I haven't seen marches about gun rights or fear of terrorism. But people have been packing town halls and marching and calling Congress about other things. Not about fear or gun ownership.
He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes. “People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/
Same thing happened during 9/11.
Btw there are many other polls and survey's that dispute your one.
They aren't accurate, and while it is possible to gain some hard data on Gun purchases, Gun ownership by household is one of the most inaccurate statistics to rely on.
Also 'gun ownership by household' doesn't tell you how many individuals own guns or the trend, because a household can have many people.
I don't have any solid opinion on the gun rights in the US. And since I'm not a US citizen I'm not sure if it is any of my business.
But I noticed that the discussion is always comes to 'No weapons at all' vs 'Weapons for everyone'. So I felt like sharing how it is in my country, Israel.
Here, the ones who are allowed to carry personal weapon are the police, security guards and citizens with special permissions (e.g citizens who live in risk areas with no criminal records, ex-special forces etc.)
Those who do have gun licence must renew it every 6 months and go to a shooting range. Of course it boils down to a license of a single hand gun and not a collection of rifles.
This mixture of citizens carrying guns and security forces proved itself last year in the 'Knifes Intifada' were daily random stabbing attacks where carried out by Palestinians in the central cities, where there are not always security forces near by.
For myself, although I'm highly trained with rifles and handguns due to my 3 years of service in the military (still active on reserves) and as a security guard for 1.5 years, I don't carry any weapon and never felt like I need one, well, at least until last year which I felt insecure for a short period of time.
My point is, that between no weapons at all to weapons to everyone there can be a middle ground, with highly trained citizens with no criminal record, and with restriction on the type of the weapons carried..
But I guess it is very different and more complicated issue in the US since this issue is deeply rooted in American history..
You're missing a golden opportunity to bring Christendom out of retirement: "And lo across Christendom did men gird themselves for war with weapons grimly gleaming."
I don't have any solid opinion on the gun rights in the US. And since I'm not a US citizen I'm not sure if it is any of my business.
But I noticed that the discussion is always comes to 'No weapons at all' vs 'Weapons for everyone'. So I felt like sharing how it is in my country, Israel.
Here, the ones who are allowed to carry personal weapon are the police, security guards and citizens with special permissions (e.g citizens who live in risk areas with no criminal records, ex-special forces etc.)
Those who do have gun licence must renew it every 6 months and go to a shooting range. Of course it boils down to a license of a single hand gun and not a collection of rifles.
This mixture of citizens carrying guns and security forces proved itself last year in the 'Knifes Intifada' were daily random stabbing attacks where carried out by Palestinians in the central cities, where there are not always security forces near by.
For myself, although I'm highly trained with rifles and handguns due to my 3 years of service in the military (still active on reserves) and as a security guard for 1.5 years, I don't carry any weapon and never felt like I need one, well, at least until last year which I felt insecure for a short period of time.
My point is, that between no weapons at all to weapons to everyone there can be a middle ground, with highly trained citizens with no criminal record, and with restriction on the type of the weapons carried..
But I guess it is very different and more complicated issue in the US since this issue is deeply rooted in American history..
So... just sharing..
This sounds like a much better system then we have in the US.
I don't have any solid opinion on the gun rights in the US. And since I'm not a US citizen I'm not sure if it is any of my business.
But I noticed that the discussion is always comes to 'No weapons at all' vs 'Weapons for everyone'. So I felt like sharing how it is in my country, Israel.
Here, the ones who are allowed to carry personal weapon are the police, security guards and citizens with special permissions (e.g citizens who live in risk areas with no criminal records, ex-special forces etc.)
Those who do have gun licence must renew it every 6 months and go to a shooting range. Of course it boils down to a license of a single hand gun and not a collection of rifles.
This mixture of citizens carrying guns and security forces proved itself last year in the 'Knifes Intifada' were daily random stabbing attacks where carried out by Palestinians in the central cities, where there are not always security forces near by.
For myself, although I'm highly trained with rifles and handguns due to my 3 years of service in the military (still active on reserves) and as a security guard for 1.5 years, I don't carry any weapon and never felt like I need one, well, at least until last year which I felt insecure for a short period of time.
My point is, that between no weapons at all to weapons to everyone there can be a middle ground, with highly trained citizens with no criminal record, and with restriction on the type of the weapons carried..
But I guess it is very different and more complicated issue in the US since this issue is deeply rooted in American history..
