A story from Germany - A lesson for the US

[Isildur]

Nowadays many people even among the NRA etc. seem to support limited gun-control like background checks and similar stuff. I think this is very dangerous. Why? Well I recently heard of a story which happened here in Germany, a country where the Antis have won long long ago.

A women "found" a gun but had never had anything to do with guns. So she called a friend whom she knew to be a competitive shooter. Willing to help they met and he offered to take the gun over night and wanted to go to the police the next morning to hand in the gun. As the woman had no experience it might be safer for a trained shooter to keep it.
The next morning they went to the police and handed the gun in - but guess what happened. The competitive shooter was charged for illegally "owning" a gun(which had solely kept over night to avoid accidents). But even worse, because he had illegally owned a gun, his background wasn't clean anymore which meant that, they "had to" take away all his guns.
He tried to get them back in court but failed.

Now he has lost all his guns and will never again be able to get a firearm because he was a good guy and offered to help a friend.


Yeah that's extreme Anti-BS but think about it for a minute. All it takes is a background-check and a firearm registration whatsoever law and Antis can take away your guns for no a good deed like this.

I hope this gives you an impression why any form of gun-control is dangerous if Antis are in control(and they certainly will be at some point in the future). Do not sacrifice your rights, or like a (German) adage goes: If you give them the little finger they will take the whole hand.


ps:Although it's a long article I recommend everyone who is seriously interested in gun rights to read it:
ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA.
It's a great article which gives a detailed analysis of how a bulwark of civil liberties like GB could become a police state with almost total gun-control.

 

[coyote_jr]

send it to Pelosi, we already get it.

 

[Andrewsky]

No, "we" don't already get it.

I'll bet you half of the posters on The High Road support background checks.

 

[Remontoire]

I feel sorry for him. I thought that German police were sensible. I mean ...someone with no criminal associations or history returns an unknown gun..
has a witness, and gets charged with illegal possesion?

He already lost the case ? It seems pretty weird. Seems to me that a competent lawyer should have been able to get him from this kind of trouble

If they drop the charges, he'll get his guns back, right ?

Well, at least now I know what to do if I ever find a gun...
Clean it, oil it, put in a plastic bag, put that in a PVC pipe, put in some
dessicants, seal the pipe, bury 8 feet deep somewhere, mark down the location... (though, given how much ground the looters of archeological treasures cover with their fancy metal detectors nowadays, it'll probably have to be my garden if I want to find when I need it)

Seems to me that sometimes complying with the law is like cooperating with an armed robber... you are utterly at the other party's mercy...

Background checks..
Minor criminality shouldn't be an obstacle, but would you trust schizophrenics with guns ?
They are OK if they medicate, but what if they stop? They hear voices, and can be pretty
dangerous. Then you have people like Cho, who apparently dream about killing sprees..
Some kind of check is needed, though I think it should be more on the order
of several adult witnesses, who all testify that they know the person, and he can
be trusted with a gun..

 

[Isildur]

Well do not know this guy but heard the story from a pretty reliably source. In Germany it depends on where you live. The police dep here where I live is not so bad but the one where this guy lives(I believe it was Düsseldorf) is extremely Anti and they want to reduce the number of (legal) guns by all means.

The problem is that these folks are right, he has illegally "owned" a gun, but no sane guy would charge him in such a situation - but have you ever seen a sane Anti?

 

[Titan6]

Yeah well let me guess if the same thing could happen in Chicago? I am thinking probably....

 

[Mousegun]

No, "we" don't already get it.

I'll bet you half of the posters on The High Road support background checks.

If you got your way and there was no background checks and some skitszoid who would have easily been picked off by a minimal background check took out a loved one of yours, would you still feel the same?

I too do not like the concept but am in a bit of turmoil as to what to do in the world we live in today.

Give em' a finger and they will take your hand / arm but refuse the finger and they will try to take your entire body which in this case is ALL your guns.

If a background check was the only adversary we had to face, I would say go for it but it is just one of many adversaries so it is just a component of the sum of the whole that makes gun ownership more difficult now than ever and it seems to be getting worse but of all the crazy crap that the grabbers pile on, the background check is the one I can tolerate the most and if it ever became the only obstacle (fat chance) it would be one I could live with the most.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do I not understand? The part that was written at a time that men were expected to own and carry guns and it was more of a given than the exception like it is today.

