Gunslinger

So that is why USA wants to buy Greenland.....

@minimilk More dakka?

@tofei More Dakka? You can never have to much dakka.

I've never been there, so I don't really know what it's like, but attempting to research it on the Internet this seems wildly misleading. As far as I can tell guns are controlled by the "Act on control and registration of firearms in Greenland", the best English version of which I can find is here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T8x0tBHPyCAJ:https://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%2520Files/Engelske-tekster/Legislation/Act%2520on%2520control%2520and%2520registration%2520of%2520firearms%2520in%2520Greenland.doc+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Some key bits:
> It is prohibited, without permission from the Chief Constable of Greenland, to import, manufacture, purchase, carry, own or use [list of guns including small firearms]

This sounds like a license to me whether they call it that or not, especially in light of:

> Licences in accordance with the regulations can only be granted persons of whom no information regarding personal relations and behaviour hitherto cause misgivings in granting the application.

It does seem like reasonably loose regulations, especially with regards to weapons for hunting purposes, but nothing like what the comic suggests.

@Thor84

I lived in Greenland some 10 years ago and it is importent to realise that there is two types of guns in Greenland. Hunting rifles and everything else.

Licens and regulations are for pistols, revolvers, other small firearms, fully- and semiautomatic rifles, including semi-automatic smooth-bored, double-barrelled shotguns, machine pistols and machine guns. There are no rules or regulations for non-automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles can be exemptioned if they are for hunting purpose.

Practical it means that hunting rifles are sold over the counter in the supermarkets. But as many towns have less than a handful of shops, that is really what can be expected

In the United States gun culture, it is not uncommon for children as young as five years old to be gifted with firearms on birthdays or holidays, although usually just small .22 rifles and such when they are that young. I got my first "hunting rifle" when I was thirteen, although saying it was "mine" is a bit of poetic license. It had been my father's when he was a boy, and later when I got a better rifle it got handed down to my brother.

What this story does not explain is that none of these firearms actually belong to the child. Legally they belong to the adult who purchased them. At least today. Back in the day when my Dad first got his rifle, such things were never registered or anything. There were no records on ownership or transfer of weapons back in the 1950's. But even back then ownership did not vest in a child, but rather in their parents (or possibly, as in my case, Grandparents.)

For that matter, my "better" rifle was a war souvenir that my Grandfather brought back from Germany in the late 1940's and had converted into a hunting rifle. There are no ownership records of it anywhere, except in my book of records and serial numbers.

These days in the United States ownership of firearms is usually a matter of record with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms based on the background check you filled out when you bought it. However, outside of official sales there may not be any record, and in some states there are few records kept even by the stores that sell them. Private sales in some states are regulated and some are not. It's confusing and problematic, and I'm not going to defend our system which I (as a firearms owner) find to be woefully inadequate to protect the public from those who should not have access to firearms.

@Tarmaque I'm not going to make a big long post about specifics, but in general, I do agree with your synopsis.

Finding the solutions is much more difficult, though, and the gun fetishists who insist any rule or law at all is a violation of the constitution makes that extremely difficult.

@VinnyHavoc This is true, and a lot of it has to do with the politicization of the NRA back in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It went from an organization that promoted marksmanship, safety, and shooting sports (It originated after the Civil War when it was realized that many of the conscripts for the Union didn't know how to shoot) to a political organization for promoting conservative policy and candidates.

And it was literally taken over by using scare tactics that black people were arming themselves so white people needed guns to protect themselves. It all happened right after the Black Panthers started bringing shotguns to their political rallies.

The whole history of the NRA since the late 1960's is pretty scary.

More info: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show

@VinnyHavoc Every "gun debate" I've had started with raving about how a very specific type of gun (which is already illegal) needs to be banned!!! (Congrats, it already is!) Once you give up on trying to explain the thing they want to be banned already is... and get some actual details.... it always devolves into "ban ALL shooty things because then no one will ever commit murder ever again!!!" *sigh* The "gun laws debate" in USA never gets anywhere because one side flat out refuses to learn facts that contradict what they "already know".

