Remember when...

[Lutherf]

So even if registration would be put in place, there would be enought firearms in place to deem it useless.

With regard to this particular point....I believe that this year the German people saw first hand what America does with "registration" and using personal information for all kinds of intrusive schemes. If you knew that the government was willing to sort through your personal, private communications would you really trust them with a list of who owns firearms?

I can guarantee you that if a law was passed that required me to register my firearms I would disobey that law. I can also guarantee you that I am not the only American who feels that way.

 

[Goshin]

So you dont have a federal guidline for all states.

There are certain specific Federal laws which apply to all dealer (commercial) sales; namely a form that must be filled out, and a computerized instant background check system called NICS... these laws are controversial however, as they may violate a literal reading of the Second Amendment.

They also do not currently apply to private sales between individuals, necessarily.

I find it somewhat funny that the same reason why we restric firearms is the reason why you do not restrict firearms.

Yes, from my previous discussions with German Guy here on DP, as well as other European posters, we've noted there are vast differences in perspectives, history, tradition, law and attitudes about firearms in the different cultures (ie Germany, and much of Europe, as compared to the US). A "meeting of the minds" on the subject is difficult, given that we come from such enormously different cultural backgrounds.

So even if registration would be put in place, there would be enought firearms in place to deem it useless.

Barring truly Draconian (or Fascistic, if the term is more suitable) and widespread police-state action of an unprecedented nature, which the populace would be unlikely to tolerate, that is correct. There are far and away too many guns already in circulation, many of which have never been listed or recorded anywhere; more than the entire population. It would be like closing the barn door after the cows have long since departed.

 

[The German]

Actually, you are in fact talking to someone who specialized in history in academic competitions, so I'm glad to dispute this point with you. While much of the early post war years were marked with significant upheaval (say 1918-1924 with the Beer Hall Putsch) mostly in concern to communist fighting nationalist groups. By 1933, there was no concern whatsoever of an overthrow of the government, due in no small part to the rise of the Nazi Party which had quelched any idea of violence, wanting instead to attack democracy through "legitimate" means.

Not true. Violence by the brownshirts was widespread throughout the era, despite the attempt to use "legitimate" means. In fact, the very fall of the republic did not come through legitemate means but through violence.
And you are forgetting the Austrian civil war and the fall of the Austrian republic.

The Republic fell through force.

My overall point though still holds. One of the first thing a new tyrannical government must due is crackdown on the weapons in the country. And that is what Hitler did, largely because of what he was wanting to accomplish. He didn't want to chance a country rising up in opposition against him. Are you saying that it was a good thing that people couldn't rise up against Hitler? Are you actually under the delusion that he would of relinquished power from a so called "election". And if we are considering the elections legitimate, doesn't all of Germany in one way or another, responsible for enabling one of the most terrible dictators of the 20th Century?

Hitlers "crackdown on weapons" was a move to disarm opposition movements and arm his militia, not to disarm the country.

Are you saying that it was a good thing that people couldn't rise up against Hitler?

Oh another strawman, I clearly underlined that Hitlers climb to power caim mainly through his armed militia which had undermined the governments authority and crushed the opposition.

So how could someone like you possibly be so delusional to state that I stated the exact opposite?!

 

[Lutherf]

In fact, the homicide rates in the US are not that high. It is a myth that is spread by your countries political left. The homicide rates in Poland and France for example are higher than in the USA.
Homicide rates are calculated in. 1 murder per 100 people in the general population. And when looking at the statistics and a world map of homicide rates (darker color more homicides):


It becomes obvious that the main reason for high homicide rates are: poverty, social conflict, low education, political conflict, ethnic conflict and drug trafficing.


So I guess what your country needs more than effective gun control is a legal crackdown on illegal gun markets?

Our homicide rate is inevitably compared to that of the UK and Australia. Yes, our left wingers love to spout all kinds of statistics but I freely admit that more could be done to curb the homicide rate we have.

It isn't even really the illegal gun markets we need to focus on. It's drugs. Drugs fuel a HUGE underground economy here and all that "dark money" is a significant part of what skews our poverty statistics.

We have, over the last 40 or 50 years, created a massive entitlement state and the result is that a lot of people choose to live in "poverty" for the economic benefits while supplementing their income with proceeds from illegal activity. You can make $20k per year and, with subsidies, live like someone who makes $40k then, if you want some more money, sell drugs, assist a dealer, etc. and make another $10k or so without getting "too dirty".