So... just sharing..
I've always been sympathetic to the idea of mandatory military service.
Seem's like a good way for people from different socio-economic backgrounds to understand we are all the same.
I've always been sympathetic to the idea of mandatory military service.
Seem's like a good way for people from different socio-economic backgrounds to understand we are all the same.
100% agree. I wish our legislators and politicians had more experience in the military as well. It used to be almost a requirement but these days very few of the people in charge of decisions about foreign interventions actually have military service.
It's pretty much the worst case scenario these days with rich people without military experience, with no family with military experience, sending the poor and middle class into war zones.
I don't agree with McCain on many policy issues but I have a lot of respect for the guy in the way he conducts himself.
Tulsi Gabbard is a politician to watch in the future and hopefully becomes even more of a leader of the Democratic party. She has military service and in interviews she seems to display the conduct you get from the military community . Much rather see more like her in the future for Democrats than more Nancy Pelosis.
Do all the areas bordering Chicago have strict gun control too?
Exactly. You cannot ban a product that is on high demand/considered a right. People will gets their hands on it, no matter what. It doesn't matter that control is strict there, the guns simply come from elsewhere.
Do all the areas bordering Chicago have strict gun control too?
Exactly. You cannot ban a product that is on high demand/considered a right. People will gets their hands on it, no matter what. It doesn't matter that control is strict there, the guns simply come from elsewhere.
That's why you need a federal government to fix problems that individual States can't.
Do all the areas bordering Chicago have strict gun control too?
Exactly. You cannot ban a product that is on high demand/considered a right. People will gets their hands on it, no matter what. It doesn't matter that control is strict there, the guns simply come from elsewhere.
That's why you need a federal government to fix problems that individual States can't.
Do all the areas bordering Chicago have strict gun control too?
Exactly. You cannot ban a product that is on high demand/considered a right. People will gets their hands on it, no matter what. It doesn't matter that control is strict there, the guns simply come from elsewhere.
That's why you need a federal government to fix problems that individual States can't.
Do you really trust our government?
I trust federal employees. I sure as hell don't trust Congress or the president. So I guess overall, no. The rank and file guys and girls doing their jobs - yes.
@smeagolheart I see the people in charge and look at the track record of our government in the past and I sure as heck don't trust them to have that kind of control.
100% agree. I wish our legislators and politicians had more experience in the military as well. It used to be almost a requirement but these days very few of the people in charge of decisions about foreign interventions actually have military service.
It's pretty much the worst case scenario these days with rich people without military experience, with no family with military experience, sending the poor and middle class into war zones.
I don't agree with McCain on many policy issues but I have a lot of respect for the guy in the way he conducts himself.
Tulsi Gabbard is a politician to watch in the future and hopefully becomes even more of a leader of the Democratic party. She has military service and in interviews she seems to display the conduct you get from the military community . Much rather see more like her in the future for Democrats than more Nancy Pelosis.
Yep i very much admire Tulsi Gabbard, and she isn't even afraid to buck party politics and stand for her principles.
I was hoping in the Democrat Primary Jim Webb would be more popular.
Bernie got the youth vote, and Jim Webb has good military service and served as Senator so i was hoping older Conservatives would lean towards him more.
I don't have any solid opinion on the gun rights in the US. And since I'm not a US citizen I'm not sure if it is any of my business.
But I noticed that the discussion is always comes to 'No weapons at all' vs 'Weapons for everyone'. So I felt like sharing how it is in my country, Israel.
Here, the ones who are allowed to carry personal weapon are the police, security guards and citizens with special permissions (e.g citizens who live in risk areas with no criminal records, ex-special forces etc.)
Those who do have gun licence must renew it every 6 months and go to a shooting range. Of course it boils down to a license of a single hand gun and not a collection of rifles.
This mixture of citizens carrying guns and security forces proved itself last year in the 'Knifes Intifada' were daily random stabbing attacks where carried out by Palestinians in the central cities, where there are not always security forces near by.
For myself, although I'm highly trained with rifles and handguns due to my 3 years of service in the military (still active on reserves) and as a security guard for 1.5 years, I don't carry any weapon and never felt like I need one, well, at least until last year which I felt insecure for a short period of time.
My point is, that between no weapons at all to weapons to everyone there can be a middle ground, with highly trained citizens with no criminal record, and with restriction on the type of the weapons carried..