I spoke to an acquaintance yesterday and because the conversation simply led to it, told him of my CCW. He thought I was nuts and after giving him the "standard" arguments he still didn't get it but he did go to his closet and get his loaded rifle to show me. You got to wonder???????????

 

[Mahnmut]

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition Number 1: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!!

 

[fletcher]

No, "we" don't already get it.

I'll bet you half of the posters on The High Road support background checks.

This isn't so much of a background check issue as a ridiculous law issue. If the culture was not so anti-gun and quick to judge, this whole thing would have been overlooked and blown over without any problems.

 

[Deanimator]

Yeah well let me guess if the same thing could happen in Chicago? I am thinking probably....

Chicago PD would have shot him in the head, claiming he "attacked" them. Then when the videotape showing that was a lie was released, they'd say it was an "accident", suspend the guy who shot him for thirty days, then promote him to detective. THAT'S the Chicago way...

 

[yhtomit]

Do you have a link to the story (in German or English)? I'd like to read more about this -- what a shameful thing to happen. As the saying goes, No good deed goes unpunished.

timothy

 

[eliphalet]

If you got your way and there was no background checks and some skitszoid who would have easily been picked off by a minimal background check took out a loved one of yours, would you still feel the same

It never ceases to amaze me how propaganda and a lie will over time lead folks to think it is a truth and what otta be done. Sad sad.

 

[General Geoff]

If you got your way and there was no background checks and some skitszoid who would have easily been picked off by a minimal background check took out a loved one of yours, would you still feel the same?

Yes. A deranged man who kills someone dear to me does not make background checks justified.

 

[mike101]

The issue of background checks is a difficult one. I used to believe that there should absolutely be background checks, especially given todays climate in this country, but now I'm not so sure.

I remembered when I was a kid in grade school, in the '60s, before there was much in the way of gun control. I watched the news every night, starting when I was 6 or 7. Local news, then the Huntley Brinkley Report. There were crazy people and criminals then, too, but you didn't see people mowing eachother down in the streets, and you never heard the term "home invasion".

Then, along comes gun-control, the intention of which was to reduce crime. It didn't. I always had a suspicion that crime had actually risen, per capita, since the advent of gun control. Then I stumbled upon an interesting statistic. It HAS risen, 313%, per 100,000 US inhabitants, from 1960 to 2005.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Even in the face of this statistic, I still wrestle with it. Maybe all of the anti-gun propaganda has affected the way I think about it. It's a tough one.

 

[Isildur]

Do you have a link to the story (in German or English)? I'd like to read more about this -- what a shameful thing to happen. As the saying goes, No good deed goes unpunished.

timothy

No I haven't. A guy in my competition shooting club told me the story because he is quite active in organizing shooting events etc. and therefore knows of this guy(dunno if he knows him personally).

 

[Joe Demko]

Let's not get ourselves wrapped around the axle over a FOAF story from another country, shall we gentlefolk? Amazing how we can go from what is basically a rumour from Germany to denouncing fellow THR members for insufficient ideological purity w/o bouncing off reality even once along the way.

 

[Isildur]

Well the worst possibility is a split-up dividing the pro-gun movement. I solely wanted to show that even measures which seem reasonable might be fatal.

 

[gc70]

If you got your way and there was no background checks and some skitszoid who would have easily been picked off by a minimal background check took out a loved one of yours, would you still feel the same?

Wouldn't happen. I do not want dangerous freaks loose in society. If someone poses too much danger to have a gun, they should be locked away because they also pose too much danger to drive a car, or have matches, or otherwise interact with society. Lock away the dangerous one and there is no longer an excuse for background checks.

 

[Nolo]

I didn't here anyone denouncing other THR members, I just thought he was giving us food for thought.
As for checks for the sociopaths and psychopaths, I think my well-aimed bullet is good enough. Honestly. The only problem with that is that that sort of legislation (or, rather, lack of legislation) requires a social mindset that we don't have. How do we get it? I don't know, honestly. But I'll protect who I can.

 

[Joe Demko]

I didn't here anyone denouncing other THR members, I just thought he was giving us food for thought.

Didn't you read this?

No, "we" don't already get it.

I'll bet you half of the posters on The High Road support background checks.

It never ceases to amaze me how propaganda and a lie will over time lead folks to think it is a truth and what otta be done. Sad sad.

