There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one? For safety? Then you did something very wrong to be so afraid that you want a gun - dont tell me what!
In America we are free to defend our lives,families and property with lethal force if need be. Some people seem to be against the idea for some strange reason.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:In America we are free to defend our lives,families and property with lethal force if need be. Some people seem to be against the idea for some strange reason.
Let the discussion start!
-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
Why do I need a car to get around? Because its a lot easier and a whole lot more effective then walking or taking a bus when you need to get gak done quickly. If someone breaks into my house with a gun I would rather have a gun then a knife or my fists. How many people have been saved by guns? Millions over the years. There are news stories in the states all the time about cops and armed citizens taking down dangerous criminals or even just stopping them until an arrest can be made. The vast majority or crimes are committed by criminals that obtain guns illegally. Guns by them self do not cause crime, look at Canada, they have way more per person then the US but they have way lower crime rates across the board. Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens and not criminals. Want to get rid of guns and stop criminals from getting their hands on them? How about you try getting rid of all illegal narcotics first.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:In America we are free to defend our lives,families and property with lethal force if need be. Some people seem to be against the idea for some strange reason.
Let the discussion start!
-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
People who break in to your house NEVER carry guns. That would be absurd.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one? For safety? Then you did something very wrong to be so afraid that you want a gun - dont tell me what!
That's really the only reason you can think of that someone might feel like they need a gun for protection? Because they did something very wrong to someone else, and now that someone is coming after them? Let me guess, if they're not a criminal they should just call the police if something bad happens, right?
What about just for fun? Some people like shooting as a hobby. There are tons of competitions involving shooting, even Olympic sports. So what's wrong with having one just because you enjoy shooting?
Hunting and target shooting are both fun, and have numerous benefits besides "HURP DURP GUN GO BANG". It's a martial art. Granted, not many see it that way because...uh...it has more emphasis on the "Martial" part, and well it involves things that go bang and that's scary, so "it doesn't count". But it's a discipline, and like any martial art it brings a lot to the table.
In a defensive role, quite frankly I can get to a rifle a hell of a lot faster than a cop can get to me, and I am willing to wager a pretty large sum of money that I can run a gun better than most of the officers of the responding departments. This is assuming I am not in yet another situation where they are overwhelmed or non-present.
Then you get into minor details like the possibility of ones little <CENSORED> one day getting conscripted, one might benefit from knowing how to run a gun in this situation, and no, military training is to the LOWEST common denominator generally, .MIL and LEO agencies have people who run the gamut from "I Hate guns and don't like using it, so I will do the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM I HAVE TO" to "I have a machine gun and a government funded supply of ammunition. I have reached nirvana." The more people who fall into the latter category in wartime, the better.
Lastly, it's not a "US ONLY! IT'S THEM DARN REDNECKS IN THE SOUTH!" deal. Finland and Switzerland both have a shooting populace that are similar, and in many ways better equipped (Finns can buy evil silencers WITHOUT THE RIDICULOUS HOOPLA IN THE US!! THE HORROR!), Australia and the UK only recently had their shooting communities annihilated, Canada still has...well about as robust as ever, as far as I can tell, and it wasn't too many years ago that a Frenchman (Ha!) could own a machine gun privately.
.....So I have a new question: What happened to the rest of the world?
It's a position which supports possession of weapons without comparison of the US situation with the rest of the civilised world in which the gun issue works out very differently.
International comparison makes it clear that gun control is neither impossible, nor a precursor to rampant gun facilitated crime when guns are out of the hands of honest citizens.
Basically it is a social issue rather than a technical one.
It's unfair, though to characterise all Americans as weird because of it.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one? For safety? Then you did something very wrong to be so afraid that you want a gun - dont tell me what!
You should look up police response times in Detroit, then rephrase your questions.
thenoobbomb wrote:
-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
Something a lot of people do not think about, hunting. Hunting does save lives. The deer population in my area is pretty out of control. So much that we pretty much give away tags for people to hunt more deer and we hold an extra season for hunting. This stops a lot of accidents involving hitting deer in your cars, which can be very fatal.
European-style gun control could work for America, but it'd take multiple generations to have an effect. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, at least not easily; the large legal market for handguns in America is what has allowed there to be a considerable black market. Removing legal handgun ownership in America would eventually reduce the number of guns in criminal hands, but it'd take a very, very long time.
Better to have an even playing field, then, say I. I'm quite liberal on most social issues, but I'm also a gun owner, and occasionally make use of my concealed carry permit.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:In America we are free to defend our lives,families and property with lethal force if need be. Some people seem to be against the idea for some strange reason.
We're against the idea because gun ownership breeds gun ownership. Criminals in the USA arm themselves with guns because they have a reasonable expectation that the people they are victimising may own a firearm. It's not rocket science. You flood a system with guns, bad people find them ridiculously easy to obtain. Strictly control the sale and ownership of firearms, bad people find them a great deal more difficult to obtain. For example, burglaries involving firearms are very rare here. Sure, people still get shot occasionally, but nowhere near as much as in the US, and that's a consequence of there being less guns. And it's not like we're not into them; the UK is one of the world's biggest arms-dealers!
Frankly, I'm happy to give up a little bit of arbitrarily constructed 'freedom' in order to live in a safer place. Franklin was wrong on that one - it's a nice soundbite, but it also happens to be bs.
In any case, I can still arm myself and defend my home if needs be - I'm just lucky enough to live in a country where I don't need a gun to do it.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:In America we are free to defend our lives,families and property with lethal force if need be. Some people seem to be against the idea for some strange reason.
Let the discussion start!
-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
I've used the 12 gauge to cap a couple rattle snakes that were hanging out either where the kids/dogs play or where the horses were. Also used it to cap a water moccasin that decided hanging out by one of the water troughs was a good idea. And a couple of copperheads that thought the hay bales were a fun place to make their home.
Where we live you can get folks who want to break in to houses or storage buildings and the cops are about 10 minutes away. The racking of a mossberg 500t has made at least one pair of dirtbags decide they were attempting access to the wrong place. Why the heck should I hope that a knife or fist can defend me when I can use a much more efficient tool? Why should I accept risk of bodily harm from engaging in a fist fight. Fighting a meth addled up perp is stupid.
As for carrying, there have been multiple times in the last few years where a mass killer has only been effective because he chose to strike in a place where people cannot legally carry (which obviously didn't stop the perp). Ft Hood and Virgia Tech are two easy examples. Think it is a coincidence that the crap bags that pull those types of stunts pick places where carrying is not allowed?
Sure, owning a pistol to defend yourself against burglars/ dangerous animals (in areas where they are commomon) seems reasonable to me. But who needs machine guns? Who needs 50 fething rifles in his house? Some people just go too far with it, and many people die from that (kids playing with daddys machine gun for example)
Edit
before someone says "but shooting guns is cool!";
yes it is. But so is having five 18 jear old bitches in your bed. or driving a tank on the street.
Noboy needs it, and its dangerous. Someone should make it illegal.
MrMerlin wrote:Sure, owning a pistol to defend yourself against burglars/ dangerous animals (in areas where they are commomon) seems reasonable to me. But who needs machine guns? Who needs 50 fething rifles in his house? Some people just go too far with it, and many people die from that (kids playing with daddys machine gun for example)
I assume you are ignorant of US gun laws. Folks cannot have machine guns without an expensive Federal license which has an annual renewal fee. That tends to limit legal ownership to collectors who generally are not using them to defend their house and don't leave them laying around. In fact, I bet you cannot find an example from the last ten years where some child has killed him/herself with Daddy's legally owned machine gun. Folks who own a machinegun illegally, well no law is going to keep a law breaker from breaking the law...
Additionally a pistol for use against dangerous animals is a real bad choice. You have to get too close and pistol caliber rounds may not work the best. We had a cougar take down a couple cows less than a mile up the road from my place a couple of years ago. No way I would want to face that with a pistol when I don't have to.
The adult supervisor should be hung, drawn and quartered for allowing that to happen. Let alone for allowing an 8 year old to fire a full-auto weapon...
MrMerlin wrote:Sure, owning a pistol to defend yourself against burglars/ dangerous animals (in areas where they are commomon) seems reasonable to me. But who needs machine guns? Who needs 50 fething rifles in his house? Some people just go too far with it, and many people die from that (kids playing with daddys machine gun for example)
I assume you are ignorant of US gun laws. Folks cannot have machine guns without an expensive Federal license which has an annual renewal fee. That tends to limit legal ownership to collectors who generally are not using them to defend their house and don't leave them laying around. In fact, I bet you cannot find an example from the last ten years where some child has killed him/herself with Daddy's legally owned machine gun. Folks who own a machinegun illegally, well no law is going to keep a law breaker from breaking the law...
Additionally a pistol for use against dangerous animals is a real bad choice. You have to get too close and pistol caliber rounds may not work the best. We had a cougar take down a couple cows less than a mile up the road from my place a couple of years ago. No way I would want to face that with a pistol when I don't have to.
well, then buy a proper gun to kill a snake. Dont have a problem with that.
Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one?
For the same reason I have hundreds of toy soldiers in my house.
Because I can.
Also, guns level the playing field. I have no doubt that I would be hard pressed to get away with my life if I got into a knife fight with someone breaking into my home. I have a much greater certainty of surviving if I have a gun and he has a knife.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Usually I would say that the point in having guns in your house is to shoot someone. You may not WANT to do so, I'm sure most gun owners would really rather not have to fire their weapon in their house, but it's still better tahn not having one if someone breaks in to the house.
As a woman especially, the idea of someone breaking in to my house is rather scary...
thenoobbomb wrote:-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
Right, I, a 5'6" woman and a chemist and student by trade, can defend myself against a 200 pound 6'5" musclebound thug who probably has his own gun and knife and has been fighting and beating up others all his life.
FETH that. I'm not an idiot, I'll take the gun kthxbai.*
thenoobbomb wrote:-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
How many lives have been saved with medicine not including curing diseases and healing injuries?
thenoobbomb wrote:Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
Criminals will have guns because they are already breaking the law.
MrMerlin wrote:Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.
So you think that people shouldn't have cars just because they think it's fun to drive around? So you think that people shouldn't have knives because they think it's fun to cook things with them? So you think people shouldn't have shovels or otehr gardening tools because they find gardening enjoyable?
* I'm reminded of Colt Manufacturing Company's old byline: "God made men**, Colt made them equal." ** As in, humankind the race.
On the whole "guns can kill peple so should be banned" thing... So can knives, should there be a ban kitchen utensils? Bows can kill, should the tradition of Archery in England be banned? Tea Cosies are responsible for 3 deaths a year, should they be banned to?
Albatross wrote:Criminals in the USA arm themselves with guns because they have a reasonable expectation that the people they are victimising may own a firearm.
Bull freaking shat.
Criminals arm themselves with guns because it makes being a criminal easier regardless of whether or not the other person has a gun.
MrMerlin wrote:Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.[b]
So you think that people shouldn't have cars just because they think it's fun to drive around? So you think that people shouldn't have knives because they think it's fun to cook things with them? So you think people shouldn't have shovels or otehr gardening tools because they find gardening enjoyable?
a car is used to transport people
knives are used in the kitchen
garden tools are used to garden
the main purpose of a gun is to kill somone (and make peolple feel awesome because they CAN kill someone), and guns are DANGEROUS! My point was that you shouldn't own something as dangerous as a gun just for fun! If you need it for self defense, i have no problems with it AT ALL! but dont qwn a gun for fun! accidents DO happen!
Ahtman wrote:Going by the responses the main reason is that people live in constant fear of home invasion.
I don't "live in fear" of it. I'm just smart enough to acknowledge that it happens and that it's better to be prepared and shoot a criminal dead than it is to be gang-raped and have all my stuff stolen and probably be killed afterwards.
Albatross wrote:Criminals in the USA arm themselves with guns because they have a reasonable expectation that the people they are victimising may own a firearm.
Bull freaking shat.
Criminals arm themselves with guns because it makes being a criminal easier regardless of whether or not the other person has a gun.
So why are guns so rare amongst criminals in the rest of the world? I doubt there are more than a dozen guns amongst the criminals where I live and shootings are very, very rare.
Fact is here if you want to rob someone, you know they'll be unarmed. In america if you want to rob someone, you know they'll have a gun, so you're sure to bring plenty of your own.
Then someone says the wrong thing and some poor mother's son is killed like a dog in a heartbeat.
Gun ownership begates gun ownership.
Hell our police have even had to stop the government from giving them firearms because they know full well it'll mean that criminals will arm themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Going by the responses the main reason is that people live in constant fear of home invasion.
