The crazy part is we have a age limit on beer

we have a age limit on movies

we have age limits on operating a motor vehicle

but guns? Nah, those are fine.

We don' t have an age limit on movies. That is industry self regulation, there are no laws.

ORIGINAL: M B

We don' t have an age limit on movies. That is industry self regulation, there are no laws.

We don' t even have the equivalent of that in gun control.( in this specific case)

I wasn' t talking law specifically. The point I was trying to make was more about the culture of guns in the US than about the actual laws in place. The fact that we as a nation are more concerned that a kid might see a pair of naked boobs than we are that same kid might own a rifle.

Don' t tease the fat kid in your class in Illinois, he might go home and get HIS gun.

Right now a kid who has trouble getting into rated R movie could walk right in and get a gun permit with no trouble whatsoever. That' s just absurd, IMO.

Their purpose, said Lt. Scott Compton, is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, those under an order of protection and those convicted of domestic violence.

Really? That' s all that needs to be considered before giving someone permission to own a weapon? Age isn' t a factor at all?

I think it' s sad that people consider it important to own a gun. I mean, in Sweden very few people own a gun and we feel relatively safe.
Owning a gun will only increase the chances of getting killed.
The more weapons honest people get, the more brutal will the criminals have to be.
It will just escalate until it' s out of hand.
I think civilians shouldn' t be allowed to have any firearms at all, other than for sports like hunting or target shooting.

The laws for gun control vary from state to state. Most places you can' t cary a gun around with you in public.

I mean, in Sweden very few people own a gun and we feel relatively safe.

Don' t you guys have healthcare for everybody, some safeguards against starving in the streets and access to higher education for everybody? These are regarded as ' optional' in the good ol' U.S.A. I think these are the issues that lead to violence moreso than just access to weapons.

Yes, but we pay very high taxes to keep our welfare.
But we have a new right-winged government right now (had a socialist kinda government before) so things might change.
We' re getting lower taxes, corporate run healthcare, and it seems they want to reduce the possibilities to get a place at higher eduactions. Instead, they want to increase the quality of the education for a selected few because it seems the standards of our education is below the current governments ideal. They want more focus on hard punishment rather than rehabilitation/preventive projects for criminals, more discipline in schools instead of democratic student influense, less bureaucracy and easier rules for entrepreneurs.
They' re selling most state owned companies and are encouraging people to buy their houses and appartments instead of renting.
The biggest issue for our new government has been to get people a job so they don' t leech of social welfare stuff.
Right now it seems the economy is going really good and people are getting jobs. But I don' t know how things will turn out in the long run.
We' ve kinda gone from hippie kinda " everyone takes care of everyone" politics to " every man takes responsibility for himself" politics.
I don' t know if all this is good or bad, guess only time will tell.

What you' ve just described is very similar to the shift from the Keynesian economic model to a Neoliberal economic model which happened in the U.S. beginning in the mid-1970s. Although the pre-existing cultural conditions are quite different in these two nations, the privatization of what I consider to be necessities doesn' t bode well.

A shift from rehabilitation and preventative projects for criminals to " hard punishment" is likely a precursor to establishing what is referred to here as a " prison industry," in which private firms are multiplying and building more and more massive prisons. There is no incentive for really reducing crime because it is a profitable industry; if anything, smaller offenses and nonviolent offenses are ultimately punished more harshly to get more people in jail and create a perception of need for more prisons.

But perhaps your country can find some kind of good balance rather than regressing to the extreme that mine is.

But perhaps your country can find some kind of good balance rather than regressing to the extreme that mine is.

Mine as well. All the criminals and kidnappers have guns, funding by ???? and drugs is involved.

Hmm, polls show that if there would be an election today the current government would lose and our old socialist government would win. This is probably because many voters aren' t satisfied with how the new government is running the country.
But I don' t think that going back to our old government in the next election will stop the changes that are being done now, so I really hope they' re doing the right thing.

Right now a kid who has trouble getting into rated R movie could walk right in and get a gun permit with no trouble whatsoever. That' s just absurd, IMO.

Where do you live?! In every state in the US, you must be 18 to legally own a rifle, and 21 to legally own a handgun.