But I guess it is very different and more complicated issue in the US since this issue is deeply rooted in American history..
So... just sharing..
I've always been sympathetic to the idea of mandatory military service.
Seem's like a good way for people from different socio-economic backgrounds to understand we are all the same.
Nothing says freedom like mandatory conscription into the armed services. Personally, I got one call from the Army at home my Senior year of High School. I told them I wasn't interested and to never call my house again. So you apparently are all for the right for all citizens to own a gun, but not for people like me to not have to serve in a military culture that by it's nature is taught to worship authority. Your stance on personal freedom at the expense of every other consideration on most issues seems to fly in the face of your position on this. The last time we had mandatory military service in this country was during Vietnam, a conflict so pointless, devastating and polarizing that it still clouds almost every aspect of our political divide.
@jjstraka34 I think you know people are more complex and can fit more than one stereotype. For example, as antigun as I've been expressing myself to be here you all may be surprised to hear I am a veteran with medals in expert marksmanship with the M9 pistol and M16 rifle. And yeah I still don't believe in the American guns everywhere philosophy.
Agree about Vietnam being bad and dumb, same as Iraq 2. Iraq 1 wasn't great but at least we were freeing a country that was invaded and there was minimal life lost on all sides. Our side didn't lose lives because it was short and mostly air based, their side didn't lose much relatively because they surrendered quickly. And Kuwait got to be freed from Iraqi control.
I'd support mandatory military service but as well as that we got to quit nation building and the foreign interventions. It REALLY should be the department of DEFENSE.
Military service used to actually be the mark of the free man, because groups that were oppressed were barred from Military service so they could never pose a threat to the ruling Government or group (in those cases usually split along ethnic or religious lines).
In this case, because i look at history seriously, Military Service requiring a non-discriminatory spread of people from all facets of society is one of the best practices to ensure no group ever oppresses another group.
Interestingly, the ownership of Guns in history was treated exactly the same.
The mark of a free-man was someone who could own a gun, the mark of a slave was someone who couldn't, And this is a part of Black African-American history during the fight to be free.
And actually, i already stated i wouldn't be against Federal mandated or State mandated training of firearms so the populace are more disciplined in its use.
Not sure why you bring up Conscription and Wars, as if it is wrong on Principle. If your country is at serious threat of being destroyed, everyone will always support conscription, because the alternative is actual destruction.
@jjstraka34 I think you know people are more complex and can fit more than one stereotype. For example, as antigun as I've been expressing myself to be here you all may be surprised to hear I am a veteran with medals in expert marksmanship with the M9 pistol and M16 rifle. And yeah I still don't believe in the American guns everywhere philosophy.
Agree about Vietnam being bad and dumb, same as Iraq 2. I'd support mandatory military service as well but yeah we got to quit nation building and the foreign interventions. It REALLY should be the department of DEFENSE.
I was just using guns as his most recent example, but the idea that I should have to be forced into military service sort of grinds my gears. I don't believe our military has actually been used or engaged in any war since the 1940s that has done a single thing to secure my personal freedom, and I scoff at the idea of being forced to submit to an organization having that kind of control of my life. I FULLY support giving veterans every single benefit we can think of, but I also don't particularly like the streak in the American zeitgeist that treats both cops and veterans as some kind of "super-citizen", as if those of us who didn't take these (voluntary) jobs are somehow less than, or that I must pay deference to anyone who has been in these professions. After all, these jobs are choices.
Conscription is not always done when the country is in danger. We drafted people in Vietnam even though America was in zero danger of attack from Vietnam--conscription was only done to get more bodies to send overseas.
Military service used to actually be the mark of the free man, because groups that were oppressed were barred from Military service so they could never pose a threat to the ruling Government or group (in those cases usually split along ethnic or religious lines).
In this case, because i look at history seriously, Military Service requiring a non-discriminatory spread of people from all facets of society is one of the best practices to ensure no group ever oppresses another group.
Interestingly, the ownership of Guns in history was treated exactly the same.
The mark of a free-man was someone who could own a gun, the mark of a slave was someone who couldn't, And this is a part of Black African-American history during the fight to be free.
And actually, i already stated i wouldn't be against Federal mandated or State mandated training of firearms so the populace are more disciplined in its use.
Not sure why you bring up Conscription and Wars, as if it is wrong on Principle. If your country is at serious threat of being destroyed, everyone will always support conscription, because the alternative is actual destruction.