That is why the gun registry for the USA is on a paper card catalogue! We haven't managed to update the laws since before computers were invented. -_- Weird when the PRO-gun side is for better regulation and the ANTI-gun side is against any law that "doesn't go far enough".

Everyone should get a gun once they reach age 14

And yet, the gun murder rate is so much smaller... What does that tell you?

@Cris That bolt-action rifles aren't any more popular with criminals in Greenland than they are in the US. You still need a permit to get a semi-automatic in Greenland.

@Cris that the knife and blunt-instrument homicide rate is higher. Seriously, per wikipedia the overall homicide rate in Greenland and the USA is almost identical, does it really matter that American murderers prefer to shoot their victims instead of stabbing them?

@Cris With a population density of 0.03 people per square kilometer, a Greenlander couldn't find another person to hurt even if they wanted to.

@Cris I've always been of the opinion that society itself is the problem, especially since there actually used to be guns in every school in the US. People are just not taught to respect others any more, at least not on an individual level.

@Cris No brown people.

@Cris That one factor alone isn't enough to make a judgement?

Even if everyone had guns the population density alone would make it less likely that the issues that lead to gang fighting in the US would be as big an issue in Greenland.

And now everyone should suddenly start giving Greenland chocolate bars

I think Brother America needs a private moment and a cold shower just now.

I've never understood how the philosophy that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is supposed to be reassuring. Surely that should be even more worrying to Americans.

@RyanW When it comes to our lawmakers neither is worrying because their bank accounts are mysteriously filling with money from the NR-I mean an unknown benefactor

@RyanW That's because a gun doesn't have legs and can't walk on its own to shoot someone. A gun is only a tool, and its a tool people use to do various things, such as self defense, hunting and target practicing for fun as well as bad things, such as shooting people.

@ShirBlackspots I'm still a little confused about the self defense argument : how do you "use" a gun for self defense if it's not to shoot at people ?

@Isdaril How can you be confused by that? The only way you use a gun is to shoot it, so if someone is attacking you, you shoot them. But I do know there's several EU countries that make it illegal to defend yourself, so that's probably why you're confused.

@ShirBlackspots Well you said, a gun is not necessarily used for bad things such as shooting people, it can be used to do good things like self-defense which is... shooting at people...
See my point now ? Self-defense seems like a good thing but is it really ? In the end what you call "self-defense" is just another way of saying "shooting at somebody". And on those cases of self defense how many really prevent someone to kill more people ? Only on those cases can you pretend that guns really do have a utility value.

@Isdaril "Self-defense seems like a good thing but is it really ?"

Yes. Yes it is. Absolutely and unequivocally.

If someone means to do someone else harm, as the aggressor and credibly a threat to that person's bodily integrity, then shooting them dead right then and there is a morally good thing to do, because you are ending, terminally, an aggressive threat.

You're ignoring intent with your argument and presuming that someone who means to harm or kill someone, unprovoked, has as much value to their life as the person they mean to kill. I say they do not; not during or immediately before the moment of aggression at any rate, when violence is justified to stop them and the only violence you can be sure to be effective at stopping them is terminal.

Give everybody a phaser straight from Star Trek that's capable of magically rendering someone unconscious, 100%, every time, with an acceptably low incidence of fatalities from the resulting fall or triggering cardiac arrest and that might change, but until then? Shooting someone who means to kill someone, whether it's yourself or someone else, is absolutely a good thing.

@ShadowDragon8685 "Shooting them dead right then and there is a morally good thing to do"
Well, I'm not that much into philosophy, but I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard time finding a renowned philosoph that would say exactly that. If you're a devout man, I'm pretty sure you've got a "you shall not kill people" written somewhere if you read the bible carefully...

"You're ignoring intent with your argument and presuming that someone who means to harm or kill someone, unprovoked, has as much value to their life as the person they mean to kill"
Yes I am, for 2 reasons. Firstly, because it is how you roll in utilitarianism. You only consider the greater good on a large scale and mostly deny individuality, so a life is a life, and they all have the same value. Be it the life of Hitler or Gandhi. As the self-defense argument is an utilitarian argument, I treat it as such.
Secondly, because thinking that the life of someone that harms people has a lower value is just your point of view and most moral systems disagree with you on that point. Mostly because it is impossible (or very hard) to value life in an objective way, each individual has its own way to value certain lives over others in a subjective way (for example, I would value my friends and family higher than complete strangers, you probably would too, except it is YOUR friends and family and they are not the same people) and you can't reconcile all these subjective valuations into a coherent system.
An other example to illustrate this : someone that robbs you may be stealing the money to provide food for his family, so in your eyes he's a person that harms you and that you probably value poorly, but in the eyes of his family, he takes risks so that they don't starve to death and they value him positively. Both valuations seem pretty legit, but they are inconsistent with each other.