I don't "live in fear" of it. I'm just smart enough to acknowledge that it happens and that it's better to be prepared and shoot a criminal dead than it is to be gang-raped and have all my stuff stolen and probably be killed afterwards.
One girl against a group of men, with or without guns on either side, will have the same concequence.
I suggest you watch the news less.
Also to run people down or to demolish buildings. A car is basically a missile on wheels, and it can be used to blow gak up and cause far more damage than a gun can.
MrMerlin wrote:knives are used in the kitchen
Also to cut people, to hold people up much like you would with a gun, and to murder people. There's a thread about a kid who murdered a bully by stabbing him twelve times on the front page of the off topic forum..
MrMerlin wrote:garden tools are used to garden
Also to bludgeon others to death with.
MrMerlin wrote:the main purpose of a gun is to kill somone
No, the main purpose of a gun is to expel a metal slug out of a barrel at a target at very high speeds. The target does not need to be a human being.
Girl charges terrorists who were beating her father and planning on taking her to be a sex slave for their terrorist group. She takes an AK47 from them, kills their leader, and scares the feth out of them and causes them to run off.
I can't claim to be that badass. But if she didn't manage to get that gun, she'd have just been another victim. A gun can kill or incapacitate many people very quickly, and having one is a damned sight better than being utterly defenseless.
Your gun-hate will never convince me otherwise.
Joey wrote:So why are guns so rare amongst criminals in the rest of the world?
Girl charges terrorists who were beating her father and planning on taking her to be a sex slave for their terrorist group. She takes an AK47 from them, kills their leader, and scares the feth out of them and causes them to run off.
I can't claim to be that badass. But if she didn't manage to get that gun, she'd have just been another victim. A gun can kill or incapacitate many people very quickly, and having one is a damned sight better than being utterly defenseless.
18 year old girl overpowers a "badass terrorist"...sorry but he can't have been particularly scary in the first place.
Melissia wrote:
Your gun-hate will never convince me otherwise.
Joey wrote:So why are guns so rare amongst criminals in the rest of the world?
Joey wrote:18 year old girl overpowers a "badass terrorist"...sorry but he can't have been particularly scary in the first place.
Oooooor... she had a weapon that equalized her.
You know.
Like a gun.
Which she did by the way. She charged him with an axe and stunned him, then took his gun, and killed him with a burst of automatic fire and turned the gun on his companions, injuring several of them and scaring them off.
Joey wrote:18 year old girl overpowers a "badass terrorist"...sorry but he can't have been particularly scary in the first place.
Oooooor... she had a weapon that equalized her.
You know.
Like a gun.
Which she did by the way. She charged him with an axe and stunned him, then took his gun, and killed him with a burst of automatic fire and turned the gun on his companions, injuring several of them and scaring them off.
Except a grown man will weigh about 40-50% more than an 18 year old girl.
It's also unclear what the man's friends were doing while all this was going on. Considering they were all armed and bigger than her you'd think one of them would have shot/grabbed her.
Oh and ONE instance in a world of 7 billion people really doesn't prove move. As depressing as you may find it, every day there are men who break into peoples houses and the teenage girls do not kick everyone's ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and according to the BBC it was her brother who used the axe. Not sure what she actually did.
In Cali we cant even have our guns loaded to defends outselves.
While i agree that maybe a handgun is needed for protection some our not.
There is little sane reason to stock pile weapons.
Argentina has more restrictive gun laws than the UK but it also has a similar level of firearm death per capita as the US.
An outliner. I have no idea how someone can claim that being able to walk into a shop and buy a gun has no baring at all on gun crime.
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:Oh and ONE instance in a world of 7 billion people really doesn't prove move.
It proves taht it's possible. That's all that I need to desire a gun to defend myself.
A gun is an equalizer. I don't need to be a musclebuilder to take on a musclebound thug. I just need to shoot him in the chest a few times.
Well his friends are going to be awfully pissed off with you.
And you better hope you have your gun to hand.
And that you get the drop on him.
And that you don't turn the light on to see your brother/boyfriend/father lying dead on the floor.
The fact is that humans are just not able enough to be able to deal with the power of taking away another human's life, it's best left to the armed forces.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
Also to run people down or to demolish buildings. A car is basically a missile on wheels, and it can be used to blow gak up and cause far more damage than a gun can.
MrMerlin wrote:knives are used in the kitchen
Also to cut people, to hold people up much like you would with a gun, and to murder people. There's a thread about a kid who murdered a bully by stabbing him twelve times on the front page of the off topic forum..
MrMerlin wrote:garden tools are used to garden
Also to bludgeon others to death with.
MrMerlin wrote:the main purpose of a gun is to kill somone
No, the main purpose of a gun is to expel a metal slug out of a barrel at a target at very high speeds. The target does not need to be a human being.
i see your point(s)
still, guns are no toys. If you are a responsible person, accicends might not be very likely. But they can still happen, and unlike cars or knives, guns aren't really useful. Why do you want to expell a metal slug? To hit some kind of target. Fun!
sad thing is, somethimes human beings accidentally serve as targets. Sometimes it isnt even accidental. there are countless incident were a fight between to dudes ended with one shooting the other in rage. Husbands and wives shoot at each other in a big fight, wich they wouldnt (couldnt) do if there just were no guns around!
And it's not an outlier so much as it is proof that gun control does not equate to lessened gun violence.
Joey wrote:Well his friends are going to be awfully pissed off with you.
I don't give a rat's ass.
Joey wrote:And you better hope you have your gun to hand.
Loaded in a childproof lockbox within easy reach.
Joey wrote:And that you get the drop on him.
Doors and windows are shot and locked, alarm system is activated so that any of the doors or windows being opened or broken without putting in the password (and the only way to put the password in is well inside the house) will release the alarm and wake wake everyone in the household up and probably wake up our neighbors. And it will summon the police.
You suggest throwing caution to the wind, but that is nonsense.
Joey wrote:And that you don't turn the light on to see your brother/boyfriend/father lying dead on the floor.
If they're sneaky enough to get past the alarm system and kill someone silently while I'm still sleeping, it's likely that very little would have stopped them-- obviously the police and armed forces you venerate so much couldn't stop them.
But that's also a stupid situation anyway because we've taken plenty of precautions to make sure that this is a very unlikely situation to happen in the first place.
Joey wrote:it's best left to the armed forces.
Feth that noise, there's not enough soldiers to patrol the nation in the first place, and soldiers also go bad too.
Argentina has more restrictive gun laws than the UK but it also has a similar level of firearm death per capita as the US.
An outliner. I have no idea how someone can claim that being able to walk into a shop and buy a gun has no baring at all on gun crime.
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:Oh and ONE instance in a world of 7 billion people really doesn't prove move.
It proves taht it's possible. That's all that I need to desire a gun to defend myself.
A gun is an equalizer. I don't need to be a musclebuilder to take on a musclebound thug. I just need to shoot him in the chest a few times.
Well his friends are going to be awfully pissed off with you.
And you better hope you have your gun to hand.
And that you get the drop on him.
And that you don't turn the light on to see your brother/boyfriend/father lying dead on the floor.
The fact is that humans are just not able enough to be able to deal with the power of taking away another human's life, it's best left to the armed forces.
And it's not an outlier so much as it is proof that gun control does not equate to lessened gun violence.
Joey wrote:Well his friends are going to be awfully pissed off with you.
I don't give a rat's ass.
Joey wrote:And you better hope you have your gun to hand.
Loaded in a childproof lockbox within easy reach.
Joey wrote:And that you get the drop on him.
Doors and windows are shot and locked, alarm system is activated so that any of the doors or windows being opened or broken without putting in the password (and the only way to put the password in is well inside the house) will release the alarm and wake wake everyone in the household up and probably wake up our neighbors. And it will summon the police.
You suggest throwing caution to the wind, but that is nonsense.
Joey wrote:And that you don't turn the light on to see your brother/boyfriend/father lying dead on the floor.
If they're sneaky enough to get past the alarm system and kill someone silently while I'm still sleeping, it's likely that very little would have stopped them-- obviously the police and armed forces you venerate so much couldn't stop them.
But that's also a stupid situation anyway because we've taken plenty of precautions to make sure that this is a very unlikely situation to happen in the first place.
Joey wrote:it's best left to the armed forces.
Feth that noise, there's not enough soldiers to patrol the nation in the first place, and soldiers also go bad too.
Seems like you have anxiety over something. I'm not going to go all Freudian since it tends to offend people, but I assure you no one is going to break into your house, and if they do then owning a gun is going to do feth all.
Well my somewhat radical view is that the US and UK are different places, and what they have in place currently suits them for the future.
The fact is that the UK has far less gun crime, far far less than the US, because there are few guns in circulation. Those few being shot are generally from various gangs, the possibility of being shot as a bystander is very remote. The occasions when someone has gone on a killing spree are rare, these events in the UK are once a decade, in the US you hear of public shootings about once a year and gun crime is much higher. Because the public don't have guns, the criminals don't feel the need to be arms. Once some people have guns, everyone needs guns, or feels the need to.
In that sense gun ownership in the US makes sense to a degree, because many criminals are armed. It does not make sense in the UK. The introduction of firearms into the UK would simple cause a rise in gun crime, regardless of the fact you can own a gun, your odds of coming to harm is greatly increased. It just wouldn't make sense to introduce widespread gun ownership into the UK. Most people in the UK will not see or handle a gun outside a museum.
On the other side you have the US. Certainly gun crime is much higher, but the reality is you can't disarm the nation. Thus even though guns are a problem, you have to work with it. Trying to outlaw them in a country already awash with guns simply means that the public are disarmed and the criminals have very easy access to them.
The other problem is that most people who own a gun in the US do not have the opportunity to use them. I've read a lot of people boasting about how they need a gun and how they'll sort out any one who breaks in. I've read people who claim that if people in the UK were armed then the mass shootings we have seen wouldn't have happened. This is utter nonsense, while there's a possibility someone will get a gun and stop such a person, what we see in the US is that these occurrences are far more frequent and there strangely is not hero with a gun ready to stop them dead in their tracks.
The fact is that if you are going to buy a gun you need to know how to use it, and many don't have the training or familiarity with a gun required to use it effectively when woken in the dark of night. This is why most gun related injures result from accidents and not crime, we've done this topic before and statistics are easily available.
Regardless though, US citizens will not allow themselves to be disarmed, it's a different culture. There's no point in people in the UK arguing that the americans should abanding their guns, you might as well expect everyone to give up car ownership. I've no problem in someone in the US owning a gun, but most importantly I think they need to be confident in how to use it. Owning a gun in itself does not make you safer. Similarly Americans should respect that the UK won't be taking up gun ownership. We are a safer country for not having guns and introducing them to the public is a one way street to a society with significantly high gun crime. It's just something we don't want and for as long as guns are generally illegal to own, that can be maintained.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:On the whole "guns can kill peple so should be banned" thing... So can knives, should there be a ban kitchen utensils? Bows can kill, should the tradition of Archery in England be banned? Tea Cosies are responsible for 3 deaths a year, should they be banned to?
Emergency surgery studies show that gun wounds are far more dangerous and deadly than knife wounds.
OTOH it's possible to slip on your kitchen floor and break your neck.
Should floors be banned?
Everything is a risk/benefit trade off.
The risk of lots of guns is a weaponised society with a higher murder rate and higher accident rate. As Switzerland shows, that isn't an automatic outcome.
Joey wrote:Seems like you have anxiety over something. I'm not going to go all Freudian since it tends to offend people, but I assure you no one is going to break into your house, and if they do then owning a gun is going to do feth all.
Yes it will when I shoot them with it. Have you ever been shot? It's quite debilitating. Just the THREAT of gunfire is enough to dissuade many criminals, and the ones that aren't dissuaded get a nice injection of lead.
Oh, and just because I like destroying poorly thought out arguments, I'm going to continue my comparisons to US and other countries' gun laws:
South Africa has more stringent gun laws tahn the US and also has more gun deaths per capita. Columbia has more stringent gun laws than the US and has more gun deaths per capita. Guatemala has slightly more stringent gun laws than the US and has more gun deaths per capita.
I could go on. And I will.
The Phillipines have more stringent gun laws than the US and yet still has far higher gun deaths per capita than the UK. Brazil has more stringent gun laws than the US and has very similar gun deaths per capita. Estonia has more stringent gun laws than the US and has similar gun deaths per capita. Mexico has more stringent gun laws than the US (and, arguably, the UK) and has similar gun deaths per capita.
Your argument is not based off of fact. Argentina wasn't an outlier. Frankly the UK is the outlier.
A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
corpsesarefun wrote:I honestly don't understand the whole "guns are evil" thing, how is it a more valid argument than "knives are evil" or "chainsaws are evil"?
