Gun laws and control

[Vyn]

Basically what the term means, not having to reload, but pull the trigger for each bullet (as opposed to fully automatic where you can just hold the trigger and blast away).

Though i have that stance, i would still like to hear some arguments about it given the current happenings and discussions in your corner of the world. If anyone here actually is pro semi-automatics, ofcourse.

 While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I can't give you any kind of defense of the semi-automatic rifle, because I can't see one. I don't own a so-called "assault rifle", the AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle that is the current object of evil in the USA. There is no use for them other than killing people. More to the point of their nature than the semi-automatic manner in which their firing mechanism works is the ammunition they are capable of firing.

Either .223, 5.56, or 7.62. I've heard some people talk about .308 as well, but in my experience that would be more of a carbine.

But labels and categorizations aside, the assault rifle is made for killing people and is designed to facilitate that goal. It has no other purpose. It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.

[Billy Underdog]

^^^ Atleast we're eye to eye on that specific detail, then

[Charger]

While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...

Well I own a Glock pistol which (ofcourse like all pistols and most revolvers) is semi-automatic. It's fun to shoot. All guns are fun to shoot...that's why I have them...and in case of a zombie-apocalypse....I would also like to say I own a gun for self protection but ofcourse that is not the case here in Finland where there is no concept of self defence or defence of others. Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.

[Billy Underdog]

A bit of a drama queen now, are we? Is shooting people the only way of self defence? I suspect your main reason for having a gun is:

It's fun to shoot.

I thought so too once.

Also, without having read the Finnish laws, i find it hard to believe that you'll end up in jail for 15 yrs for stopping a person from raping your mother. After all, self defence doesn't equal murder...

[Charger]

A bit of a drama queen now, are we? Is shooting people the only way of self defence? I suspect your main reason for having a gun is:

It's fun to shoot.

Yes quite right you are on that.  But if a perp comes into your home with a gun how would you self defend yourself then? Throwing half smoked joints at him?

Also, without having read the Finnish laws, i find it hard to believe that you'll end up in jail for 15 yrs for stopping a person from raping your mother. After all, self defence doesn't equal murder...

Well I was referring to if you kill the guy...naturally if you just wound him the jail time will be shorter...something from 18 months to 5 years depending where you hit and how much damage you do.

[Typhon]

While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...

Well I own a Glock pistol which (ofcourse like all pistols and most revolvers) is semi-automatic. It's fun to shoot. All guns are fun to shoot...that's why I have them...and in case of a zombie-apocalypse....I would also like to say I own a gun for self protection but ofcourse that is not the case here in Finland where there is no concept of self defence or defence of others. Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.

Very sad to hear that is the situation in Finland.  When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound.  That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.

[Charger]

Very sad to hear that is the situation in Finland.  When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound.  That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.

Now that's the way it should be! But not here...here if you even hit an intruder and prevent him from leaving you will get charged for battery and unlawful imprisonment...it's horrible.

[Billy Underdog]

Yes quite right you are on that.  But if a perp comes into your home with a gun how would you self defend yourself then? Throwing half smoked joints at him?

The one time a junkie broke through my window and came at me with a knife trying to threaten me to give him the 16000 NOK and three hectos of stash he knew i had, i smashed a glass bottle which was what happened to be the thing closest by right then over his head. Then i smoked a joint myself.
I would probably have tried doing the same if he had a gun too. A person in that situation wants valuables, he's not looking to kill someone. But it's hard to say as i haven't experienced it, and ofcourse i didn't think at all when this happened, i just acted.

Well I was referring to if you kill the guy...naturally if you just wound him the jail time will be shorter...something from 18 months to 5 years depending where you hit and how much damage you do.

I have to say i find it hard to believe that the victim is the one who gets penalized, but if that's a fact then it's your laws you gotta do something about, no amount of guns will help either way...

[Billy Underdog]

When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound.  That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.

You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two...   

With that logic you could kill anyone entering your house and just say "he tried breaking in  "...   

[Typhon]

It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.

Why do you think this? 

[Billy Underdog]

It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.

Why do you think this? 