@Isdaril
1.) The commandment is more properly translated as "Thou shall not commit murder." Especially as other parts of the legal code in the book you reference indicate that killing someone in defense of your life is expected.

I can see you're having a problem with this concept of self defense. This means that you and Shadowdragon are speaking fundamentally different languages with different philosophies behind them, from radically different viewpoints. I'm personally on Shadow's side, but that's only because my brain keeps trying to lock up when I try to picture a philosophy where I felt it was not right to defend my life. I'm going to try to explain from basic principles, here, since I can see we don't share many of the same assumptions.

Killing someone in self defense is generally a last resort. Nobody particularly likes the idea of killing someone else unless they are profoundly disturbed. Anyone who tells you otherwise is misrepresenting a good portion of the population. The general definition for such acts falls under "use of lethal force" where "Lethal force" translates to any action that a reasonable person may expect to cause death or grevious bodily harm. In this light, a blunt instrument, a blade, a firearm, a fender on a vehicle, a rock or a stick may all constitute lethal force, as may your bare hands, should need arise.

Generally speaking, in the United States (and your laws will vary from state to state, and ignorance is not an excuse), lethal force is authorized to protect yourself from credible threat of lethal force being used upon you. In short, if you cannot demonstrate that a person is a credible and immediate threat to you, with intent to do harm to you, you are not allowed to cause them harm.

From a logical and moral standpoint, self defense is essentially a variation on the trolley problem. On track 1 is a person who has his hands on the switch that will send the runaway trolley running down track 2, over you and possibly others, for some form of personal gain. On track 2, You are standing with a switch that will send the trolley down track 1, rolling over the person who has put you in this situation where you have to kill or die. The first person to throw the switch gets to decide, and subsequent attempts to activate the switch don't count.

If you decide that you cannot, or will not throw that switch, that is your decision to make. Not mine. In the actual amount of time you have to decide, no one else can decide for you. Similarly, you cannot and should not impose your decision on other people.

We will not discuss the morality of refusing to throw that switch yourself, but being more than happy to call armed agents of the State to throw the switch for you. That is an entirely different can of worms, about which numerous legal precedents, books, court cases, and so on have been written.

@Isdaril Optimally there shouldn't be a need for a force multiplier like a gun in self defense. Sometimes it just can't be avoided; many of us are lucky not to be live or work in areas where such need can exist.

When there is such situation, getting the opposition to realize that they are not facing a lonely elderly man with arthritis but one with a weapon, they might reconsider. If not, they are taking the risk that they might be receiving uncomfortably large piercings in places where they shouldn't be; it is up to them to decide to take the risk and the defendant to provide the service. Justice system can later decide if the defensive actions were justified. ("Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six", as they say in US)

But yes, display of credible means of defending oneself successfully is the first step of using a weapon for self defense, used on national level of defense every day everywhere in the world. Mutually assured destruction being the extreme case to date.

@stabcutdrink Well I suggest you to read my answer to ShadowDragon above, as I don't want to paraphrase myself. But the whole point is that sure for the individual it is better to be alive rather than dead, but on an utilitarian PoV it doesn't really matter that the victim of the burglary or the agressor dies as they both carry the same utilitarian value.
Also, as every advocate of self-defense you are just envisioning the best case scenario which is dissuasion, but I don't think it always works that way. For example, let's assume that criminality is systemic and not due to some random nutjobs (which seem to be the case). In that case, crimes are bound to happen even if you are arming the victims. What's going to happen then is that as the victims get more and more dangerous to the criminals, those criminals are going to arm themselves more and more and you're going to end up with more violence than previously (so more death in total, in particular, I suspect the victim death toll wouldn't increase that much, but the offender death toll would increase tremendously). The number of crimes wouldn't increase, but each and every one of them is bound to be more violent because each party expect the other to be more violent and, as such, feel more entitled to use lethal force.
To be clear, until you can prove that such an inverse correlation between crime rate and posession of guns exist, it feels that your whole case is kinda empty (sure it works on a perfect theoritical case, but I'm not so sure in practice). Sadly, I looked that up and didn't find much about it. Most people focus on gun ownership vs violent crime rate correlations (which seem to be quite unconclusive btw) but not many people seem interested in proving that gun ownership is a deterrent to crime (which means people don't really think about the issue rationaly as this is the main argument of pro-gun stance).

