000



Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000) for Young Males in Selected Countries - 1993



Go ahead emperor, explain it away. Gun violence has nothing to do with guns!

A few more...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic
The US has a lower rate of assault than several countries, including Finland (since you asked).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap
The US had fewer burglaries than Finland; in fact, Finland is #4 worldwide for most burglaries! The US is a paltry 16th, with about 40% as many burglaries per capita as Finland. Guns in the homes must be doing something good...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_fra_cap
Fewer frauds as well. There's Finland, up in fourth place again, and the US down in 17th.

Don't you get it? If people don't kill each other with guns, they're not going to magically stop committing crimes. They're going to turn to other crimes instead, like burglary (since the victims don't have guns to defend themselves) or white-collar stuff like fraud. Go ahead, compare overall crime rate. Prove to me that more guns equals more overall crime. I'm waiting.

Emperor, one of the links you provided supplies the answer. Reporting burglaries etc to the police is much more likely in countries such as holland and finland.

Burglaries or assaults in the USA are so common that they don´t even get reported. Probably because there are so many gun crimes that the police don´t have time anyway!!!

A gun crime is likely to be reported anywhere.

Sure, you can try to pull out statistics that count parking tickets with other crime too but you can´t fool us.

By the way are you sugesting that Europe should allow free gun ownership? I think Europe is way too smart for that.

There is no law in Switzerland that says you have to have a gun. You are confusing it with the Swiss army "home soldiers". These people are trained soldiers who have COMBAT weapons ready at home. The weapons are supplied by the Swiss government.

Väinämöinen wrote:
Burglaries or assaults in the USA are so common that they don´t even get reported.

Source for that?

Even if it is true, the difference is not enough to explain why Finland is 4th on the list and the US 17th. The discrepancy in reporting isn't that large.

The point being, people dislike guns because they believe them to be "dangerous." Well, let me show you dangerous:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_vic
That's the graph for total crime victims, as a percent of the population. You'll note that the US is 15th and Finland is 16th, back to back. If guns are so dangerous, why is the differential this small? Why is Australia, who has a total ban on all handguns, #1? Why is Britain, who also bans handguns, ahead of the United States? Why is Canada, who has virtually the same percentage of gun owners as the US, 4% higher?

If guns are so dangerous, how do you explain those numbers? If guns don't cause crime, how could they be dangerous? Do you really believe that people walk down the street shooting random victims? How do you explain that Finland's non-firearm murder rate is higher than the US's, thus proving my assertion that people will continue to kill each other even if they don't have guns?

I find it truly ironic that Europe prides itself on being liberal. What's the basic tenet of liberalism? That people can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. So how is me owning a gun hurting anyone else? You incredible hypocrite.

EmperorJamesI wrote:

Väinämöinen wrote:
Burglaries or assaults in the USA are so common that they don´t even get reported.

Source for that?

Even if it is true, the difference is not enough to explain why Finland is 4th on the list and the US 17th. The discrepancy in reporting isn't that large.

Source for that?

Relax.

Keep your guns. Just be sure you understand why some people think you guys are crazy idiots for allowing everyone to own guns and have violence and crime be such a drag on your economy.

And if violence and crime are "such a drag" on our economy, would you care to explain how our economy is so much better than Europe's? How Germany's unemployment rate is hovering near 10% and people here are complaining because ours just crested 5.5%? Nice try. None of what you're saying makes any sense. All you're doing is dodging the fact that I just proved your entire argument null and void and you're not man (or woman, I actually don't know what you are) enough to admit it.