There was a push a while ago in the UK to only allow the sale of larger knives with the "anti-stab" points to cut down on knife violence.
Personally, I would like a relaxation of gun laws in the UK to allow for shooting ranges and target shooting here - not for private ownership and storage though. A lot of people forget that gun ownership is actually legal in the UK - it is just quite hard to jump through the hoops to get a permit; there are a lot of shotguns out there
Melissia wrote:Yes it will when I shoot them with it. Have you ever been shot? It's quite debilitating. Just the THREAT of gunfire is enough to dissuade many criminals, and the ones that aren't dissuaded get a nice injection of lead.
Which is why US's crime rate is so low compared to Europe, I guess. Damn I need more guns to dissaude all this criminality that's going on.
Melissia wrote:
Oh, and just because I like destroying poorly thought out arguments, I'm going to continue my comparisons to US and UK gun laws:
South Africa has more stringent gun laws tahn the US and also has more gun deaths per capita. Columbia has more stringent gun laws than the US and has more gun deaths per capita. Guatemala has slightly more stringent gun laws than the US and has more gun deaths per capita.
I could go on. And I will.
The Phillipines have more stringent gun laws than the US and yet still has a far higher gun deaths per capita than the UK. Brazil has more stringent gun laws than the US and has very similar gun deaths per capita. Estonia has more stringent gun laws than the US and has similar gun deaths per capita. Mexico has more stringent gun laws than the US (and, arguably, the UK) and has similar gun deaths per capita.
Your argument is not based off of fact. Argentina wasn't an outlier. Frankly the UK is the outlier.
Guns only became illegal to own in the UK about 15 years ago when some mental guy shot up a school, until then it was pretty easy to get a gun, but virtually no one had one.
Legislation is no reason to fetishise over a phallic devise (a gun) protecting your womb (home) from foreign invaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I honestly don't understand the whole "guns are evil" thing, how is it a more valid argument than "knives are evil" or "chainsaws are evil"?
There was a push a while ago in the UK to only allow the sale of larger knives with the "anti-stab" points to cut down on knife violence.
Personally, I would like a relaxation of gun laws in the UK to allow for shooting ranges and target shooting here - not for private ownership and storage though. A lot of people forget that gun ownership is actually legal in the UK - it is just quite hard to jump through the hoops to get a permit; there are a lot of shotguns out there
It's actually pretty easy to get a shotgun in the UK. My ex's dad had one until a couple of months ago.
I asked him why and he blunty said "to shoot people".
MrMerlin wrote:Sure, owning a pistol to defend yourself against burglars/ dangerous animals (in areas where they are commomon) seems reasonable to me. But who needs machine guns? Who needs 50 fething rifles in his house? Some people just go too far with it, and many people die from that (kids playing with daddys machine gun for example)
I assume you are ignorant of US gun laws. Folks cannot have machine guns without an expensive Federal license which has an annual renewal fee. That tends to limit legal ownership to collectors who generally are not using them to defend their house and don't leave them laying around. In fact, I bet you cannot find an example from the last ten years where some child has killed him/herself with Daddy's legally owned machine gun. Folks who own a machinegun illegally, well no law is going to keep a law breaker from breaking the law...
Additionally a pistol for use against dangerous animals is a real bad choice. You have to get too close and pistol caliber rounds may not work the best. We had a cougar take down a couple cows less than a mile up the road from my place a couple of years ago. No way I would want to face that with a pistol when I don't have to.
well, then buy a proper gun to kill a snake. Dont have a problem with that.
Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.
Why should anyone give a toss what another free person decides to own/collect as long as the items collected are not themselves the result of harming another human (kiddie porn comes to mind)?
I know folks who collect motorcycles and custom cars, beanie babies, wines, 40k armies, comic books, and guns and other assorted stuff. A couple of my guns I own because though not really practical, they are cool and fun to shoot. Between my wife and I we also have three motorcycles and could only ever ride two at a time between the two of us, and because we have kids the bikes are often not practical to take someplace. We have even more horses. Why is it anyone elses business what we have/collect?
Why does it bother you that free people spend money on something they consider cool, something cool that is not going to affect your quality of life at all?
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
Yeah, it's called "just report it and let the mods deal with it because the guy is just flamebaiting now".
That's a bit too long. Let's just call it trolling.
It's also funny that he utterly ignored the fact that quite a damned few of the countries with more heavily regulated gun laws also have some of the highest gun deaths per capita-- in fact the overwhelming majority of those countries which have a higher gun death per capita rating are more restrictive about guns than the US is.
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
The government of the UK banned football over about 300 years because people were playing it instead of practicing with their bows. Cultures change.
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.
I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
The story another poster put up with the lady who while on the phone with a 911 operator capped an intruder would be a great example of how wrong you are. In a city a crap bag can get into your house and hurt you badly a lot faster than the cop shows up. A cop arresting the perp who beat or killed my wife is not as useful as the gun that prevents her from being beaten or killed in the first place.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.
I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
I don't know if you lack the ability to think subtly or if you're being deliberately obtuse, so I'll be lucid.
Usually speaking, when Fruedians talk about something being phallic they don't mean it looks like a penis, they mean it's the embodiment of male power. Humans occassionally bleed this over into actual physical resemblance in fiction (wands, etc) but usually it refers to something that penetrates/damages others.
Similarly the womb is a structure that houses and protects, usually buildings or such like. Hence the Harry Potter novels being about children threatened by a phallus (wand) and retreating to Hogwarts (Joanne Rowling's womb).
I was simply making the observation that in Melissa's case her anxiety about her home being penetrated was over and above a rational fear, but without more information it's difficult to say for sure.
Is it her own womb or her mother's, who's the phallic intruder, her father or a rapist, etc etc.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.
That's my point, you can take pretty much anything and construe some bs Freudian meaning from it.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.
Because most people who try to use Freud's work haven't actually read it and certainly don't understand it.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.
I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?
Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.
That's my point, you can take pretty much anything and construe some bs Freudian meaning from it.
Freud presented a mechanism of action for the human mind, of course you can explain human action with it.
May as well say "you can take any old piece of the universe and apply some bs newtonian physics to it".
Sounds like you don't really understand it. That's okay, soon you'll be able to vote.
I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.
A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).
People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.
As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.
Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.
As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.
Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.
The very hot and very cold also behave in a non-Newtonian manner in many cases, saying "everything behaves according to Newtonian physics except things that don't" isn't terribly bright.
And the bizarre attempt at a personal attack (I can't vote? That's odd seeing as I'm over 18 and a UK citizen) is duly noted.
Actually I'd never put the two things together before, the prevalence of rape in America and the perceived threat to homes.
If I could be bothered I'd compile global data for incidence of rape and gun ownership.
Seems a lot of Americans share Melissa's view that there are millions of musclular, violent men waiting to break into their homes.
But, I can't be bothered.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Usually I would say that the point in having guns in your house is to shoot someone. You may not WANT to do so, I'm sure most gun owners would really rather not have to fire their weapon in their house, but it's still better tahn not having one if someone breaks in to the house.
As a woman especially, the idea of someone breaking in to my house is rather scary...
thenoobbomb wrote:-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
Right, I, a 5'6" woman and a chemist and student by trade, can defend myself against a 200 pound 6'5" musclebound thug who probably has his own gun and knife and has been fighting and beating up others all his life.
FETH that. I'm not an idiot, I'll take the gun kthxbai.*
thenoobbomb wrote:-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
How many lives have been saved with medicine not including curing diseases and healing injuries?
thenoobbomb wrote:Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
Criminals will have guns because they are already breaking the law.
MrMerlin wrote:Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.
So you think that people shouldn't have cars just because they think it's fun to drive around? So you think that people shouldn't have knives because they think it's fun to cook things with them? So you think people shouldn't have shovels or otehr gardening tools because they find gardening enjoyable?
* I'm reminded of Colt Manufacturing Company's old byline: "God made men**, Colt made them equal."
** As in, humankind the race.
This is Melissa, hitting the nail firmly on the head.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.
A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).
People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.
As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.
Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.
As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.
Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.
So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?
Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.
A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).
People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.
As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.
Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.
As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.
Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.
So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?
That's exactly what he's saying.
Well done, your reading comprehension is superb.
d-usa wrote:So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?
Police(people) can do a hell of a lot more than some guns though - I'd much rather have more trained police than untrained, armed citizenry.
Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public. So the entire public killed almost as many bad guys as the entire police force.
d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.
Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?
There'd still not be enough because police take time to respond to a crime simply by the very nature of them having to react in most cases (entirely not their fault, although some response times are horrendous-- where my sister lives, the response time is measured in hours).
d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.
Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?
There'd still not be enough because police take time to respond to a crime simply by the very nature of them having to react in most cases (entirely not their fault, although some response times are horrendous-- where my sister lives, the response time is measured in hours).
Actually, guns do create moar violence.
You may not believe it, but its true.
Im not against guns for sport, but guns in houses, no. Big, big no. Maybe its the culture. Most Americans seem to think that guns are the only thing to protect themselves. If you are scared, do the same as a female person of my family...
... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*
thenoobbomb wrote:... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*
I have to get within arm's reach-- MY arm's reach mind you, my reach isn't necessarily the longest thing ever-- to do anything with a knife.
I can kill someone with a gun without risking being grabbed. Being able to defend myself while minimizing harm to myself means that gun > knife as a defensive weapon.
d-usa wrote:Even if I would think that doubling the police is a valid option, if the public in the US were given the choice to either:
A) Pay more taxes to pay for a doubling of the police.
or
B) Let us shoot the bad guys ourselves.
I think I know what the answer would be
Will people please note the wink?
And I was thinking people use all the money they would have used on guns and ammo to pay for more police (but I know Americans don't seem to like paying tax for anything that might benefit someone who is not themselves )
thenoobbomb wrote:Actually, guns do create moar violence.
You may not believe it, but its true.
Im not against guns for sport, but guns in houses, no. Big, big no. Maybe its the culture. Most Americans seem to think that guns are the only thing to protect themselves. If you are scared, do the same as a female person of my family...
... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*
That must be why the UK is the most violent country in Europe and not Finland or Switzerland.
The ignorance of knife physics and effectiveness of throwing knives in this statement is baffling.
Someone has to train all their lives to be able to effectively and regularly kill a person with a throwing knife. Someone can pick up a gun and do the same thing except easier and deadlier and more frequently (once you throw the knife it's gone; shoot one bullet and you usually have at least five more).
thenoobbomb wrote:Actually, guns do create moar violence.
You may not believe it, but its true.
Im not against guns for sport, but guns in houses, no. Big, big no. Maybe its the culture. Most Americans seem to think that guns are the only thing to protect themselves. If you are scared, do the same as a female person of my family...
... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*
A knife would be a good option if not for the probability of:
1) The person breaking into your house could be armed. And I'm not all about bringing a knife to a gun fight.
2) You are counting on only one person breaking into your house, good luck trying to stab multiple intruders.
3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.
4) You can shoot a guy from far away, meaning it is a smaller risk that the bad guy is going to disarm you and take your weapon and use it against yourself. You have to get pretty close to use a knife.
5) You need a lot more training taking down an intruder in hand-to-hand than shooting them from 5 feet away.
Of course, nothing we can say will change the mind of the "guns are evil" crowd, and nothing you guys say will make a difference to "guns are not evil" crowd.
Criminals in the USA must be heavily armed....
In the Netherlands our Dutch criminals that do break ins arent armed. Maximum some tools or... a knife!
And our East-European criminals are... well. Not armed.
thenoobbomb wrote:Criminals in the USA must be heavily armed....
In the Netherlands our Dutch criminals that do break ins arent armed. Maximum some tools or... a knife!
Gun > knife, therefor if they have a knife and I have a gun, I have the advantage. I have no reason to give that up in al life or death situation.
The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too. If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Why would not being allowed to have guns stop a criminal from obtaining guns?
THEY'RE CRIMINALS.
And by the way, I already proved that greater gun control doesn't strongly correlate with a safer nation, showing that of the top ten nations when ranked in deaths by guns per capita, the overwhelming majority of them had heavier gun regulation than the US (and some even heavier than the UK)..
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
This statement right there proves that you have no real knowledge of gun law in the US. Without a basic knowledge of gun laws in the US, and then the individual states and cities, you cannot make any informed statements.
AustonT wrote:That must be why the UK is the most violent country in Europe and not Finland or Switzerland.
There is a lot more to it than that. The UK is one of the most highly populated countries in the world (53rd apparently) - the mostly densely populated country in Europe by quite some way (Italy being the next most densely populated at 62nd). The Swiss are at 68th, Finland at 203rd. Our large concentration of urban populations leads to a relatively high crime rate, for example...