@Isdaril Utilitarian view doesn't matter much when it is about you and your will to see the next day. My point was about having the ability, showing to have it and not needing to use it for that reason. Kind of same thing you don't mess with bear cubs - you could, but they are packing bear moms.

@stabcutdrink Well except crime doesn't seem to operate that way on a global scale. Sure on an individual level you would probably choose to commit crimes on people that don't have the ways to defend themselves, but if everybody has those ways, it seems crimes will happen anyway. And it doesn't even seem that there is a way to prove that gun ownership do end up detering crime on a large scale (if anything, the USA example seem to prove an inverse relation).
To go back to your illustration, if you're starving and can only find bear cubs, you will end up attacking them, even if they are all packing bear moms; you'll just make sure you have a big rifle beforehand.

Also utilitarian view matters because politics are not interested in individual preferences but about the well-being of the society as a whole. And what benefits the sum of the few does not necessarily align with what benefits the group (classic example being the prisonner's dilemma).

@Isdaril You really see a lot of effort to disagree. Have fun with your hobby.

@ShirBlackspots, so why not remove the legs from gun owners, cuz legs is what kills

@RyanW Because people who are going to kill will find a way... and therefore we must make it as easy as possible for them to do it, apparently.

What I want to know is why we don’t extend that logic to people determined to better themselves through college, or fight cancer or other illnesses they have.

@TuxedoCartman Because that would be socialist. And doing anything socialist like making college as affordable as it was back in the 60s or providing people with cheap healthcare that didn't require them to work for a company that treated them like dirt would turn the country into a communist dictatorship.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof ^^
And here I thought I lived in a liberal capitalistic country... Foolish me, it was a communist dictatorship all along ! :p
That must be why our current president wants to abolish all that nonsense... Who needs education and healthcare anyway ?

@RyanW If someone wants to kill me and he has a gun, that's a problem for me. If he wants to kill me and we both have guns, that's a problem for him because I might get the drop on him. If he wants to kill me and I have a gun and he doesn't, that's a BIG problem for him. If he wants to kill me and he does not KNOW whether or not I have a gun, that's an enormous problem for him because now he has to worry about the unknown. If he wants to kill me and my neighbor has a gun and sees him coming, that's a problem for him.

But if he's a crook, I know he has a gun. He knows he has a gun. If I'm a law-abiding person and I don't have any guns, he knows I don't have a gun. So it's happy time for him.

And, before anyone starts "but what if they got ALL the guns, like in England," well, there's two problems with that:

Samuel Colt called the firearm The Great Equalizer because most humans could operate one, whether it was an aged granny old enough to have seen British Redcoats burn the White House in 1812, or a youth of twelve.

If NOBODY has guns, folk can still kill other folk, they just need other force-multipliers, like knives. Why do you think we keep hearing about knife crime in England? So now if he wants to kill me but I might have a knife, etc, etc. Only now you're introducing a greater element of physical prowess to the equation. Small and weak humans with firearms have successfully defended themselves against large and powerful aggressive ones without them - or with them, in fact. Put the scenario back to old-school muscle-powered aggression and the chances of that go WAY down.

Greenlanders will be able to defend themselves if US forces enter into their country to annex it.

@Rolfbart
Wouldn't it be nice if that was a silly hypothetical with no chance of ever happening? Has Donald found a new shiny object to focus on yet?

@Hinoron Yeah. His impeachment. :P

Not really a thing, just yet, but more 'real' than it has been since he took office.