The laws for gun control vary from state to state. Most places you can' t cary a gun around with you in public.

See, that' s what' s funny about Michigan. We' ve got a Democratic governor, who' s very anti-firearm, and yet you' re still allowed to have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) license. You' re not allowed to brandish, or even print (have a visible imprint of a handgun under your shirt) though. A couple miles South of us in Ohio, it' s a completely different story. You must have your firearm visible at all times so any law enforcement officer can clearly be aware of it' s presence. I' m kind of on the fence though as to which one is more effective. On one hand it' s easier to spot a whackjob with a gun in Ohio, but on the other hand the CPL liscencing is far more efficient and thorough than say, a hunting permit, usually taking months to complete, making it very apparent if the person applying is a whackjob.

I think that with guns everywhere the thought of using one comes to mind much easier than if firearms were limited to the police and army.
And it seems most people in the U.S. are ready to use one.
To most swedes, a gun is only a fantasy. Most of us could never imagine owning one and so less the thought of using one. Shooting someone, even in self defence, is to me as realistic as driving a fully loaded tank on the streets. Completely insane.
But in America where it' s basically a duty to own firearms, you seem to constantly promote the idea of using firearms.
Of course people are more likely to use one if firearms are both available and there' s no taboo revolving it.
Restrictions of firearms doesn' t directly prevent people from using them but in time people won' t see guns as an option any more. IMO.

Firearms are cool, and by cool, I mean totally sweet. And I' m glad I have the freedom to shoot them for fun.

I' m with L P 100% on this one. Shooting for recreation is a lot of fun, and it' s something you really need to experience to be able to

But in America where it' s basically a duty to own firearms, you seem to constantly promote the idea of using firearms.

Wrong on both accounts, but I can' t blame you. You' re drawing a conclusion from what you' ve seen of America, our slanted media, and our uber-Republican president.

I may seem like a total Republican nutjob, I' m Christian and I have a certain affinity for firearms, however I can' t stand big oil or any big business for that matter, I' m a relatively eco-friendly kinda guy (I celebrated Earth Day okay) and I don' t like going from middle to lower class. There are states where guns are near impossible to obtain, even for hunting or historical purposes. There' s plenty of places where if you own a firearm you' re either a thug or a policeman, (parts of California and Illinois for example). Not every state has that " Cowboy Justice" mentality. In my state for example, up until just recently if an intruder broke into your house during the middle of the night, you would have to wake up every member of your family, flee the intruder, retreat to the furthest part of your house with your family, wait in the room for the intruder, and then, and only then would you have permission to use a firearm against them. Personally speaking, if I had a family, and a cokehead with a knife breaks into my house (just happened to some old man in downtown Detroit) I' m not going to use equal force. He' s endangered my loved ones, and I' ll be taking the path that keeps me and my family safest. The path that envolves me being about 5 yards back from the guy at all times.

I really understand your point.
But I do not think fear and the joy of shooting should be more important than people' s lifes.
I don' t know how often people get murdered by burglars in the U.S. but here it' s not very often something like that happens.
I think that having a gun at home increases the risk of getting murdered because then burglars and other criminals will know that people are armed. That will force criminals to be even more ruthless. And then the good people get more weapons and less laws. And then the criminals will arm themselves even more.
It will be an endless spiral of violence.
That' s why I think that guns should be limited to the police and the military.
Of course, some people could need weapons in some situations, but in the long run I think more lifes will be saved by removing all the weapons.

purposes. There' s plenty of places where if you own a firearm you' re either a thug or a policeman, (parts of California and Illinois for example). Not every state has that " Cowboy Justice" mentality. In my state for example, up until just recently if an intruder broke into your house during the middle of the night, you would have to wake up every member of your family, flee the intruder, retreat to the furthest part of your house with your family, wait in the room for the intruder, and then, and only then would you have permission to use a firearm against them

In Denmark, if you shot an intruder you would be charged with murder, only at the exstreme event that you were just about to be killed by him could you do something back, and you still might get charged for it.

A clocksmith had a robbery a few months ago, 3 armed men came into his ship, he shot the lot of them, and are facing charges for assault with a deadly weapon!