In a stressful situation being in a hurry it would be better with a small, easy to handle hand gun than a big, clumsy rifle. Isn't that self explanatory?

[Zzzptm]

For me, gun control is not an issue of resolving the murder problem or the senseless killing problem. Humanity's been burdened with that for ages.

It's about reducing the number of casualties resultant from the murder and the senseless killing problems.

Looking at the murder rate as a whole, not just for firearms, the USA leads all the other Western/Industrial/Places where the law is respected sort of nations (PWTLIRSON). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

USA is 4.88. North Korea is, surprisingly, not far behind... one would think a police state would have a lower murder rate, but there you are... DPRK is 4.41.

Of the PWRLIRSONs, Canada shows up next, with Finland a close third: 1.68 and 1.60. France is 1.58 and the rest tail off.

So, even if the folks that are going to murder or engage in senseless killing will just do it, anyway, then places where there are fewer total guns in the populace (and extremely low rates of automatic/semi-automatic weapons) have lower rates of murder/senseless killing because the murderers and senseless killers have to use less-efficient means to accomplish their ends.

Same reason casualties due to battle spiked upward after the introduction of muskets, spiked again after the introduction of rifled muskets, another spike with the debut of machine guns... more efficient means of killing translates into higher casualty rates. If I were to use a high-power, large-magazine, semi-automatic weapon for home defense, I might take down an intruder, but I might also inflict collateral damage on other homes that are downrange from my firing activity. If I use a shotgun, its short range means less danger for my neighbors.

If it's a matter of home defense, weapons required for that function can be limited to what is effective without unnecessarily endangering others.

And, to respond to the argument that if a certain class of weapons is banned, then only criminals will have that class of weapons, I would say, "Yes, that's right. Other nations have made that choice and they have not plunged into violent, anarchic despotism. Quite the opposite, really."

[Sabbabbath]

Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.

Well, I don't know about Finland, but in Germany most women who are raped are NOT raped by unknown people, but by their partner, a friend or a relative. Total strangers are a small minority among perpetrators of rape. Thus, statistically, having men with weapons living in their house is NOT exactly a protective factor for women against being raped (though of course there are individual cases where it is).

If I was as worried as some people in this thread about the possibility of strangers breaking into my house, I would definitely want to live in a country where it is extremely difficult to have a gun. Otherwise there would be a much higher chance that the person who breaks in has a gun themselves. I would prefer a situation where nobody has a gun over a situation where I have a gun and the intruder has a gun, especially given that the vast majority of intruders are not murderers or rapists.

[Sabbabbath]

When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound.  That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.

Well, that's just crazy and horrible. Anyway, given how many people (disproportionally blacks) have been arbitrarily killed by US police officers, and given how many of the perpetrators were never punished, I am not surprised.

You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two...   

I disagree with the first statement: I know a lot of US citizens who are very unhappy about that kind of policy themselves.

With that logic you could kill anyone entering your house and just say "he tried breaking in  "...   

Yes, exactly.

[Billy Underdog]

So, even if the folks that are going to murder or engage in senseless killing will just do it, anyway, then places where there are fewer total guns in the populace (and extremely low rates of automatic/semi-automatic weapons) have lower rates of murder/senseless killing because the murderers and senseless killers have to use less-efficient means to accomplish their ends.

Same reason casualties due to battle spiked upward after the introduction of muskets, spiked again after the introduction of rifled muskets, another spike with the debut of machine guns... more efficient means of killing translates into higher casualty rates.

Noooo, really..?

If I was as worried as some people in this thread about the possibility of strangers breaking into my house, I would definitely want to live in a country where it is extremely difficult to have a gun. Otherwise there would be a much higher chance that the person who breaks in has a gun themselves. I would prefer a situation where nobody has a gun over a situation where I have a gun and the intruder has a gun, especially given that the vast majority of intruders are not murderers or rapists.

 

You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two...   

I disagree with the first statement: I know a lot of US citizens who are very unhappy about that kind of policy themselves.

Yes, ofcourse. Was just overly generalizing, as you know i like to do when it comes to U.S.Aians. Hard to think of another country where a cop would give you such a horrible advise, though...