I'm sure they'll find more ways to bungle it more than they already have though. Teflon Don is above the law and immune from any consequences of any actions.

@VinnyHavoc Trump's superpower is that he causes his opponents to reveal the truth about themselves. He's already destroyed the media in this fashion, and the Democrats aren't that far behind. The Democrats already bungled the impeachment process by talking about it on the afternoon of his inauguration, my money is on it never actually happening. And on the off chance it does happen, the probability of conviction is zero, and of re-election 100%.

@Dorsai
I think you're mistaking impeachment for a criminal process.
Really, it's a political process that by itself doesn't amount to much more than saying "check" in a game of chess.

Here: Learn about it in comic form:
(You're here at SatW, so it's a safe assumption you like comics. ;) )
http://lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/301

@Hinoron Um, thanks? As much as I appreciate the pointer on how my own government works, I'm not sure how that changes anything I said?

P.S. How's Trudeau doing this week? :-D

https://twitter.com/VixenRogue/status/1178096121236709376

@Dorsai
His opponents seem to be occupied with denigrating him on matters that have absolutely zero relevance to the running of a country.
If the worst people trying to ruin you can come up with, is a photo of you doing something stupid at a college party 20 years ago... you're probably a pretty decent leader of a nation.

Now... if you want to see someone with a whole top-notch research department go after J.T. PROPERLY (rather than just some random twat tweeting on twitter) and you have Netflix, I'd direct you to a great (and informative) show called "Patriot Act" In his most recent season, he spent a show digging through Canada's (and specifically Trudeau's) dirty laundry.
I'm not super-thrilled to see my nation in the targeting sights of course... but I respect the thoroughness of Hassan's reporting.

'@Dorsai' It always annoys me how the media's overwhelmingly in the tank for your right-wing cult, but you STILL attack them. The media is like the Republican Party's battered spouse.

@boring7 The media is in the tank for him...which is why they continually collude with the Democrats to make up and propagate false and nonsensical stories about him. It all makes sense now!

Did you just arrive here from an alternate dimension?

'@Dorsai' They *don't* make up false or nonsensical stories. You just refuse to believe facts because they make you uncomfortable.

The "fake news" is too busy repeating republican lies about anyone who criticizes Trump to conspire or collude with anyone.

@boring7 Come on...nobody's falling for that line anymore. Just last week the NYT had to 'correct' a story about Trump and the NRA exchanging impeachment support for reduced action on gun control, because no such arrangement existed. And before that was the 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine, that the transcript in no way supported. The entire Russian collusion saga was one 'bombshell' after another, breathlessly reported by the media, all of which never actually existed. You can go all the way back to the reporting on the infamous 'pee tape', which somehow after all this time we've never seen...

Of course, it's not just Trump. Remember all the lies about Kavanaugh that were broadcast on 24-hour loop? Or the Christian school kid who supposedly denigrated the Indian at a protest? The list goes on, and on, and on.

This is what I mean by the media being destroyed - their insane hatred for Trump blinded them to the consequences of their behavior, and now their credibility is zero. You may be the only person alive to still take them seriously, but I suppose *someone* has to be the last to know...

'@Dorsai' " Just last week the NYT had to 'correct' a story about Trump and the NRA exchanging impeachment support for reduced action on gun control"
So the fact that the NRA met with Trump and had secret conversations doesn't bother you, the fact that the NYT reported a rumor about it does. I mean the NRA has been in the tank for Republicans regardless of any logic (they support 'gun-grabbing' Republicans over Democrats for goodness' sake) forever, so it's not like they'd back off from Trump regardless of his offers.

"And before that was the 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine, that the transcript in no way supported. "
He said "I want you to do me a favor". That's gotten mob bosses tossed in jail before bro.

" The entire Russian collusion saga was one 'bombshell' after another,"
And everything called a 'bombshell' was supposed to disprove it and failed. And the ACTUAL evidence showed it definitely happened. The only legal defense Trump has is, "well, our people were just so INCOMPETENT and bungling that it doesn't count!" Remember, Trump Jr. confessed to having a meeting where he tried to break the law in 2016. Russia collusion isn't really a question, it's just a fact.