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Kilkrazy wrote:That's why the murder rate in the UK is over three times that of the USA.
Couldn't find a source for that, but I DO know that the average homocide rate per capita in north america is about 15% less than the average homocide rate in Europe given 2010 statistics from unodc.org.
Amusingly enough, the place in the US where we have the highest homocide rate (and death by guns rate) is Washington DC, which also has (at the time the statistics were gathered) some of the strictest gun control laws, having just shy of five times the rate of Texas.
There needs to be way way way more stricter gun laws. Out were I live the damn locals at like the Orks, they just go out into the woods with some cases of beer and shoot rifles because,
"FOR DA DAKKA!".
I hate going out to put the chickens in at night and it sounding like I got teleported to Armageddon.
While I can totally understand the situation of Mellissa (Women defence /Equalizing).
In fact it works the other way round. Its not the women who buy the weapons, but the men.
The problem is thats not only you, that has a weapon but anybody, because we are democratic. And face it, there are some mad and many stupid people out there.
Everybody. Everybody can loose its temper. When you family is hurt or destroyed, people cant handle this. People should not have weapon around when this happens.
You might say USA has the same death by guns ratio than Argentina, but dont forget that USA has a simliar society than the UK not Argentia considering crime rates.
So the situation in Switzerland. Every male has a assualt rifle there. Death by gun ratio is much higher than in other european nations (Swiss 6.4, Germany 1.4), espaccally if you consider the very low crimerate in Switzerland.
In Switzerland the problem is often, that the weapon is used to threaten the wife, even if only by its presence.
I like guns, guns are cool, shooting is fun, and if i live over here ill buy a couple.
But Britain is a nicer place to live and i feel safer when im there simply due to the fact every tom dick and harry aren't packing, having guns everywhere is stupid and only escalates the crime problem.
The only other argument, the Americans that say "it's so we can fight the government!" is laughably ridiculous.
mattyrm wrote: But Britain is a nicer place to live and i feel safer when im there simply due to the fact every tom dick and harry aren't packing, having guns everywhere is stupid and only escalates the crime problem.
I repeat myself:
Melissia wrote:[...] the place in the US where we have the highest homocide rate (and death by guns rate) is Washington DC, which also has (at the time the statistics were gathered*) some of the strictest gun control laws, having just shy of five times the rate of Texas.
DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
*I believe the laws were struck down as unconstitutional in the last few years
mattyrm wrote: But Britain is a nicer place to live and i feel safer when im there simply due to the fact every tom dick and harry aren't packing, having guns everywhere is stupid and only escalates the crime problem.
I repeat myself:
Melissia wrote:[...] the place in the US where we have the highest homocide rate (and death by guns rate) is Washington DC, which also has (at the time the statistics were gathered*) some of the strictest gun control laws, having just shy of five times the rate of Texas.
DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
*I believe the laws were struck down as unconstitutional in the last few years
Matty may have a point, just not one you agree with. He says he FEELS safer, that doesn't mean he is. For Matty too the possibility of fighting another person in melded is right up his alley, he has the advantage.
Also in support of that position, I take a lot of classes taught by ex patriate Israelis. The mothers have all told me they felt safer about thier children in Israel, during the violent periods than on American streets, perception affects a great deal.
Melissia wrote:Also, "wombs being penetrated"? Methinks someone needs to take sex ed classes...
Sigh.
Again applying biological thinking to Fruedian analysis.
The womb is a protective, smothering environment. It's why people like to kill themselves in small enclosed places (lol hitler).
It's why people enjoy being in bed, it's why we enjoy warm baths. People enjoy being regressed to the catatonic womb state.
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Kilkrazy wrote:That's why the murder rate in the UK is over three times that of the USA.
Couldn't find a source for that, but I DO know that the average homocide rate per capita in north america is about 15% less than the average homocide rate in Europe given 2010 statistics from unodc.org.
Amusingly enough, the place in the US where we have the highest homocide rate (and death by guns rate) is Washington DC, which also has (at the time the statistics were gathered) some of the strictest gun control laws, having just shy of five times the rate of Texas.
When I read the Data. The US has a incredible higher homicid rate than any european country:
USA 7.07
Nother Ireland (higest) 5.24
Italy 1.66
Denmark 0.23
Germany 0.22
England 0.07
Interesting:
While in the USA only 50% of all homicides are due to guns, in the Top3 Death Nations (South Africa, Columbia, Guatemala) ALL homicides are by guns.
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.
But that would be expensive so, yeah.
Yeah AT gets it. It's easy to point and shoot is all I mean. I've never seen a civvie with a gun in the UK, I've seen several here.
Even the bums here worry me because im far too proud to give my stuff up to a mugger, I know that's childish but hey ho. If a British mugger asks for my wallet and pulls a bat out Id stick the loaf on him. If he pulled a knife id point over his shoulder and say "Is he with you?" and then be off on my toes the second his gaze shifts.
Im confident and im fit so i feel safe.
If a bum tried to mug me here I wouldnt even feel safe fleeing, because being fit enough to run a mile in 6 minutes counts for gak if you get 6 rounds in the back as soon as you turn around!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And having a gun in my pocket doesn't help, because the guy who pulls on you first has a huge advantage, and also your way more likely to die win or lose.
In a nutshell, taking care of yourself and being fit and strong counts for more when people don't have guns. Guns even the odds for the fatter slower guys.. so i prefer nobody having one!
Joey wrote:Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.
They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Yeah, you have no goddamned clue what you're talking about.
Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.
Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.
Yeah, that's like saying that communism works if you control all consumption.
Sure, but that's pretty much physically impossible once the population or area size gets large enough...
Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.
Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.
So let's deal with the reality of the situation. Britain doesn't have a lot of guns, huzzah for Britain. They can have bobbies going about helping old ladies un-tree their cats.
The US has gakloads of guns, boo for the US. As someone living here, and as someone living here who's lived in really bad neighborhoods, I'll take any possible self-defense tools I can get in that environment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.
I have grown up and lived my whole life around fighter pilots. Clearly, you can put me in the cockpit of an F/A-18 and I'd know what I was talking about.
Also, aren't you the guy who was pretty certain he could beat a mountain lion in a fistfight? I'm not sure I want to subscribe to your self defense theorems.
Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.
Yeah, that's like saying that communism works if you control all consumption.
Sure, but that's pretty much physically impossible once the population or area size gets large enough...
You're basing your argument on the idea that a certain amount of criminal behavior is acceptable, or will occur regardless of enforcement. If you have good enforcement and regulation and prevent these criminal acts then you can eliminate gun crimes.
The reason the crime rates in the US are so high is manly due to the illegal drug trade. Again another form of prohibition and restriction that has failed horribly.
biccat wrote:
You're basing your argument on the idea that a certain amount of criminal behavior is acceptable, or will occur regardless of enforcement. If you have good enforcement and regulation and prevent these criminal acts then you can eliminate gun crimes.
And you're basing your argument on the notion that good enforcement and regulation can entirely do away with gun crimes.
I'm not sure what your evidence for this claim is, though.
biccat wrote:[You're basing your argument on the idea that a certain amount of criminal behavior is acceptable
No I'm not. I'm basing my argument on the idea that having a gun shouldn't be criminal behavior and the incontrovertible fact that banning guns does not have a strong correlation to safety, therefor excessive gun regulation is pointless to begin with.
Seaward wrote:Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.
Not impossible to do though. An immediate halt on sale of all guns, and an immediate re-registration of all current privately owned guns, significantly harsher punishments on all gun crime (including selling, buying, carrying, usage, etc) and crack down on border control to prevent smuggling.
You could even do a total ban on guns, all registered weapons to be turned over to conversion into paperweights, all seized guns melted down with massive penalties for anyone caught with a gun.
Both physically possible, but political suicide and it would be a long struggle.
Joey wrote:Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.
They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Yeah, you have no goddamned clue what you're talking about.
If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.
Washington DC Is a single city surrounded by Maryland (no idea what their gun control laws are) and not very far from (IIRC) Pensylvania and Virginia.
Did they also ban guns?
Seaward wrote:Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.
Not impossible to do though. An immediate halt on sale of all guns, and an immediate re-registration of all current privately owned guns, significantly harsher punishments on all gun crime (including selling, buying, carrying, usage, etc) and crack down on border control to prevent smuggling.
You could even do a total ban on guns, all registered weapons to be turned over to conversion into paperweights, all seized guns melted down with massive penalties for anyone caught with a gun.
Both physically possible, but political suicide and it would be a long struggle.
Did you read our constitution?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:And you're basing your argument on the notion that good enforcement and regulation can entirely do away with gun crimes.
It's a good argument for every other type of prohibition, I'm not sure why it would fail here.
Worked great when alcohol was illegal, really efficient and reduced crime as well...
dogma wrote:And you're basing your argument on the notion that good enforcement and regulation can entirely do away with gun crimes.
It's a good argument for every other type of prohibition, I'm not sure why it would fail here.
It isn't a good argument for any other type of position, except in the political sphere where rhetorical exaggeration produces support.
Rational examination of such statements, however, ultimately shows that no human behavior can be completely eliminated. They can, however, be minimized given the proper conditions, which is the argument that is really being made when the previously mentioned rhetorical exaggeration is made.
I was just pointing out that it is physically possible, which seemed to be the main stumbling block for people in this discussion.
And to the person saying that criminals don't hand back guns - congratulations, you win the obvious prize But it does make it a lot easier to see who is a criminal... anyone with a gun
biccat wrote:What is your position on murder prohibition?
My position is that a motivated individual's going to figure out a way to kill someone if he wants to, most of the time.
Agree.
For successful prohibition I would also like to point to the War on Drugs, people with multiple DUIs who still manage to get behind the wheels of a car, and felons who are already prohibited from owning weapons who end up shooting people.
Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.
Why would criminals turn their guns in?
THEY'RE CRIMINALS.
They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.
thenoobbomb wrote:Criminals in the USA must be heavily armed....
In the Netherlands our Dutch criminals that do break ins arent armed. Maximum some tools or... a knife!
And our East-European criminals are... well. Not armed.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
I was just pointing out that it is physically possible, which seemed to be the main stumbling block for people in this discussion.
And to the person saying that criminals don't hand back guns - congratulations, you win the obvious prize But it does make it a lot easier to see who is a criminal... anyone with a gun
I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.
Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.
Why would criminals turn their guns in?
THEY'RE CRIMINALS.
They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.
Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...
Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.
Why would criminals turn their guns in?
THEY'RE CRIMINALS.
They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.
Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.
I vote we kill them.
I doubt ~70% of the US public are murderers, do you?
Joey wrote:If you take away guns, gun crime doesn't happen.
Why would criminals turn their guns in?
THEY'RE CRIMINALS.
They don't. Impose a mandatory prison sentance on gun ownership of 5 years.
Whenever some local rude boy gets pulled for a driving offense and he has a gun in the glove box, wham, 5 years inside.
Keep that up for a few years, say a decade to be sure, and crime will be far lower.
Guys, I'm gonna take this a step further and say that I'm pretty confident we could stop murder altogether if we just thought up some really harsh sentence for anybody who murders.
I vote we kill them.
I doubt ~70% of the US public are murderers, do you?
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...
I would hope that the Europeans in this thread do realize that even in our gun loving society in the majority of states it is illegal to have a loaded gun in your car or in your pocket unless you are specifically licensed to carry concealed?
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My face when the anti-gun crowd realizes that most of their little "fixes" for getting rid of guns and gun crimes are actually already laws and didn't really have the effect that they think they will have.
d-usa wrote:I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.
And I'm sure the hypothetical innocent husband, wife and kids who are gunned down in the street when two gangs with readily available weapons open up on each other will be happy to know that if they had a gun they could have magically defended themselves.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Wrong, convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Melissia wrote:DC, despite having some of the strictest if not THE strictest laws in the country regarding gun control, became known as the murder capital of the US.
Probably because there are more people you would want to shoot there
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.But that would be expensive so, yeah.
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
Crimes involving a weapon!=the crime of owning a weapon in the first place.
In England if you get stopped by the police for any reason and you happen to be in posession of a firearm, you'll go strait to gaol.
Waiting until the criminal actually shoots someone is probably where the American police are going wrong...
Perhaps you missed it when I stated:
convicts are not allowed to legally have weapons. But they do.
If they get caught, they do go to jail. But we also have this thing in the Constitution where cops can't just come up and search a person without probable cause. For example, a known convict ges pulled over for speeding. That alone is not probable cause to search his vehicle or even his person. Often, since the typical crap baf is not dumb enough to go walking down the treet carrying an unconcealed firearm this means that until a crime is being committed and the firearm comes out, well... you should get the picture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am sure that the law abiding citizen who had no means of defending himself is glad that his bullet holes made identifying the criminals easier.
And I'm sure the hypothetical innocent husband, wife and kids who are gunned down in the street when two gangs with readily available weapons open up on each other will be happy to know that if they had a gun they could have magically defended themselves.
In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.
CptJake wrote:In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.
Of course, but that was not my point, although the fact that there are so many guns out there makes it easier to buy them illegally (or steal them (perhaps from legal owners!? :O), if all the threads about 40K armies being stolen because they were in gun cases are any indication)
Or the USA has piss-poor law enforcement. Introduce and enforce a manditory minimum sentance for gun use and you'll see gun crime plumet a few years after.
No. While I do have several gripes (Get to those in a minute.) about LEOs, the USA actually has pretty good law enforcement, unfortunately there is this little thing called "Reality" that steps in, and no amount of saying "WELL JUST GET BETTER COPS!" actually improves the situation. Small details like "Physical distance" "Time lost between initial dispatch and arrival of officers" and "Where the <CENSORED> is this apartment unit/dorm room/farmhouse" come into play.
Second....No, you won't. We might see a revolution though.
In fact it works the other way round. Its not the women who buy the weapons, but the men.
I am shocked. By the way, consider this: If my 6`3, 230 pound body gets in a fistfight with someone half my weight and a head shorter than me, I am going to go out on a limb here and posit that I am probably going to win, and after having won, do whatever I please. If however, the person half my size has a FIREARM...well...I think I need to find something better to do with my time. If -I- have a gun, and so does the other person (Really important bit, pay attention!)
The other person is at no greater disadvantage than when no firearms are present.
Everybody. Everybody can loose its temper. When you family is hurt or destroyed, people cant handle this. People should not have weapon around when this happens.
Yes. Everyone can lose their temper. However, the whole "People will flip out and shoot each other in the grocery store lines when they get mad!" argument just does not hold water in the face of history. Perhaps Germany is plagued with people who immediately go from "Life sucks!" to "I'm going to kill everyone I see!" but the people who actually DO behave in this manner in the US is a very tiny portion of the total US gunowners, and an even smaller portion of the people who carry guns around legally (BOTH police and CCW holders.)
The fact is that humans are just not able enough to be able to deal with the power of taking away another human's life, it's best left to the armed forces.
Clearly, the peasantry is too dim to have that much power. Instead, it should be properly placed in the hands of corrupt politicians, inept governments, and ham fisted militaries.
Then someone says the wrong thing and some poor mother's son is killed like a dog in a heartbeat.
Some mother's sons might as well be dogs. I am not going to cry into my beer over two drug dealers getting angry at each other and one popping the other one center mass a few times.
I'd much rather have more trained police than untrained, armed citizenry.
Ya know, I hear this one a lot. What exactly do you think the extent of police firearms training is? How far do you think they take education on deadly force law? Do you think this is a long, involved process, involving climbing 50,000 steps to the monastery, where a master will teach you in the ways of law and firearms to a jedi-like level of ability that mere humans cannot hope to obtain? How much time, effort and money do you think these steely-eyed paladins direct towards maintaining their godlike capabilties?
Guns are simple machines, even the anti- side of the argument concedes this (Except when it doesn't conveniently play into a fit of emotionally charged hyperbole, in which case the argument flips to "Only the blah blah blah are trained well enough to handle them!)...it does NOT take a great deal of time, effort, or money to get someone who has never laid hand on one in their life to a point where you could reasonably count on them to cover you. Deadly force law, thanks to being written in plain english, is ALSO understandable by the average mind with a few hours of instruction, thus teaching that person WHEN to cover you.
The whole mess is so easy that one human being without a badge can even teach it to another human being without a badge. It's amazing.
SOFDC wrote:Perhaps Germany is plagued with people who immediately go from "Life sucks!" to "I'm going to kill everyone I see!"
I can think of one.
Ya know, I hear this one a lot. What exactly do you think the extent of police firearms training is? How far do you think they take education on deadly force law? Do you think this is a long, involved process, involving climbing 50,000 steps to the monastery, where a master will teach you in the ways of law and firearms to a jedi-like level of ability that mere humans cannot hope to obtain? How much time, effort and money do you think these steely-eyed paladins direct towards maintaining their godlike capabilties?
This is an excellent point. An awful lot of police officers qualify when they have to, and otherwise ignore it. Search for some police ND videos on YouTube sometime.
That's not to say that police officers, on the balance of things, aren't good to have around, and have around armed. Just that they're not the answer to every problem.
CptJake wrote:In your scenario, the gang bangers are most likely not legally armed. That being the case, MORE laws for them to ignore tends to not be the answer.
Of course, but that was not my point, although the fact that there are so many guns out there makes it easier to buy them illegally (or steal them (perhaps from legal owners!? :O), if all the threads about 40K armies being stolen because they were in gun cases are any indication)
It isn't particularly hard to get hold of illegal guns in the UK.
It's just that criminals don't tend to want to use them so much.
d-usa wrote:3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.
Real life isn't like the movies, the human body is fairly fragile. A stab with even a small knife can often be life threatening.
Slash someone with a knife and that's less effective, but stick it in as much as one inch and they'll quickly need a hospital. Real criminals are not like Michael Myers.
2: Hands wielding knives are easier to catch or deflect than bullets.
3: I have to get within stabbing distance.
I appreciate that. The person with the knife has a much greater advantage on an unarmed person though, but I'm not recommending it as a choice for home defence.
But the point was that knives are effective weapons, the suggestion that they won't work because people will shrug off stab wounds is just absurd. You will certainly 'neutralise' an intruder be it a combat knife or a regular kitchen knife, stick a knife in anyone and they'll go down like a sack of spuds.
The ability to effectively wield a knife basically relies on the physical prowess of the wielder, which is why it's not very useful for self defense by the average person. A gun does not require much physical prowess to use properly. Point and shoot. Knives are useful for, say, soldiers or commandos or specops, or knife fighting thugs or martial artists-- but for someone like me, feth that, I'll take a gun.
d-usa wrote:3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.
Real life isn't like the movies, the human body is fairly fragile. A stab with even a small knife can often be life threatening.
Slash someone with a knife and that's less effective, but stick it in as much as one inch and they'll quickly need a hospital. Real criminals are not like Michael Myers.
Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully. Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out. A methed out crap bag can do a lot of damage in those 30 seconds, and he is not feeling the pain. It takes a long time for most stab wounds to kill a person, and they do not automatically stop a person from attacking either.
Conversely, if Mr Mossberg delivers a couple 12 gauge love taps to his lower abdomen/pelvic area the guy is going down. You can't stand without a pelvis even if you don't feel the pain.
I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In all my time working on the ambulance and emergency room I quickly learned that it is not that easy to take people down. Watched people tear through leather restraints, ignore being tazered, ignore peppe spray and even ignore getting shot.
When faced with a strung out bad guy I want the best possible option available to me.
d-usa wrote:I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In all my time working on the ambulance and emergency room I quickly learned that it is not that easy to take people down. Watched people tear through leather restraints, ignore being tazered, ignore peppe spray and even ignore getting shot.
When faced with a strung out bad guy I want the best possible option available to me.
Funny you mention that, I helped a security guard take downa dn cuff a meth head. It took me, the security guard (who was my size but in better physical shape) a buddy of mine who is about 6'2 and probably a good 250, and 2 store employees. All of that, just to "control" (I say that loosely) the guy enough to get cuffs on him. Keep in mind, he was about 5'8 and MAYBE 120 pounds. It was incredible. Id much rather the option to pop a few rounds center mass then try and fight one of them off with my awesome manlyness and mad knife skills.
Again, its a cultural thing, and unless your American, you cant possibly grasp the concept, and all these threads do, is just cause flame wars and Europeans know better then Americans.
Having been shot at before, it's not a good place to be
I think the gun situation in America is unique comnpared to other countries with guns, due to the social politics of the place. America, due to it's creation myths, is more individulistic in it's outlook compared to Scandinavia and Switzerland. An old cliche, but an accurate one IMO.
Travelling through New England last summer, I seen a lot of nice of nice places with a lot of guns, and wondered what kind of crime they were suffering. Most of these places look as though a parking ticket was the most serious offence.
I think American society is governed more by fear, compared to other countries. I remember months after 9/11 watching a news feature about local people in Virginia getting extra training to deal with a terrorist attack. Bear in mind this was a town in the middle of nowhere.
Anyway, it's not for us to judge. If American society wants guns, good luck to them. Similary keep your damn dirty hands out of our business
Finally, I've never believed in using guns for hunting. Too easy to point a trigger at a deer and shoot. Now, if you were to carve yourself a flint knife, track the deer, run it down, drink its blood and eat its heart...I would be impressed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Having been shot at before, it's not a good place to be
Been there too.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think American society is governed more by fear, compared to other countries..
I think you may very well not be understanding, and it may be a cultural thing that you are not. Partially because I have a concealed permit and firearms at the house there is no reason for my family and I to feel fear. We instead feel comfortable that we can handle the worse case though we pray it never happens. Other folks I know who also carry are the same. There is a sense of capability vice fear. A sense of not having to rely on a cop to show up in time. A sense of not having to depend on someone else for my family's safety.
Fear is removed partially because I have the tools to enable me.
Don't mean to sound cruel, but I don't really care that much for what goes on in America. Years of watching presidential elections has bored the backside off me I have no stake in American society, so if they want to walk around with guns, that is for them to decide. Obviously, I have a keen interest in American history, but if they want to shoot the hell out of each other, then good luck to them. I say this in the best possible sense.
When I go there on holiday I respect their laws and respect their society. If I lived there I would campaign for an end to gun ownership, but I don't so I'm not.
We in the UK need to roll up our sleeves and fix our own problems.
I also like how a certain crowd here can use the argument that guns serve no other purpose than to kill people so they should be outlawed, and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...
d-usa wrote:3) A stab with a knife is not going to neutralize the intruder.
Real life isn't like the movies, the human body is fairly fragile. A stab with even a small knife can often be life threatening.
Slash someone with a knife and that's less effective, but stick it in as much as one inch and they'll quickly need a hospital. Real criminals are not like Michael Myers.
Knives are much more fun than guns.
If I say any more I'll look weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
I would hope that the Europeans in this thread do realize that even in our gun loving society in the majority of states it is illegal to have a loaded gun in your car or in your pocket unless you are specifically licensed to carry concealed?
Almost every state does have increased mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. That doesn't seem to help, making your point invalid. Look stuff up before you make statements like that.
My face when the anti-gun crowd realizes that most of their little "fixes" for getting rid of guns and gun crimes are actually already laws and didn't really have the effect that they think they will have.
These two facts are contradictory-
1.The firearms that criminals possess are illegal
2.The law enforcement is effective
Yet you're claiming both are true. You're claiming that criminals are breaking the law with these guns, so why are they never confiscated and imprisoned?
I've been stabbed as well, it's even worse than being shot at! I'd rather have a clean shot to the head than watch the blood trickle out of a knife wound!!!
SOFDC wrote:Ya know, I hear this one a lot. What exactly do you think the extent of police firearms training is? How far do you think they take education on deadly force law? Do you think this is a long, involved process, involving climbing 50,000 steps to the monastery, where a master will teach you in the ways of law and firearms to a jedi-like level of ability that mere humans cannot hope to obtain? How much time, effort and money do you think these steely-eyed paladins direct towards maintaining their godlike capabilties?
Trained to do things - you know, keeping the peace, etc, etc. It's an 'I'd rather have the police (which we need) on the streets than the nuclear missiles (that we don't need) in the bunkers' kind of thing. But the comment seems to have been read out of context. Also love the reply. It would be funny, but well... it's not.
d-usa wrote:I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.
CptJake wrote: Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully. Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out. A methed out crap bag can do a lot of damage in those 30 seconds, and he is not feeling the pain. It takes a long time for most stab wounds to kill a person, and they do not automatically stop a person from attacking either.
I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.
Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.
Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.
It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.
If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.
Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?
d-usa wrote:If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.
Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?
Would you rather the guy who broke into your home had a gun, or didn't?
You've answered your own question.
....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place? What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police? I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬
d-usa wrote:I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.
CptJake wrote:
Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully. Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out. A methed out crap bag can do a lot of damage in those 30 seconds, and he is not feeling the pain. It takes a long time for most stab wounds to kill a person, and they do not automatically stop a person from attacking either.
I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.
Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.
Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.
It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.
And how many people who suggest that guns are sufficient spend any amount of combat training with them?