There hasn't been a serious threat to the destruction of the United States since the 1940s. The idea that Vietnam was a serious threat to destroy the United States is possibly one of the most laughable ideas I have ever heard. As for mandatory military service being the mark of a "free man", I live in the US in the year 2017, not Ancient Sparta.
There hasn't been a serious threat to the destruction of the United States since the 1940s. The idea that Vietnam was a serious threat to destroy the United States is possibly one of the most laughable ideas I have ever heard. As for mandatory military service being the mark of a "free man", I live in the US in the year 2017, not Ancient Sparta.
This may be surprising.
But to tell me that the last time the U.S. was seriously threatened with destruction was 1940's doesn't make me feel safer, it reinforces the evident historical fact that no civilization and no country remains safe or prosperous forever.
History has never shown a civilization to be safe eternally, So i don't see the reason to presume so for America.
There hasn't been a serious threat to the destruction of the United States since the 1940s. The idea that Vietnam was a serious threat to destroy the United States is possibly one of the most laughable ideas I have ever heard. As for mandatory military service being the mark of a "free man", I live in the US in the year 2017, not Ancient Sparta.
This may be surprising.
But to tell me that the last time the U.S. was seriously threatened with destruction was 1940's doesn't make me feel safer, it reinforces the evident historical fact that no civilization and no country remains safe or prosperous forever.
History has never shown a civilization to be safe eternally, So i don't see the reason to presume so for America.
It's pretty easy to presume when our military budget outpaces our closest rival by such astounding amounts that it defies belief. Any war that took place with a power that could actually pose a threat to us (I suppose Russia or China) would likely end in Armageddon. It turns out this mutually assured destruction thing might actually have something to it, as long as you can keep complete nutcases away from the button......oh shit, we might be in trouble after all.......
It's pretty easy to presume when our military budget outpaces our closest rival by such astounding amounts that it defies belief. Any war that took place with a power that could actually pose a threat to us (I suppose Russia or China) would likely end in Armageddon. It turns out this mutually assured destruction thing might actually have something to it, as long as you can keep complete nutcases away from the button......oh shit, we might be in trouble after all.......
There have been many civilizations that eclipsed the power of those around it, and they have all fallen in time.
Expecting America to be the one exception in all of History isn't a bet i'm willing to make.
It's pretty easy to presume when our military budget outpaces our closest rival by such astounding amounts that it defies belief. Any war that took place with a power that could actually pose a threat to us (I suppose Russia or China) would likely end in Armageddon. It turns out this mutually assured destruction thing might actually have something to it, as long as you can keep complete nutcases away from the button......oh shit, we might be in trouble after all.......
There have been many civilizations that eclipsed the power of those around it, and they have all fallen in time.
Expecting America to be the one exception in all of History isn't a bet i'm willing to make.
I believe we'll probably fall too, I just believe it will be from within, not from without.....
It's pretty easy to presume when our military budget outpaces our closest rival by such astounding amounts that it defies belief. Any war that took place with a power that could actually pose a threat to us (I suppose Russia or China) would likely end in Armageddon. It turns out this mutually assured destruction thing might actually have something to it, as long as you can keep complete nutcases away from the button......oh shit, we might be in trouble after all.......
There have been many civilizations that eclipsed the power of those around it, and they have all fallen in time.
Expecting America to be the one exception in all of History isn't a bet i'm willing to make.
I would not make that bet either. However, it is not clear when a powerful military or conscription is a safeguard or a risk.
As for military service being a mark of citizenship/equality, I don't really agree. That might have been in true in times where they had to buy their own equipment (e.g. pre-marian rome), but there it is linked more to having some wealth.
You could drag up the American Civil War, but arming slaves to fight their would-be liberators is obviously a free case. Anyway, blacks fought and were conscripted in all other pre-civil rights movements wars, so it is not even true for America. In fact, what seems to happen is that the powerful and rich cheat their way out of conscription (e.g. Trump).
Comments
Because of Terrorism and the Migrant Crisis.
American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.731342c8b639/
I haven't seen marches about gun rights or fear of terrorism. But people have been packing town halls and marching and calling Congress about other things. Not about fear or gun ownership.
-https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article149324141/Deutschland-hat-Angst-und-greift-zur-Waffe.html
Migrant crisis: gun sales in Austria surge amid fears of refugee crime
-http://www.smh.com.au/world/migrant-crisis/migrant-crisis-gun-sales-in-austria-surge-amid-fears-of-refugee-crime-20151027-gkkdus.html
He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes.