 

[Goshin]

In fact, the homicide rates in the US are not that high. It is a myth that is spread by your countries political left. The homicide rates in Poland and France for example are higher than in the USA.
Homicide rates are calculated in. 1 murder per 100 people in the general population. And when looking at the statistics and a world map of homicide rates (darker color more homicides):

It becomes obvious that the main reason for high homicide rates are: poverty, social conflict, low education, political conflict, ethnic conflict and drug trafficing.

Exactly right! And quite perceptive... I usually have to point this out to people and then post the stats.

Yes, if you look at the nations where homicides are high, rates of gun ownership vary (and are often low) but the common denominators are typically poverty/wealth inequality, poor or corrupt gov't/law, gangs/tribes/factions, and the drug trade.

Exactly right!

So I guess what your country needs more than effective gun control is a legal crackdown on illegal gun markets?

Actually we need criminal control moreso than gun control. However, we've actually been getting a handle on that in recent decades, primarily with "3 strikes laws" and longer sentences for habitual felons. Overall, most crime has gone down a great deal over the past 40-50 years.


Media sensationalism makes it seem worse than it really is; while there are exceptions, most places in America are actually fairly safe, statistically.

 

[The German]

With regard to this particular point....I believe that this year the German people saw first hand what America does with "registration" and using personal information for all kinds of intrusive schemes. If you knew that the government was willing to sort through your personal, private communications would you really trust them with a list of who owns firearms?

Well my government isnt spying on me. Again a historical thing: with the history of Stasi and Gestapo, no politician in our country would survive even proposing to spy on the general population for no reason.

I can guarantee you that if a law was passed that required me to register my firearms I would disobey that law. I can also guarantee you that I am not the only American who feels that way.

Considering the recent missteps of your federal government I understand that.

Would you do it if your federal government was more trustworthy?
Or if it was only state law?
Or if you were required to have them registered at your local magistrate or sheriff only?

There are certain specific Federal laws which apply to all dealer (commercial) sales; namely a form that must be filled out, and a computerized instant background check system called NICS... these laws are controversial however, as they may violate a literal reading of the Second Amendment.

They also do not currently apply to private sales between individuals, necessarily.

Literal reading? The people in your country are aware of the fact that the intitial contitution was writen in the late 18th century?

 

[The German]

have to get pizza

brb

 

[Goshin]

Well my government isnt spying on me. Again a historical thing: with the history of Stasi and Gestapo, no politician in our country would survive even proposing to spy on the general population for no reason.



Considering the recent missteps of your federal government I understand that.

Would you do it if your federal government was more trustworthy?
Or if it was only state law?
Or if you were required to have them registered at your local magistrate or sheriff only?

You will find that a mistrust of government (fed, state, etc) tends to be bred in the bone among Americans.

Literal reading? The people in your country are aware of the fact that the intitial contitution was writen in the late 18th century?

Yes. Most of us continue to hold it in great regard, especially the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is not to be simply ignored; there is a method for modifying it by Amendment, which has been done quite a few times. Yet, removing anything from the Bill of Rights is anathema to the vast majority of us, as we are very big on individual liberty, and very short on trust for the powerful.

 

[Lutherf]

Considering the recent missteps of your federal government I understand that.

Would you do it if your federal government was more trustworthy?
Or if it was only state law?
Or if you were required to have them registered at your local magistrate or sheriff only?

If you asked me that question 30 years ago I might well have said "yes" but since then I have seen far too many abuses of government power by both parties to ever agree to such a scheme.

Maybe I was just naive back then but over the years I have come to understand just how fragile individual liberty really is and I vehemently oppose any plans which might jeopardize it.

 

[Lutherf]

have to get pizza

brb

Pizza?

You're German! Stick to your schnitzel and kartoffelsalat!:lamo

 

[The German]

Pizza?

You're German! Stick to your schnitzel and kartoffelsalat!:lamo

Schnitzel is actualy Italian, from northern Italy from around the region of Milan. The region use to be ruled by the Habsburgs during the 18th and 19th century who imported the dish into Austria and Germany. Yet it still is Italian and is served in that region.

If you asked me that question 30 years ago I might well have said "yes" but since then I have seen far too many abuses of government power by both parties to ever agree to such a scheme.

Maybe I was just naive back then but over the years I have come to understand just how fragile individual liberty really is and I vehemently oppose any plans which might jeopardize it.

Are you that pessemistic that you believe your government, federal aswell as local will never regain your trust again?