I am at the range shooting at least once a month, handling my guns and keeping proficient. Most people who own guns like shooting them, sothey will be familiar with them. When was the last time you guys practiced stabbing an intruder in the dark?
Automatically Appended Next Post: My examples are also real world experiences, not "what if" scenarios. You can say "that never happens", but I have seen it happen multiple times. I will take my own experiences over your "people make stuff up to present worst case scenarios" any day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
d-usa wrote:If I am in my legal residence with my legal gun then the guy entering illegally will get a legal bullet in his body.
Why should we change the laws to take legal guns out of legal peoples hands and give a benefit for people that break the law who now know that they wont get shot breaking into people's houses?
Would you rather the guy who broke into your home had a gun, or didn't?
You've answered your own question.
Criminals are already not legally able to own a weapon. So please tell me how making people give up their legally owned weapons is going to take them away from the guy who already is breaking the law?
d-usa wrote:I also like how a certain crowd here can use the argument that guns serve no other purpose than to kill people so they should be outlawed...
Who said this?
...and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...
Nope try harder.
I've not no love for the burglar and if they end up dead I don't care. But I am commenting on the gung-ho attitude of some people that guns are a cure all, that you *need* them to protect yourself against all these threats because knives aren't effective, that there's no safer way to defend yourself, etc. They aren't essential, the pro-gun people make an argument based on outright wrong statements that things like 'stabbing people with knives isn't effective', or coming up with improbable 'what if' scenarios. I don't think that the threat from intruders actually outweighs the general risk from owning the gun in the first place, in fact the statistics support that. Owning a gun is a matter of personal preference rather than through any necessity. And given the option, arming society is not particularly logical given the risks and benefits.
So when threatened by a gun it would be preferred to have one yourself? Is this better than their only being a gun in the criminal's hands? What I'm saying is that you'd just end up in a stand off between the two of you, with the criminal probably getting gittery at the fact that your pointing a gun at them. In the UK I don't think that its really that common for people to be held up at gunpoint. You give the guy your stuff and count it as a loss, you can cancel your bank cards etc, and hopefully the police'll take care of everything else. Would you prefer to kill the person that's robbing you instead of this? I can understand that people want to defend themselves because the criminal may choose to just shoot you anyway even if you comply though, but must you really defend yourself by doing the exact thing to them? Sorry but if you feel that you have to kill someone to defend yourself I'm counting that as manslaugter in my books. Criminals may choose to use weapons to extort you, but you don't need to use them to defend yourself properly.
We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/
d-usa wrote:
My examples are also real world experiences, not "what if" scenarios. You can say "that never happens", but I have seen it happen multiple times. I will take my own experiences over your "people make stuff up to present worst case scenarios" any day.
I didn't say it never happens, I said it was improbable. There is a difference. Also it's not about making up cases, you are exemplifying confirmation bias and focusing on a few cases beyond the norm. Just because you've met a few people who are difficult to restrain doesn't mean you are at risk of A) someone breaking into your house and attacking you and B) them being the sort of person only a few bullets will stop.
In the UK people worry about knife crime, but the overwhelming number of people being seriously assaulted and left in life-threatening conditions are not injured by firearms or knives but have been involved in fighting after having a few too many drinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote:We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/
The other issue that most have ignored until now is the most burglaries take place during the day and target empty houses because most criminals don't want a confrontation of any sort.
Wyrmalla wrote:We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night. Sure there less common here, but hell they still happen, we're just less paranoid about them. =/
The other issue that most have ignored until now is the most burglaries take place during the day and target empty houses because most criminals don't want a confrontation of any sort.
Indeed, the discussion seems to focus on the minority of instances where they occur when a person is actually there. A few of my neighbours has their houses broken into a while ago. When the burglars eventually made it into the house next to me, after creating a racket breaking in by smashing a few windows, the home owner came down stairs and confronted them. The guy just stared at her and casually walked out, cutting his losses. He could have pulled out a kitchen knife and attacked her to take her stuff, but instead he decided that he didn't want to add assault to his list of charges if he did get caught. He and the other guy were arrested however when they broke into the police officer's house a few streets away when the home owner had his silent alarm triggered.
Now it turned out that one of them, the driver and not the one who broke into my neighbour's house, had a knife. He didn't use it however when confronted however, so maybe the fact that he may have had the sence to give a damn about the consequences struck him apart from the American norm.
Melissia wrote:The ability to effectively wield a knife basically relies on the physical prowess of the wielder, which is why it's not very useful for self defense by the average person. A gun does not require much physical prowess to use properly. Point and shoot. Knives are useful for, say, soldiers or commandos or specops, or knife fighting thugs or martial artists-- but for someone like me, feth that, I'll take a gun.
Yeah, I agree. If someone was breaking into my house, I would try my best to stab the intruder, but a gun would be a lot simpler. Just peak around the corner, and blam.
Of course, my kabar is just begging to taste blood.... Maybe I'll shoot him and then stab him until he stops breathing. Bwuahahahahahahahahahah.
In other countries, guns don't seem to be used for recreation as much as we use them.
So when threatened by a gun it would be preferred to have one yourself?
Yes.
Is this better than their only being a gun in the criminal's hands?
Yes.
What I'm saying is that you'd just end up in a stand off between the two of you, with the criminal probably getting gittery at the fact that your pointing a gun at them.
Explain to me why I am pointing a firearm at a human being (The very act of which is considered almost US-wide to be the same as squeezing the trigger.) and not firing? That's a great way to earn yourself a sucking chest wound.
You give the guy your stuff and count it as a loss, you can cancel your bank cards etc, and hopefully the police'll take care of everything else. Would you prefer to kill the person that's robbing you instead of this?
I don't care one whit about cards I can cancel, cash I can replace, or a jacket that means little to me. What I care about is whether or not I think this donkey cave will be the type to leave no witnesses, or just plain psycho, or is actually after my girlfriend`s booty. If I think any of those last bits are closer to the truth, Sorry buddy, I think I intend for you to have a worse day than I am very shortly.
You are talking about people who victimize others at the point of a weapon. Depending on their mercy for your continued survival is not a smart idea.
Sorry but if you feel that you have to kill someone to defend yourself I'm counting that as manslaugter in my books.
Ok. That's why the jury is made up of more than one person.
We don't really live in a society here in GB where we're scared about being mugged in the street everytime we go out or having home-invasions every night.
Does one need to be terrified to be prepared? I am not generally afraid of getting in a car crash, but funny thing I still wear my seatbelt. I am not afraid that my house will burn down one day, but I own a fire extinguisher.
I cannot be prepared for EVERY eventuality, but those I can, I try to be. If I could see into the future and KNOW what I would need/not need to expect, I wouldn't be on the internet. I would be plucking lotto numbers from the ether and chasing a team of swimsuit models across the acreage of my new mansion.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
In other countries, guns don't seem to be used for recreation as much as we use them.
In the UK guns are owned mostly by those in rural areas (farmers) or by people that are part of clay pigeon shooting, are rarer bird shooting groups. I'd say that the weapons used are just modifications of those that were around at the turn of the last century, rather than the hi-tech arsenal that you see people toting out when they go hunting in places like South Africa or the US. I guess that here we just let other recreational sports that are easier to participate in take presidence. By that I mean that in a wargamers club there's only about a half dozen at most lads out of say fifty or so that have actually fired a gun, and I only know one who's done it recreationally (as part of a clay pigeon shooting day that he went on once), the others working in the police are being in the military.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @SOFDC
Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place? What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police? I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬
Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?
Should it ever come to that, possibly because they continued their attack until they died.
What's up with using weapons that'll incapcitate them until they can be apprehended by the police?
Do you think that multiple gunshot wounds won't incapacitate an attacker?
I mean what's the common range that people are being threatened at? Too far for a stun gun to fire? Or are we now going to get into a discussion over how dangerous non-lethal weapons are now too? ¬¬
Ask a US policeman that, sometime. On the one hand, you have a service pistol with 8-18 rounds on tap, and will quite happily stop a fight. On the other, you have a TASER, which is effective...if both electrodes hit. If they hit in a place where involuntary muscle contraction doesn't leave them still able to stand and fight with some capacity. (It does happen! Go research why SOP with tasers is to have a wingman...WITH A GUN(!) in case said taser...well..fails.)
Don't get me wrong, useful tool. Good second choice to a pistol. A pistol is still the more desirable option where practical.
CptJake wrote:
Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully.
Well, sort of. The kid stabbed him 12 times, when he was incapacitated is another matter.
CptJake wrote:
Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out.
This is where the whole "Knowing where to stab someone." thing comes into play.
That there diaphragm doesn't work very well when punctured.
Oh I know that a gun can quite capably incapacited someone, I'm just suggesting that weapons that don't cause so much physical harm may be a better route though. Sure weapons like tazers would need an increased shot capacity and need to have a much higher chance of disarming your opponent than just winding them for them to fully suit the lethality that people expect from guns. Wouldn't just rendering someone unconscious have the same affect as killing them if they didn't stop threatening you (and how could a person with a gunshot to each of their extremities still threaten you, being an exteme example) ? I find it a bit wierd that those who are advocating firearms are so willing to take a life to defend themselves. How difficult is it to disarm your assailent? Easier than just shooting them in the head right?
....Isn't there a mandatory class in how to effectively use a gun in place throughout the states anyhow? Youknow, a car being a deadly weapon too if you don't know how to use it properly, thus safety being part of the driving tests.
I wonder what the crime rate was when people were walking about with swords instead of guns? Was there the same argument of whether it was necesarry to carry a weapon to protect yourself as prevalent then (with just the same reasons being put forward by both sides). Probably not, but I guess our problems really haven't changed in the centuary or two since then. =/
Seaward wrote:Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.
So let's deal with the reality of the situation. Britain doesn't have a lot of guns, huzzah for Britain. They can have bobbies going about helping old ladies un-tree their cats.
The US has gakloads of guns, boo for the US. As someone living here, and as someone living here who's lived in really bad neighborhoods, I'll take any possible self-defense tools I can get in that environment.
Im in total agreement here, I feel its a better environment in the UK, but it doesnt mean I think the issue can be fixed in the US. I agree with Seaward, I dont think its fixable now.
Ergo, sorry chaps but you lose in this department, be happy in the knowledge you have a better chance of survivng cancer, better food, and better beaches.
For myself, if we move back here im getting a sweet HK P7M8!
Howard A Treesong wrote:I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.
A single stab wound won't take down someone unless it's particularly deep or in a vital area. You don't have to be pumped up on steroids and meth to ignore a minor wound.
Howard A Treesong wrote:It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases.
d-usa wrote:I I've got to help take down a guy on PCP. 3 cops and 5 nurses took 20 minutes to put a guy in handcuffs.
CptJake wrote:
Bull crap. Read the topic where it took some kid 12 stabs to kill a bully. Now imagine instead of a school yard bully you are dealing with a meth head. Even a good stab to the kidney is going to take over 30 seconds to bleed you out. A methed out crap bag can do a lot of damage in those 30 seconds, and he is not feeling the pain. It takes a long time for most stab wounds to kill a person, and they do not automatically stop a person from attacking either.
I forgot that when discussing a topic we always look at the most extreme examples of everything. When talking about gun and knife use, instead of looking at the broad statistics we focus on emotive cases and singular examples of some 120lb psycho pumped up on steroids and methamphetamines.
Someone says that knives 'won't neutralise an intruder', I refuted this because knife stab wounds are actually quite serious. The response is "but, but, but what if you get attacked by the Wolverine?!" Why is that relevant? I don't worry about mass shootings just because there was a high profile one last year, I don't worry about terrorists because the odds of that happening are tiny. I'm certainly aware of risks on the street and apply some common sense, but I don't go out with weapons because the drug crazed maniac might attack me. If you apply this thinking else where you'd never get in a car, because your chances of dying behind the wheel are so much higher than being killed by an intruder in your home.
Please, how often are houses broken into and their occupants attacked by unstoppable raging meth-heads? Yes, certainly a gun would be useful at that moment should it ever arise, but you can't justify arming a whole society on the back of it. We have drug addicts too but oddly they do not run amok murdering people in their houses.
It's useful to know how to use a knife to get the best out of it as pointed out by Melissa, but that is true of a gun. People seem to think owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases. If you wake up in the night and have to grab a gun and some how get your mind together to use it properly you are at high risk of provoking an extreme reaction from an intruder or simply having an accident. It's only an 'equaliser' if you know what you are doing. I bet most people don't, they get the gun but don't spend long periods of time handling it, which is one difference between a civilian and a soldier. If you don't it'll either be ineffective in your hands or worse you'll just injure the wrong person and add to the significant number of other people contributing to statistics of accidents with firearms.