"You can go all the way back to the reporting on the infamous 'pee tape', which somehow after all this time we've never seen"
Fun fact: anything proven (or provable at all) about the Steele Dossier? Proven true.

But you're not aware of any of that, you just hear the propaganda from *drumroll* THE MEDIA!!! Just because it's conservative doesn't mean it isn't mainstream kiddo.

"Of course, it's not just Trump. Remember all the lies about Kavanaugh that were broadcast on 24-hour loop?"
The lies they were broadcasting in defense of him and attacking anyone who opposed him? The lies (and truths) about sexual allegations that distracted from his shady finances that still haven't been investigated? Let's be real here, "rapist fratboy" isn't a bug, it's a FEATURE for Republican nominees. If you were rich, fraternal, and in college

@boring7 Why you upset about the President have a priviate conversation with a lobbist? Have the constant press confrences, tweeting and leaks made you forget that it is NORMAL for politicians of all levels to have confedential talks to decide what they will do during the public law-making parts of their job? If they want to Impeach on those grounds... make it illegal first!

"Quid pro quo" is a legal term that requires a plausible threat to be present. Just because mobsters have made "do me a favor" into a euphisism doesn't mean the perfectly innocent, dictonary defination of the phrase goes away. They need to prove Trump made a THREAT - not that he said a phrase used in ganster movies. (Seriously, the President has free speach and "innocent before proven guilty" rights too)

Rape allegations need to be PROVEN, not just declared true baised ENTIRELY on the gender of the accuser. DNA has been amazing for that, but usually prosecuters need to make do with witness corraboration. None of the accusers were backed up by proof or witnesses. (And several of those stories Kavanaugh was even the victim of the sexual assult - not the perpratrater!)

The only "Russian collusion" was an email sent to the Trump campain OFFERING dirt. Trump Jr opened the email - that is it. No email was sent back, and no meeting ever happened. He was simply tricked into opening a spam/scam email. (Seriously, why do people keep opening those things?)

'@Kin' According to conservatives, if the President has a private conversation with a lobbyist it's a huge crime...when a democrat does it. But that's the standard double-standard of conservative talking heads. Mostly though, it's rumored to have been unethical-to-illegal promises made and the people denying it are known liars.

The plausible threat was in both his conversation about military aid and in related previous conversations. What Trump said has been used by prosecutors to walk juries through QPQ and convict mobsters. Ukraine knew exactly what he meant, HE knew what he meant, you're grasping at straws.

No one believes the allegations "biased entirely on the gender of the accuser". We believe it based on multiple factors which all render the scenario highly plausible. But again, the rape story was a distraction from the crimes that can actually be proven. Rapist fratboy got away with it? Non-story. Judge had his debts paid off by mystery figures? Provable, probable, investigate-able...ignored entirely.

Half-scoop went to a face-to-face meeting seeking information he knew was illegal. 2scoops repeatedly reached out to Russians (but often the WRONG Russians). Trump and people acting on his behalf engaged in at least 3 more efforts to collude illegally which failed because of general incompetence. More happened that could not be proven because Trump obstructed investigation. To say nothing of his open conspiring on national television which was declared "legal because he did it in the open" but was absolutely serious.

But hey, that's all facts and logic. We need more obsessive Trump obedience.

'@Dorsai' And the system just suddenly ate my post and won't let me fix it. Whatever.

The media hasn't been "destroyed" by any means. You hate the "liberal media" just like 8 years ago just like 40 years ago. The "liberal media" myth has been a lie since at least the days of Nixon when Roger Ailes made his bones with it. The only difference between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan is that Trump has a lot more lies to fight over. The only difference in treatment between Donald Trump and Barack Obama is that the media was a lot less willing to cut Obama any slack and Trump USES UP all of his slack.

Shorter @boring7: "It's true...it's true...IT'S ALL TRUE!" *stomps foot*

Carry on.

'@Dorsai' Childish insults and screaming don't make reality go away kiddo. The FACTS are against Trump, what you stick with are propaganda and lies.

@Hinoron
I hope Trump is not interested in Schleswig-Holstein.

@Rolfbart naaah Trump probably thinks its a beer

Low population density and polar bears make a difference, I'm sure.