“People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/
Same thing happened during 9/11.
Btw there are many other polls and survey's that dispute your one.
They aren't accurate, and while it is possible to gain some hard data on Gun purchases, Gun ownership by household is one of the most inaccurate statistics to rely on.
Also 'gun ownership by household' doesn't tell you how many individuals own guns or the trend, because a household can have many people.
And I already posted how I feel the arms race of gun proliferation won't increase the feelings of safety.
But I noticed that the discussion is always comes to 'No weapons at all' vs 'Weapons for everyone'. So I felt like sharing how it is in my country, Israel.
Here, the ones who are allowed to carry personal weapon are the police, security guards and citizens with special permissions (e.g citizens who live in risk areas with no criminal records, ex-special forces etc.)
Those who do have gun licence must renew it every 6 months and go to a shooting range. Of course it boils down to a license of a single hand gun and not a collection of rifles.
This mixture of citizens carrying guns and security forces proved itself last year in the 'Knifes Intifada' were daily random stabbing attacks where carried out by Palestinians in the central cities, where there are not always security forces near by.
For myself, although I'm highly trained with rifles and handguns due to my 3 years of service in the military (still active on reserves) and as a security guard for 1.5 years, I don't carry any weapon and never felt like I need one, well, at least until last year which I felt insecure for a short period of time.
My point is, that between no weapons at all to weapons to everyone there can be a middle ground, with highly trained citizens with no criminal record, and with restriction on the type of the weapons carried..
But I guess it is very different and more complicated issue in the US since this issue is deeply rooted in American history..
So... just sharing..
Seem's like a good way for people from different socio-economic backgrounds to understand we are all the same.
It's pretty much the worst case scenario these days with rich people without military experience, with no family with military experience, sending the poor and middle class into war zones.
I don't agree with McCain on many policy issues but I have a lot of respect for the guy in the way he conducts himself.
Tulsi Gabbard is a politician to watch in the future and hopefully becomes even more of a leader of the Democratic party. She has military service and in interviews she seems to display the conduct you get from the military community . Much rather see more like her in the future for Democrats than more Nancy Pelosis.
I was hoping in the Democrat Primary Jim Webb would be more popular.
Bernie got the youth vote, and Jim Webb has good military service and served as Senator so i was hoping older Conservatives would lean towards him more.
Agree about Vietnam being bad and dumb, same as Iraq 2. Iraq 1 wasn't great but at least we were freeing a country that was invaded and there was minimal life lost on all sides. Our side didn't lose lives because it was short and mostly air based, their side didn't lose much relatively because they surrendered quickly. And Kuwait got to be freed from Iraqi control.
I'd support mandatory military service but as well as that we got to quit nation building and the foreign interventions. It REALLY should be the department of DEFENSE.
In this case, because i look at history seriously, Military Service requiring a non-discriminatory spread of people from all facets of society is one of the best practices to ensure no group ever oppresses another group.
Interestingly, the ownership of Guns in history was treated exactly the same.
The mark of a free-man was someone who could own a gun, the mark of a slave was someone who couldn't, And this is a part of Black African-American history during the fight to be free.
And actually, i already stated i wouldn't be against Federal mandated or State mandated training of firearms so the populace are more disciplined in its use.
Not sure why you bring up Conscription and Wars, as if it is wrong on Principle.
If your country is at serious threat of being destroyed, everyone will always support conscription, because the alternative is actual destruction.
But to tell me that the last time the U.S. was seriously threatened with destruction was 1940's doesn't make me feel safer, it reinforces the evident historical fact that no civilization and no country remains safe or prosperous forever.
History has never shown a civilization to be safe eternally, So i don't see the reason to presume so for America.
Expecting America to be the one exception in all of History isn't a bet i'm willing to make.
Well this is certainly an odd turn in this story......
As for military service being a mark of citizenship/equality, I don't really agree. That might have been in true in times where they had to buy their own equipment (e.g. pre-marian rome), but there it is linked more to having some wealth.
You could drag up the American Civil War, but arming slaves to fight their would-be liberators is obviously a free case. Anyway, blacks fought and were conscripted in all other pre-civil rights movements wars, so it is not even true for America. In fact, what seems to happen is that the powerful and rich cheat their way out of conscription (e.g. Trump).