ORIGINAL: ginjirou

I really understand your point.
But I do not think fear and the joy of shooting should be more important than people' s lifes.
I don' t know how often people get murdered by burglars in the U.S. but here it' s not very often something like that happens.
I think that having a gun at home increases the risk of getting murdered because then burglars and other criminals will know that people are armed. That will force criminals to be even more ruthless. And then the good people get more weapons and less laws. And then the criminals will arm themselves even more.
It will be an endless spiral of violence.
That' s why I think that guns should be limited to the police and the military.
Of course, some people could need weapons in some situations, but in the long run I think more lifes will be saved by removing all the weapons.

It does not really happen that often, and it is worth it for the freedom.

In Denmark, if you shot an intruder you would be charged with murder, only at the exstreme event that you were just about to be killed by him could you do something back, and you still might get charged for it.

Thats stupid. Where i live, if someone breaks in your house and you tell them to leave and they dont then you have the right to kill them

Thats stupid. Where i live, if someone breaks in your house and you tell them to leave and they dont then you have the right to kill them

The trail would be to make sure that there was absolutely no other choice than to kill. Its pretty fucked up, when ever a cop fires a firearm there is an internal investigation to why they did that. Some even go on trial for it as well!

There' s certain instances where that' s encouraged Vx, but for the majority of instances it' s not necessary.

I don' t know how often people get murdered by burglars in the U.S. but here it' s not very often something like that happens.

Burglary not often either, but storefront robberies and carjackings are relatively common around here. Most of which unarmed or with switchblades or the like. A man with a knife just carjacked & punched an 85-year-old WWII veteran. The man couldn' t outfight a 20 year old man. Had he had a small concealed weapon he wouldn' t be terminally wounded lying in a hospital right now.

(As a small side-note, the situation was made slightly better due to the fact that the asshole who did this is trying to look victimised by asking him for protection in prison. I' ve got half a mind to send him a Magnum packet with the name " Bubba" signed across it.)

I think that having a gun at home increases the risk of getting murdered because then burglars and other criminals will know that people are armed.

That' s why you don' t hang your grandpa' s Winchester on your front porch. If you do it right, nobody but Uncle Sam should know you' ve got firearms in the house. To a point though, (however a point I wouldn' t apply in my home) firearms can be a deterrant. Defending a building with a cool head is much more tactically sound than being terrified, and entering one with A) No knowlege of the layout B) No knowlege of how many people are inside C) No knowlege of if the inhabitants are armed and D) IT' S FREAKING DARK IN HOUSES AT NIGHT!!!

That will force criminals to be even more ruthless. And then the good people get more weapons and less laws. And then the criminals will arm themselves even more.
It will be an endless spiral of violence.
That' s why I think that guns should be limited to the police and the military.
Of course, some people could need weapons in some situations, but in the long run I think more lifes will be saved by removing all the weapons.

I can certainly see your point of view, but I' m not sure the situation would become that black and white. Yes, normal law abiding citizens would not have access to guns, but consider this. A man is willing to break into your home, take your belongings, and harm whoever gets in his way. Is he really going to bother getting a firearm through an established channel? Belive me, if I wanted a handgun (despite the fact that I' m not 21 and have no handgun license) it' d be only too easy where I live.

Making firearms illegal only works if everybody in your community follows firearm laws in the first place.

Also, another thing to consider is that we' ve had firearms in our country for over 200 years, what happens when they' re all made illegal? Think of the financial investment loss (guns ' aint cheap). How is the government going to reposess billions of dollars in firearms, and where are they going to put them to prevent civilian access?

One more point I' ll make (and then I' ll shut up, I swear) Switzerland has an enormous gun culture, (Two Swiss guys walked away with some amazingly ridiculous sniper-competition a couple of years back) and yet their homocide rates are comparable with you country.

In a perfect world, I would totally agree with you Ging, but there' s just too many things going against US anti-gun legeslation in America.

Slightly off topic, I was brushing up on your firearms law, & caught a picture of your parliament building. Your Riksdag is way sweeter than our Capitol. Just thought I' d throw that out there.