 

[Prince Yamato]

If society did a better job of locking up/executing the dangerous elements, then I'd say, "phooey!" to all background checks. As it stands however, I do appreciate knowing that I do not shop for firearms at the same establishments that dangerous felons do.

 

[Zoogster]

Even in the face of this statistic, I still wrestle with it. Maybe all of the anti-gun propaganda has affected the way I think about it. It's a tough one.

Here is the best way to think of it: Crazy people, and criminals will have access to guns, cars, and all manner of weapons. Now while a background check might make it slightly more difficult for them, it also allows the denial or taking of firearms from others. What prohibits firearms in one decade is different from what prohibits them in the next.

Yet if we look in American history we see that when the majority of people owned and carried firearms, the crime rate was far less. Contrary to the wild wild west as portrayed in western movies created in the mid 1900's, the "wild west" was actualy far safer per capita than modern times. There was gun fights, and just as today sensationalism existed. It was entertainment in a day without movies and video games to indulge in sensationalized reports of the few gunfights that happened. So most that happened were very well documented. In reality pulling a gun on someone when not just the person you pulled one on, but all the people to your sides and behind you have one as well is just plain dangerous. Pulling a firearm on someone was a good way to get shot, from any direction. So by and large most people kept thier guns holstered, or tucked out of sight.

There was of course always a segment of society attracted to the gambling, prostitutes and over indulgence at seedy taverns who would occasional challenge eachother. Yet the number of these per capita was far less than of today. There was of course also criminals that targeted banks, and back then trains. That small segment lured to the possibility of easy money through crime. Some were even former officers of the law. They rarely survived or existed long, but in a time without TV the papers never missed a chance to sensationlize every gun fight within thousands of miles. If it happened west of the Mississippi River then it belonged in the local paper.

Yet most people were safer from crime and criminals then than they are today. A society where most have and carry guns is a pretty dangerous society to use a gun.
A society where guns are uncommon or are not carried is one where using a gun gives an advantage to those that choose to use or carry one.

So sure they ended up in criminals' hands without background checks just like they still do. However the criminals ended up dead pretty quickly so it took care of itself.
Yet the murder rate back then is lower than it is now, and that is back in a time when medical care was seriously limited and getting shot spelled death a lot more often than it does today. Go figure.

The truth is that the right to arms existed and can be traced throughout American and previously English History linked directly as a counter to government force. In fact it was illegal for a commoner to hunt yet legal for them to keep and bear firearms for a couple hundred years.
Allowing criminals, who by definition the government determines, to be disarmed undoes that purpose. If a right exists to defend against something, but that something can decide who does not have that right, then the right is meaningless. That is the most ironic situation ever. Which is why the RKBA SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. For any allowance of infringement on the personal ownership of small arms is allowing the very entity they are supposed to deter decide who may legaly have them.
So background checks by definition defy the constitution, and undo the deterent the right is supposed to provide.

 

[elrod]

gc70

Lock away the dangerous one and there is no longer an excuse for background checks.

No, not after there are no "dangerous ones" loose out here! But what is to be the standard? And who is to adminster it? I am probably going to be denounced for this, but there has to be a level of competience set by soceity for certian actions, be it operating a motor vehicle, offering medical advice, or building a house. The real danger is having people of opposing beliefs (from yours)setting up the standards. If the tree-huggers are in charge of the building codes, houses will be entirely different from what we now have. I love my guns and the options they provide insofar as recreation and self-defense. I also love my pickup, but I sure as hell hope all the other drivers I meet on the road have been checked for competincy in a motor vehicle. In the early 1900s, if you wanted to travel by car, just go buy one, get in it, and go. No tests, no tag, no questons asked! Try that today. Modern times require newer laws. Now, I know this is not an exact analogy, but it does have valid points. We gonna have to compromise some or have larger losses, IMHO, which, with a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee!

 

[Nolo]

Joe Demko, I don't consider those to be "denouncing". First of all, they're not personalized. Second, they're not really mean enough. But maybe my criteria for "denouncements" are not strict enough. But I still consider them more observatory criticism.

 

[wjustinen]

Please give some thought

If you got your way and there was no background checks and some skitszoid who would have easily been picked off by a minimal background check took out a loved one of yours, would you still feel the same?

to the fact that background checks do not prevent "some skitszoid (sic)" from obtaining, carrying, and using firearms.

:banghead: