[SPLIT] Guns and Eurovision (now there's a thought...)

[Hellscrag]

Yep... Russia have won, thanks to extensive voting from all the former Soviet states. Their song was OK, but it was basically just a generic "boy band" type song. Greece, who came 2nd or 3rd, had a better song IMO. And the UK came (joint) last, as always, 'cos nobody likes us (our song certainly wasn't the best, but it wasn't the worst either IMO).

[Frieza]

The UK's song was quite reasonable. Russia was absolutely vile (pronunciation omfg). I quite liked Turkey. And I thought we were robbed from a place in the finals. We had the best singer of them all , but the show around it really really lacked so we got ourselves to blame I guess. (Also the song was pretty shit)

[Kajgue]

Yep... Russia have won, thanks to extensive voting from all the former Soviet states.

Didn't you see the size of those warheads?

[Hellscrag]

I quite like the "wacky" stuff in that doesn't take itself too seriously where Eurovision is concerned, so the Bosnian entry amused me (the one with the washing lines). Finland tried and failed to recapture the glory of Lordi's win with their Gothic rock entry. The Spanish singer looked like my old boss.

[Frieza]

Dustin the Turkey was a bad kind of wacky (seemed to be wacky just for being wacky's sake). Now, Ukraine's transvestite act from last year was the right kind of wacky (in that it had me in stitches during the entire song).

[Hyper]

Guns are good for the army, the police and video games. They should never be in hands of a consumer imo. In other words, equipment designed solely to kill or hurt people should be outlawed and used by the proper authorities only. It keeps surprising me how commercial interests keep winning it in the USA. Commerce over lives it seems.

[-Visc-]

Guns are good for the army, the police and video games. They should never be in hands of a consumer imo. In other words, equipment designed solely to kill or hurt people should be outlawed and used by the proper authorities only. It keeps surprising me how commercial interests keep winning it in the USA. Commerce over lives it seems.

Well if guns are designed to kill I never used them properly, as do my all my shooting friends, we have much more fun to just shoot targets the most accurate way than killing other people. Taking away our guns wouldnt make the world any safer than it was yesterday. Actually you would it make more dangerous to me as you took away my tool for defending myself against criminals which also are equally equipped as me and still have their guns.
The use of a gun always depends on the owner. Guns in the military are designed to defend the country, guns of the police are designed to defend other peoples lifes and the lifes of the owners, now weapons in he hands of civilians are either for shooting targets or for self protection. Killing other people with it is a crime like driving your car into a crowded place or running around and punching people and such crimes can be done by any person, regardless what his job is.

Why guns should not be in the hands of a ''consumer'' is beyond me. Has a 'consumer'' less rights to defend themselfes than people from the army?Are civilians more likely to go crazy or are they more dumb than the average cop / soldier? It wouldnt be fair to judge over other people that way or to simplify like that.

I actually belong to the ''people from the army'' but do I have more rights to own a weapon than someone not involved in the army? Naw, having a weapon is a human right.
Sicne my existence began I've got the ability to own and operate a weapon, why shouldnt I use the right? How can other people judge over my rights which I got when I was born?

I am an army person and serve in the mountain infantry ranked as corperal ; if I get attacked from a random person on the street and I stop the attacker with my army rifle its ok? If I am an civilian (off duty from army) and stop a random person which attacks me with my private owned rifle, am I bad?
Its good when I shoot a rifle during my duty in the infantry, but its bad to use my private rifle to shoot targets off-duty?

I wont be able to defend my position for the next week or so as my holiday-week is over tomorrow, I am not off duty any longer; so please dont bash around when I cannot defend myself as I am the only one pro-gun-rights in the whole forum it seems.

[Buff Skeleton]

so please dont bash around when I cannot defend myself as I am the only one pro-gun-rights in the whole forum it seems.

No, not the only one. You summed up pretty well what I would have said already anyway.

[zYnthetic]

I'm pretty neutral on the subject but I believe anti-gun legislature is not a solution to gun violence.

[Hellscrag]

I'm pretty neutral on the subject but I believe anti-gun legislature is not a solution to gun violence.

It's certainly not a solution to gun crime, because as Visc and others have said the criminals will get hold of guns anyway. However, I think it may be a solution to school / shopping mall shootings by "Joe public gone crazy". That sort of thing just doesn't generally happen here in the UK and it's the thing that bothers me most about the widespread, legal gun ownership in the US. These people, or members of their family perhaps, have obviously passed the necessary psychological tests to own a gun.

When school shootings happen in the US it generally gets reported over here, and it seems to occur with alarming regularity (not weekly or even monthly of course, but a couple to a few times a year for sure).

I think, ultimately, it's the reports of school shootings that have caused me to reach this view over the years.

[-Visc-]

It's certainly not a solution to gun crime, because as Visc and others have said the criminals will get hold of guns anyway. However, I think it may be a solution to school / shopping mall shootings by "Joe public gone crazy". That sort of thing just doesn't generally happen here in the UK and it's the thing that bothers me most about the widespread, legal gun ownership in the US. These people, or members of their family perhaps, have obviously passed the necessary psychological tests to own a gun.

Well, thats a point I agree a lot with you Hellscrag ( not entirely but about 85% )

When school shootings happen in the US it generally gets reported over here, and it seems to occur with alarming regularity (not weekly or even monthly of course, but a couple to a few times a year for sure)
I think, ultimately, it's the reports of school shootings that have caused me to reach this view over the years.

Sure, but dont always judge the tools of crimes, the real dangerous objects are the criminal minds using these tools in a criminal and harming way.
I am very sure that such people would have found other ways instead of guns to cause such massacres, It wouldnt be the first (or the last time) that such people also use cars, knifes, bombs and any other objects to kill people. -As effective as with guns is a very complex topic, but in the 1900's the Bath Scool massacre was caused by a bomb which killed 45 people, most people ever killed in a school massacre. It depends too much on the situations and different factors to judge about it from the armchair if this or that may have caused less kills-

Banning the tools is a very bad and fake ''solution'', we all know what happened with the alcoholics ban in the 30's, and banning drugs, such laws caused ten times more crime and killing than free alcoholic drinks and drugs will ever cause. Such laws started even wars, which seems to be a very bad solution which caused another more complex problem.
Its easy to bash the tools, and such actions are always very emotionally charged so its always a lot easier to ban things and say ''its done, the world is safer now'' than dealing with the real mechanics in the background of such crazy people and what caused their rampage. Its like taking painkillers with a bad tooth, it wont get any better with such fake solutions.

IMO my country still has the best and ratrional solution, if you want to own a weapon you have to pass different mental and weapon handling tests (which are very expensive by the way ), kind of the tests you have to pass to drive a car.

It's certainly not a solution to gun crime, because as Visc and others have said the criminals will get hold of guns anyway

Thats the point where politicians stop thinking. Everyone thinks if a law has been made which ''bans weapons'' all weapons vanish in a split-second and everyone will live happy until the end of days.
Harsh reality is that in Great Britain guns are banned, but it has one of the highest shot-people-bodycount in Europe. In fact higher than before the gun ban and higher than the USA ( -if both would be equally big)
If that does not show the problem with illegal weapons than I dont know what to say to convince you, but Great Britain seems to have a insane wave of crime lately, regardless of which weapons were used. The only people in GB having a gun now are individuals with very questionable intentions which dont own illegal guns just to shoot paper targets for sure.(Well, where can you go target shooting anyway if weapons are outlawed?) So the fake solution to calm the people dow in GB just helped the black market for firearms to grow bigger; as we can see.

Mental tests help that a lot of mentally destabilized, ill, and crazy people which cant bear any responsibilities get not ahold of LEGAL weapons - a law which gets my full support. It makes it a bit harder for the ''wrong people'' to get legal firearms while I can keep my rights.

Very sadly, its a small solution to a real big problem, as I can get a illegal firearms and even fully automatic war-weapons CHEAPER and hell of a lot easier than one from the store . Thats the real problem which seems to cause all the firearms-related problems, which seems to have no real solution available.

so please dont bash around when I cannot defend myself as I am the only one pro-gun-rights in the whole forum it seems.

No, not the only one. You summed up pretty well what I would have said already anyway.

Thanks, I always appreciate people which dont want to take a piss on my rights.

Wow, I wrote much. Now some smilies to make the post a bit more fun to read. :rolleyes::tup:

[zYnthetic]

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/20 ... ation.html
A good argument I just came upon. While I can seem counter-arguments against it, the article is well written.

[zYnthetic]

I'm really not trying to drag this on but this is just a few days old
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ... 0880526010

At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds.

Someone w/ a CCW permit shot a maniac that was firing into a crowded sports bar. Situations like this are pretty rare, I can only recall a couple times when there had been an off-duty cop near to act. The potential of becoming a target to a seemingly helpless crowd is a good argument against going on a shooting spree, if only this kind of response was more common.

[Frieza]

That's sort of negated by the fact that most people who go on a shooting spree shoot themselves after the act.

[-Visc-]

That's sort of negated by the fact that most people who go on a shooting spree shoot themselves after the act.

And what happens if he gets him before he shot even a single person to death? If he saves the lifes of lets say 10 persons; your life maybe too? That happened already, I think it was in 04'' in the USA.

What would you do without a gun if you see that some snapped out kid pulls out an illegal rifle to start a killing spree? You would run!
If I would see that some crazed out idiots open fire in a shopping centre I would immediately pull out my pistol and and try to stop them, my moral courage would it make to a duty to save other people. Well, I am trained to shoot at armed people before they get me and to save other peoples lifes thanks to my infantry training. Without sounding ''swanky'', in such situations I bet you would like to have people like me at your side.

I can see the argument coming that I would cause even more deaths because I dont know how to handle a weapon properly, a very popular and a very old argument from the anti-gun party. But I have to dissapoint you, I am very well trained on weapons, I dont miss targets I aim at.