You will find that a mistrust of government (fed, state, etc) tends to be bred in the bone among Americans.


Yes. Most of us continue to hold it in great regard, especially the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is not to be simply ignored; there is a method for modifying it by Amendment, which has been done quite a few times. Yet, removing anything from the Bill of Rights is anathema to the vast majority of us, as we are very big on individual liberty, and very short on trust for the powerful.

Another case of difference in culture due to history.

Our founding document asserts the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nationhood" to be "the supreme overlord of all of christian Europe and to have a right to sovereignty over all countries which belonged to the Empire of Rome and Charlemagne"

That idea would turn out to be quite a curse and cause alot of misery for the entire continent.

Generaly we see everythin that happened pre 1949 as dark and as something we should be ashamed of and view history with special emphasis on everything horrible.

Exactly right! And quite perceptive... I usually have to point this out to people and then post the stats.

Yes, if you look at the nations where homicides are high, rates of gun ownership vary (and are often low) but the common denominators are typically poverty/wealth inequality, poor or corrupt gov't/law, gangs/tribes/factions, and the drug trade.

Exactly right!

Good that we agree

Actually we need criminal control moreso than gun control. However, we've actually been getting a handle on that in recent decades, primarily with "3 strikes laws" and longer sentences for habitual felons. Overall, most crime has gone down a great deal over the past 40-50 years.


Media sensationalism makes it seem worse than it really is; while there are exceptions, most places in America are actually fairly safe, statistically.

I disagree with the 3 strikes laws. Prison should in my opinion be a place of punishment and rehabilitation.

Yet the best method to fight crime will always be creating prosperity, and this is where the arguments over how to achieve that set in....

 

[tech30528]

I'd be real interested to know where you draw the line on "mentally unstable psychopaths". After all, one of the groups being targeted are Bipolars (like myself) who are in the risk group. There are literally millions who have Bipolar disorder that don't go and shoot up schools. You want to infringe on my rights due to the actions of an extremely microscopic minority? Maybe we should ban people who are too heavy from driving, cause they might have a cholesterol induced heart attack as well and potentially harm many innocents.

I recently had an autistic boy on the firing line. He was closely monitored and followed all the safety rules and by the end of the day showed improvement. It was 22 rifles at 25 meters. It's a focused discipline and as long as he can maintain safety it may be helpful to him.

 

[CalGun]

I recall it being normal to take a shotgun to school in hopes of getting a duck or goose for dinner on the way too or from. Oh and that was in California.

It was fairly common to see 9-10 year old kids walking on a road or through a field with a 22-410 OU in my time..... hunting rabbits, squirrel, and just plinkin'

Happy trails to you ...... keep smilin' until then

:shrug: :sigh:

Thom Paine

 

[Lutherf]

Are you that pessemistic that you believe your government, federal aswell as local will never regain your trust again?

For me it isn't a matter of trust. It's a matter of not giving them the opportunity.

Government tends to make decisions that are good for government first and for the people if it's politically expedient to do so. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have a propensity to react to issues instead of respond to them in a rational manner.

In the 1800's our government began to relegate Native Americans to reservations because it was inconvenient to have them roaming the wilderness we wanted to populate. In the 1930's our government decided to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a bunch of idiots squealed loud enough. Then, when they discovered that their decision sparked gang violence and organized crime, they decided to ban automatic weapons for civilian use. During WWII they incarcerated American citizens of Japanese descent just because of their ethnicity. In the 50's and 60's they experimented on citizens without their knowledge while trying to discover some kind of "truth serum". Now we know that they have been spying on us for decades and the DHS uses that information to "protect" us but we never get to see the benefits of this "protection".

"Trust" is irrelevant. The history is there and, given the opportunity, the government will continue to violate the public trust whenever it feels a need to do so. They will use any available incident to foment public outrage and then act on that outrage by infringing on our liberty. The only option we have as citizens is to remain vigilant and oppose any measure which could be used against us.

If that sounds paranoid....maybe it is but 240 years ago a group of Americans saw this kind of abuse in their government and chose to effect a change. We are their legacy and we have a responsibility to our forefathers, to our progeny and to ourselves to keep that fight up because once we stop fighting we WILL lose our liberty.

 

[The German]

For me it isn't a matter of trust. It's a matter of not giving them the opportunity.

Government tends to make decisions that are good for government first and for the people if it's politically expedient to do so. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have a propensity to react to issues instead of respond to them in a rational manner.

In the 1800's our government began to relegate Native Americans to reservations because it was inconvenient to have them roaming the wilderness we wanted to populate. In the 1930's our government decided to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a bunch of idiots squealed loud enough. Then, when they discovered that their decision sparked gang violence and organized crime, they decided to ban automatic weapons for civilian use. During WWII they incarcerated American citizens of Japanese descent just because of their ethnicity. In the 50's and 60's they experimented on citizens without their knowledge while trying to discover some kind of "truth serum". Now we know that they have been spying on us for decades and the DHS uses that information to "protect" us but we never get to see the benefits of this "protection".

"Trust" is irrelevant. The history is there and, given the opportunity, the government will continue to violate the public trust whenever it feels a need to do so. They will use any available incident to foment public outrage and then act on that outrage by infringing on our liberty. The only option we have as citizens is to remain vigilant and oppose any measure which could be used against us.

If that sounds paranoid....maybe it is but 240 years ago a group of Americans saw this kind of abuse in their government and chose to effect a change. We are their legacy and we have a responsibility to our forefathers, to our progeny and to ourselves to keep that fight up because once we stop fighting we WILL lose our liberty.

Honestly, this reads like something I would have expected someone from China would write and not from one of the oldest democracies on the planet.

 

[Goshin]

Honestly, this reads like something I would have expected someone from China would write and not from one of the oldest democracies on the planet.

Distrust of government is part of our cultural heritage in many ways. One could say it is one of the things that keeps us democratic...

 

[The German]

Distrust of government is part of our cultural heritage in many ways. One could say it is one of the things that keeps us democratic...

The opposite here. Probably everywhere in Europe...

Trust in government is what keeps us democratic here.

 

[Perotista]

I'm not sure what the Mail's purpose was with this article but enjoy!

'Gee dad, a Winchester': Vintage gun adverts from an era when a weapon for your child made the perfect Christmas gift | Mail Online

An air rifle or in other words a BB gun. I never had one. But on my 10th birthday my dad gave me a .410 shot gun which I still have more than 55 years later. On my 16th birthday, he gave me a Remington for deer hunting. Wish I still had it, I gave it to my brother when I was drafted into the army.

 

[Goshin]

An air rifle or in other words a BB gun. I never had one. But on my 10th birthday my dad gave me a .410 shot gun which I still have more than 55 years later. On my 16th birthday, he gave me a Remington for deer hunting. Wish I still had it, I gave it to my brother when I was drafted into the army.

I got a shotgun on my 10th b-day, which was about the time my Dad started taking me bird hunting.

 

[Lutherf]

Honestly, this reads like something I would have expected someone from China would write and not from one of the oldest democracies on the planet.

One of the reasons....maybe the only reason...that we have managed to retain some semblance of a Republic over the years is because of a historically adversarial relationship between the people and the government.

 

[lizzie]

An air rifle or in other words a BB gun. I never had one. But on my 10th birthday my dad gave me a .410 shot gun which I still have more than 55 years later. On my 16th birthday, he gave me a Remington for deer hunting. Wish I still had it, I gave it to my brother when I was drafted into the army.

My .410 is probably about the same age as yours. I wish I could say that my dad gave it to me, but neither of my parents were shooters, or interested in guns. I made up for it, though. :lol:

 

[Perotista]

I got a shotgun on my 10th b-day, which was about the time my Dad started taking me bird hunting.

It was easy for me, my dad had about 150 acres which around 40 or so was woods. I started out with squirrel and rabbit and worked my way up to deer.

 

[Goshin]

It was easy for me, my dad had about 150 acres which around 40 or so was woods. I started out with squirrel and rabbit and worked my way up to deer.

Much the same. Grew up on the old family farm.

 

[Perotista]

My .410 is probably about the same age as yours. I wish I could say that my dad gave it to me, but neither of my parents were shooters, or interested in guns. I made up for it, though. :lol:

I was born and raised on a farm, hunting was just natural along with fishing. My dad had 3 or 4 rifles, a couple of shotguns and a pistol. I left my guns with my brother while I made the army a career. My grandpa had a double barreled shotgun, Savage I think made in the 1920's I wanted awful bad, but he passed away when I was in Germany and no one knows what ever happened to it. Old gramps let me fire it once when I was about 12, the dang thing almost knocked me on my butt, my shoulder was sore for a week. But I wanted that thing ever since. Ah, the good old days.

 

[The German]

On both sides of my family there is some military history, which is from where my expirience with firearms comes from.