Around here the odds of a mugging or a beak in being done by a hopped up perp are pretty good.
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.
CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.
Wasn't the line in the constitution so as a militia could be raised in case of an invasion? Odd application nowadays....
Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal. I mean you can't exactly kill someone with a paint brush very effectively can you? The whole thing about having the freedom to buy a gun's kind of counteracted by people saying that they feel that they have to buy one to defend themselves because of the society that they live in now isn't it?
d-usa wrote:I also like how a certain crowd here can use the argument that guns serve no other purpose than to kill people so they should be outlawed...
Who said this?
...and then turn around and tell people to just kill an intruder with a knife instead...
Nope try harder.
I've not no love for the burglar and if they end up dead I don't care. But I am commenting on the gung-ho attitude of some people that guns are a cure all, that you *need* them to protect yourself against all these threats because knives aren't effective, that there's no safer way to defend yourself, etc. They aren't essential, the pro-gun people make an argument based on outright wrong statements that things like 'stabbing people with knives isn't effective', or coming up with improbable 'what if' scenarios. I don't think that the threat from intruders actually outweighs the general risk from owning the gun in the first place, in fact the statistics support that. Owning a gun is a matter of personal preference rather than through any necessity. And given the option, arming society is not particularly logical given the risks and benefits.
Compared to a gun, a knife is very ineffective. Unless you are highly trained or a very big person, you wont be able to inflict any serious damage with a knife without coming very close to the attacker.
And most knife wounds wont kill someone quickly. Vital Organs are hard to hit, our bodies are built this way for a reason.
There is no way to stop criminals from having guns.
So the banning of guns (Which would result in all NON-Legal firearms being confiscated) Would leave only the criminals with firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote:
CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution. Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has? Free people can do what they want. No one here forces someone to buy a gun, new 40k army, rare coins, comic books, or anything else.
Wasn't the line in the constitution so as a militia could be raised in case of an invasion? Odd application nowadays....
Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal. I mean you can't exactly kill someone with a paint brush very effectively can you? The whole thing about having the freedom to buy a gun's kind of counteracted by people saying that they feel that they have to buy one to defend themselves because of the society that they live in now isn't it?
Do you hate sword collectors? Chefs? Farmers? Car Collectors? All these people have collections of very dangerous tools but doesn't mean they will use them to kill.
CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution.
Well, the whole society didn't do it, some old dudes did it back in the day, and the whole society went along with it.
CptJake wrote:
Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has?
So you endorse the freedom of people to possess child porn?
CptJake wrote:
And the bottom line is I don't need to justify arming a whole society based on anything other than this whole society wrote the right to arm themselves into their constitution.
Well, the whole society didn't do it, some old dudes did it back in the day, and the whole society went along with it.
CptJake wrote:
Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has?
So you endorse the freedom of people to possess child porn?
CptJake wrote:
Free people can do what they want.
Then why can't I steal your things?
1. They may have wrote it but now it's mine
2. Yes
3. Because I'll shoot you
Wyrmalla wrote:
Anyhow I personally would be deeply concerned if my neighbour were to have an armoury in their back room rather than a studio or gym. Don't compare gun collecting to something that's non lethal.
This is a good point as well. I'm not concerned about a man holding a beer can, but a man holding a beer can and a gun, or just a gun, is cause for notice.
thenoobbomb wrote:Criminals in the USA must be heavily armed....
In the Netherlands our Dutch criminals that do break ins arent armed. Maximum some tools or... a knife!
And our East-European criminals are... well. Not armed.
AustonT wrote:
1. They may have wrote it but now it's mine
Good answer.
AustonT wrote:
2. Yes
Child porn is something I'm the fence about, drawn CP isn't a huge deal to me (Its basically victimless.), but I can see clear reasons why photographic CP should be illegal.
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
On the positive Genghis Connie is officially a better shot with my Beretta 92 than the .22lrs now. I need to get another one as it was monopolized by her and the Wife, reducing me to a .380 at the range (needmore ammo for the Kimber). Writing is on the wall and my tweaked Beretta is now pretty much no longer mine. Time for another! We murderized a pumpkin and some milk jugs full of colored water yesterday.
CptJake wrote:
Do you hate sword collectors? Chefs? Farmers? Car Collectors? All these people have collections of very dangerous tools but doesn't mean they will use them to kill.
In my country those aren't all inherintly deadly vocations. Guns are used primarilly for shooting other people, its what they were designed for, things like clay pigeon shooting came much later (and originally as only a way to train how to kill the real ones). My grand father has a sword collection from around the world that he collected when he was a soldier. He had his house broken into and he didn't pull one of them out and start swinging because their meant for show and are useless now. If the gun collections that your on about were filled with weapons that couldn't be used then they would be fine, there's loads of them here in the UK, but all someone has to do is load them to use them as a weapon. It doesn't matter how much security you give them , it can still happen (and this thread is all about those slim factors...).
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.
Child porn is something I'm the fence about, drawn CP isn't a huge deal to me (Its basically victimless.), but I can see clear reasons why photographic CP should be illegal.
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o
Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.
Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o
Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.
I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.
Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o
Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.
I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).
0.0
Uh.....
What?
Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:
Come try that in my hood you buck teeth
Post proper images, yankeedoodle flimflammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote:
dogma wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o
Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.
I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).
0.0
Uh.....
What?
Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.
You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.
Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.
If you want we can start a new thread, but it will be locked quickly, most likely.
Joey wrote:
You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.
Right, but the owning of any form of child pornography (including stuff that has been drawn) is illegal in the US right? It should be illegal here too. Sorry, but the idea that any of the is allowed is pretty messed up to me.
But I guess that would be for another topic (and this one's already a spin off). =/
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
If you want we can start a new thread, but it will be locked quickly, most likely.
Yeah...discussing whether or not any of that is right is just plain wrong man.
Joey wrote:
You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.
Right, but the owning of any form of child pornography (including stuff that has been drawn) is illegal in the US right? It should be illegal here too. Sorry, but the idea that any of the is allowed is pretty messed up to me.
But I guess that would be for another topic (and this one's already a spin off). =/
Drawings are covered under freedom of speech. This isn't communist China.
There was a case where lots of people were arrested because of "child porn" that was distributed by the police and then found on the suspects computers.
This "child porn" was digitally created and was photographs of legal aged porn altered to look like kids.
The case ended up being thrown out because "fake child porn" is not illegal because no children were harmed.
d-usa wrote:There was a case where lots of people were arrested because of "child porn" that was distributed by the police and then found on the suspects computers.
This "child porn" was digitally created and was photographs of legal aged porn altered to look like kids.
The case ended up being thrown out because "fake child porn" is not illegal because no children were harmed.
Right. Want to make a new thread, or not? I would happily contribute to such a thread but don't drag this OT.
Ahtman wrote:Going by the responses the main reason is that people live in constant fear of home invasion.
Not me. Now sockpuppets and jackalopes, thats a different story. Terrifying!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
Thats so wrong its not funny-but this is coming from the guy who thinks he can kick the ass of a mountain lion barehanded.
The colonies were formed by people stealing it from its rightful owners (ok except French Louisiana). The farmers in the US had a chance the guy at the door was a warparty looking to wipe them and everyone along the frontier out. Now that may be the same in Liverpool, but I don't think London had quite the same issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMerlin wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
You keep telling yourself that, but you will of course always be wrong.
people also keep telling themselves that they need a gun.
but they will of course always be wrong
dont know where you live, but here in germany i haven't even HEARD about a burglary in this area. EVER!
i certainly dont need a gun
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.
No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
Thats so wrong its not funny-but this is coming from the guy who thinks he can kick the ass of a mountain lion barehanded.
The colonies were formed by people stealing it from its rightful owners (ok except French Louisiana). The farmers in the US had a chance the guy at the door was a warparty looking to wipe them and everyone along the frontier out. Now that may be the same in Liverpool, but I don't think London had quite the same issues.
Did you even read what I put? I said people in rural areas DO need guns. People in sub-urbs do not.
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMerlin wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:No one who lives in a city needs a gun.
You keep telling yourself that, but you will of course always be wrong.
people also keep telling themselves that they need a gun.
but they will of course always be wrong
dont know where you live, but here in germany i haven't even HEARD about a burglary in this area. EVER!
i certainly dont need a gun
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.
Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P
Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.
The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.
Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.
Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.
So let's deal with the reality of the situation. Britain doesn't have a lot of guns, huzzah for Britain. They can have bobbies going about helping old ladies un-tree their cats.
The US has gakloads of guns, boo for the US. As someone living here, and as someone living here who's lived in really bad neighborhoods, I'll take any possible self-defense tools I can get in that environment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?
You can't control all the guns. Give me 2,000 and I will get you a fully select fire AK74 straight from mother Russia by way of Columbia of Venezuela. The border is open down here.
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.
I have grown up and lived my whole life around fighter pilots. Clearly, you can put me in the cockpit of an F/A-18 and I'd know what I was talking about.
Also, aren't you the guy who was pretty certain he could beat a mountain lion in a fistfight? I'm not sure I want to subscribe to your self defense theorems.
Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P
Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.
ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem
That's not how it happened.
The nazis didn't get elected one day and the next just go "Right, off to the ovens with you".
There were a series of progressively more severe rules, eventually certain families were picked for "relocation"(resisting which is further proof of how insideous and wicked the jewish plague was). This was a time when many Germans genuinely thought that jews were seeking to undermine the strength of Germany, if Jews shot at soldiers and policemen if anything it would have hastened their demise.
ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem
That's not how it happened.
The nazis didn't get elected one day and the next just go "Right, off to the ovens with you".
There were a series of progressively more severe rules,
So history isn't completely lost on you. You just conveniently ignore that one of those rules was outlawing the ownership of weapons by Jews.
Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P
Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.
Well it was made to allow for a militia to be founded so that makes a kind of sence. But by arms that would mean that someone could technically stick a Naval Destroyer in thei nearest lake or have a few misiles in their garden right? Britain used to have laws where everyman needed to own a bow and train with it weekly, but we got rid of those (ok we still technically need to train with a bow). I think the whole American ideal of "freedom" has kind of messed up that old law a little. =/
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Don't mean to sound cruel, but I don't really care that much for what goes on in America. Years of watching presidential elections has bored the backside off me I have no stake in American society, so if they want to walk around with guns, that is for them to decide. Obviously, I have a keen interest in American history, but if they want to shoot the hell out of each other, then good luck to them. I say this in the best possible sense.
When I go there on holiday I respect their laws and respect their society. If I lived there I would campaign for an end to gun ownership, but I don't so I'm not.
We in the UK need to roll up our sleeves and fix our own problems.
Yet here you are arguing about US gun control. If you don't care why are you posting on the topic and not mere4ly non-US targets? You know why? Because you're jealous of our utter domination of processed foods. Admit it. Its the first step in recovery.
Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P
Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.
Well it was made to allow for a militia to be founded so that makes a kind of sence. But by arms that would mean that someone could technically stick a Naval Destroyer in thei nearest lake or have a few misiles in their garden right? Britain used to have laws where everyman needed to own a bow and train with it weekly, but we got rid of those (ok we still technically need to train with a bow). I think the whole American ideal of "freedom" has kind of messed up that old law a little. =/
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.
I don't. I'm the quiet guy you don't feth with, cause if you do my wife will shoot you in the face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
Howard A Treesong wrote:It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases.
'Injuries' covers more than fatalities and you want to look at the risks and benefits of owning a gun in the home. Unless you take the gun out with you, it's useless against crime committed anywhere outside the home. At home a gun injury is far more likely to be accidental than malicious, and where deliberate it's a friend/relative and not a stranger.
The article I had read before is now behind a paywall, but from what I quoted before
However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger
A study of all gunshot injuries in Galveston, Texas, over a 3-year period found only 2 that were related to residential burglary or robbery. In one, the homeowner was shot and killed by a burglar; in the other, the homeowner shot the burglar. During the same interval, guns in the home were involved in the death and injury of more than 100 residents, family members, friends, or acquaintances
Accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 in the USA have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun than children in other developed countries. Residents from the 15 US states with highest gun ownership were 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than those from the 6 states with the lowest gun ownership. For every fatal gun accident, more than 10 people are injured seriously enough in gun accidents to require hospital ER treatment.
Suicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns every day. Guns are clearly the leading instrument in successful suicide attempts. Numerous studies have shown that guns in the home are associated with significantly higher rates of suicide, especially for adolescents and young adults.
Homicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 33 Americans were murdered with guns every day. Over 2/3 of all homicides were done with firearms. Of 400 homicide victims from 3 US metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes, over half died from gunshot wounds; in 95% of cases, the perpetrator was not a stranger – in only 14% of cases, was there evidence of forced entry. The presence of a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Intimidation. Studies of battered women reveal that guns are used to intimidate and coerce; one analysis of Californian shelter data shows this to be a factor in 2/3 of cases.
-----------
The benefits of having a gun at home are usually grouped under the heading ‘protection’, plus, of course, ‘fun’. There are fewer stats and references to these topics in the review.
Deterrence. Lower crime rates have been reported in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. The reverse is also reported in other studies.
Thwarting Crimes. In fact, actual use of a gun is extremely rare – in about 1% of home invasions and 0.1% in sexual assaults, according to police reports; and the reports indicate that a lot of these are inappropriate use of the gun. And a poorly-trained gun owner is even more unlikely to use the weapon effectively, even when self-defense is involved.
It sounds like most people killed by gun crime die somewhere other than home when they don't have their gun, making ownership a moot point. And of the few that do occur in the home, people are unable to defend themselves effectively even when they have a gun in the house. Furthermore, people owning guns find that there's a much greater risk through accidents than there ever is through someone breaking in which is rather what I've been saying throughout.
As often with crime, you are far more likely to be murdered by a relative. Broadly, the risk is not from someone breaking in and shooting you, it's from you either shooting yourself or the mother in law.
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
AFAIK that's pretty much what the confederacy was. You'd think they'd have learned by now.
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
it has happened on more than one occasion, and depending on you person views you can view a lot of private security companies as armies in all but name.
In reality equipping a modern army without governmental consent would be impossible. By the letter of the Constitution it should be legal.
A good example of an army raised and funded by one man would be Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. Since the collapse of the true militia system such organizations have disappeared. Militarily a sound decision but unquestionably a betrayal of the constitutional intent of the second amendment that if needs be the people could overthrow an injust government. Any and all attempts to do so are rightly called rebellions, until one actually wins.
d-usa wrote:Well, if you get a cc license, then you can take your gun with you.
Or depending on the state, you can open carry, and take your fire arm with you without a CCW. I know Michigan is an open carry.....er well, last time I thought about it ti was
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as size/number of firearms Americans can own, I personally havnt heard of any set limit. I personally know a few people that have several saves full of weapons. So rough guess, 40+?
Accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 in the USA have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun than children in other developed countries. Residents from the 15 US states with highest gun ownership were 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than those from the 6 states with the lowest gun ownership. For every fatal gun accident, more than 10 people are injured seriously enough in gun accidents to require hospital ER treatment.
Don't you think it's surprising that kids in the US are only 11 times more likely to be killed accidentally with a gun than in places where guns are all but illegal to own? But this doesn't really give an idea of the actual risk.
Are people with guns more or less likely to have kids die from accidents in the home?
Suicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns every day. Guns are clearly the leading instrument in successful suicide attempts. Numerous studies have shown that guns in the home are associated with significantly higher rates of suicide, especially for adolescents and young adults.
And this isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of committing suicide. Are gun owners more or less likely to have suicide?
Homicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 33 Americans were murdered with guns every day. Over 2/3 of all homicides were done with firearms. Of 400 homicide victims from 3 US metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes, over half died from gunshot wounds; in 95% of cases, the perpetrator was not a stranger – in only 14% of cases, was there evidence of forced entry. The presence of a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Quoting homicide statistics doesn't mean there's a risk of owning a gun, it means there's a risk of homicide.
Intimidation. Studies of battered women reveal that guns are used to intimidate and coerce; one analysis of Californian shelter data shows this to be a factor in 2/3 of cases.
This isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of battered women. Are women in a gun-owning home more or less likely to be intimidated, controlling for other variables?
And none of these actually support your point, because they're not actually relevant to the 'safety' of owning a gun.
d-usa wrote:Well, if you get a cc license, then you can take your gun with you.
Or depending on the state, you can open carry, and take your fire arm with you without a CCW. I know Michigan is an open carry.....er well, last time I thought about it ti was
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as size/number of firearms Americans can own, I personally havnt heard of any set limit. I personally know a few people that have several saves full of weapons. So rough guess, 40+?
Well, I picked cc because it is fairly consistent. Open carry has a lot more variation between states.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another downside of using knives for home defense is that you are going to be in trouble when zombies attack.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to rely on a knife when defending my home from the living dead. If I am close enough to stab, then they are close enough to bite.
When faced with zombies you want guns, and some of these:
Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?
Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.
... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.
Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?
Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.
... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.
You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them?
Emigrate.
Joey wrote:You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them? Emigrate.
No, the criminals can sue because the home-owners injured them, not because they injured the home-owners.
I tell everyone who will listen, if you have to pull your gun from concealed carry you have to shoot, if you have to shoot there can only be one story yours; about how this corpse ended up here.
Depends, if you shoot the bad guy in the back because he started rubbing as soon as he figured out what was happening, and you might be talking to the DA.
Best answer regarding any situation where you drew your gun and/or shot is to call your attorney as soon as you are done calling 911.
But the "what to do after you defended yourself" discussion is also worth a thread of its own and depends very heavily on the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The deciding factor in many jurisdictions is often the indent.
If you draw your gun simply to scare somebody, you can be charged with branding or pointing which are both felonies in Oklahoma.
If you draw your gun with the intent to defend yourself, but the threat is neutralized before you shoot (ie: guy runs away) then shooting him may no longer be considered self defense and you may be justified in not shooting.
Just lots of variables that are not really served by a blanked statement like "if you pull you must shoot" IMO.
Joey wrote:You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them? Emigrate.
No, the criminals can sue because the home-owners injured them, not because they injured the home-owners.
What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
I may be completely wrong though, it is 6:20am.
Everyone in the UK already knows how crap the laws surrounding intruders are, you almost have to ask them if they want a cup of tea whilst they're ransacking your home.
Avatar 720 wrote:What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
In that case, it's more the simple fact that a dead person cannot sue, only a living person can.
The "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas usually prevent someone from being criminally liable if they shoot someone defending their home so the concern of avoiding being sued in this case is a civil matter rather than a criminal one. Civil laws are FUBAR in this regard, though not as much as they are in the UK thankfully.
Amusingly enough, "Castle Doctrine" laws historically originated in the UK.
Avatar 720 wrote:What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
In that case, it's more the simple fact that a dead person cannot sue, only a living person can.
The "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas usually prevent someone from being criminally liable if they shoot someone defending their home so the concern of avoiding being sued in this case is a civil matter rather than a criminal one. Civil laws are FUBAR in this regard, though not as much as they are in the UK thankfully.
Amusingly enough, "Castle Doctrine" laws historically originated in the UK.
Yeah, it is not a criminal charge but a civil one. And then it is pretty much a case of anybody being able to sue anybody for anything. Even if you kill the intruder, his family could still sue you. Heck there is a case where a woman is suing the family of a guy who was killed by running in front of a train. A piece of his body that flew of hit her and injured her and "he should have anticipated that"...
D-USA.
If you draw your gun for any purpose buts it's use( and sometimes it's use) you can be charged with brandishing and criminal endangerment immediately. Which means if you have to draw the decision should already be made in you mind that your life or someone elses is in danger and you can articulate that to the DA. afterwards call 911 then refuse to answer questions until you have an attorney. Most cops don't put on any pressure at that point because that's wha they do too.
Of course your right after an incident does bear a while conversation that's just where I was coming from.
But if you shoot a bad guy in the back, you will have a lot of questions to answer and "I already had my gun drawn so I shot him even though he was no a threat anymore" may not be a good answer. But even in cc states vary and that's where the "always lawyer up" is truly the best advise.
Even if you don't shoot because the bad guy ran away and then call 911 to report the crime (which would be my position) you still want to lawyer up in case you get charged with brandishing.
I guess the moral between is two would be "while your interpretation of what the law allows or requires you to do, always get a lawyer". It's good to agree on something.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one? For safety? Then you did something very wrong to be so afraid that you want a gun - dont tell me what!
(and how could a person with a gunshot to each of their extremities still threaten you, being an exteme example) ?
Drug use, adrenaline, fanaticism, insufficient injury to extremity to render it useless, resulting in continued combat. Any number of reasons why. It's also a very poor idea to shoot for extremities. Not only is it not as likely to actually STOP the assault, but if you launch projectiles, and you miss, you are responsible for anything or anyone that bullet hurts that DIDN'T deserve shooting. Don't miss. Aiming for limbs is a greater chance you will miss.
I find it a bit wierd that those who are advocating firearms are so willing to take a life to defend themselves. How difficult is it to disarm your assailent? Easier than just shooting them in the head right?
Very, and No. It's difficult to hit a mobile head sized target under most conditions, and that is an order of magnitude easier than trying to disarm someone equipped with multiple braincells (Disregarding absolute, total surprise and a staggering difference in reflex times.) The lethal weapon 4 trick of pulling a slide off someones gun, or yanking a pistol from an attacker is something that should be left to the movies or as an absolute last measure.
....Isn't there a mandatory class in how to effectively use a gun in place throughout the states anyhow? Youknow, a car being a deadly weapon too if you don't know how to use it properly, thus safety being part of the driving tests.
Yes and no. For raw ownership, generally no. For hunting or carrying a pistol concealed in public, yes. There are safety classes for both hunters, and for concealed carry applicants, and the US has a wide assortment of private shooting schools and instructors running classes across the country for any sort of shooting you can think of.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
Nope. Though if you start shaking the boat, the US tends to find some legal I not dotted or T not crossed to haul you in on. And then they run your house over with a tank. But yes, it's theoretically possible (assuming I had the financial power) to amass armored vehicles, artillery, small arms (Except machine guns. I am speaking strictly as a private citizen, not as someone starting a "security company" or similar), aircraft, explosives and support equipment quite legally.
......However just imagining the mass of regulations is causing me a mild panic attack. And also 12 aneurysms.
I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
Is it the third amenment "Right to bare to arms" or is it the second. Anyways, I love how Americans always cry wolf and come back to the third or second amendment. We have a right to bare arms and defend our families and homes!. Bullcrap, the amendment says right to bare arms... It actually go's a little something like this
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A Militia America... not a single human being walking around with a .45 cal pistol or .9mm the point of the amendment was for the state or region to defend its selves against an invading force or movement, mainly the English during the time. ITS SAYS NOTHING about "Yes you can carry fire arms around to defend your "personl self" and/or family.
Here it is. Don't carry guns and less people will get killed, period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
Because you live in The Netherlands. Hell I wouldn't even bother locking my doors if I lived there. We don't need guns to feel safe, we own them because we can. It is better to be prepared for the worst then not at all.
I really did not want to bring this up, but someone went and done used the tired old "-YOU- don't have any right to keep and bear arms, its for the MILITIA!" argument. (Also, you may wish to read up on a minor US supreme court case, DC Vs. Heller.)
10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
I am of the appropriate gender, between the ages of 17 and 45, and I am a US citizen.
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
I'm willing to bet you don't have quite as large a gang problem as we do here.
You don't carry a gun to feel safe. You carry a gun for the same reason you have a family emergency evacuation plan, a rope ladder in your upper-story room, a spare tire in your trunk. Chances are you'll never have to use them. If a situation arises where you do, you'll regret not having them.
In most books and articles that I have read would suggest, in America, owning a gun and storing inside your home does not create an "arms race" between you and the criminal element. Rather, it makes the criminal types typically think twice about hitting a home, especially if they do not know whether there are firearms in the place.
While I do not currently own a firearm, when I return "home" I will be purchasing at least one. Owning a firearm as a measure of "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" just makes sense.
The 'easiest' and best way to ensure kids don't kill themselves or their little friends? Teach them from the earliest age how to act around a firearm, and how to treat a firearm. I was raised to treat any firearm as being completely loaded, and never point it at anything I did not intend to shoot, don't put a finger anywhere near the trigger unless I'm ready to actually shoot, etc. If people are raised properly around a firearm, there are much less risks inherent in trusting them with one.
They take great respect, responsibility and education to handle.
They are not toy guns. You don't pretend to be a cowboy in the wild west.
I personally feel everyone should have a gun for safety. I own 7 guns. Luckily I never had to use one to protect myself from a home invasion but I am a bit of a paranoid with home security. Bars on all my windows, steel doors, and a few other gadgets.
As for defending my self with fists or a knife? Ha! I'm not chuck Norris, plus I do not want to take the chance of the intruder owning a gun himself.
Outside of the whole protection thing, I like the hobby of it as well. Gun shows, target practice, hunting.
Though I prefer to use bows and crossbows when hunting. Even if I have a less than 1% success rate at killing something with bow.
I think a better question would be, to what extent should buying weapons be legal? I am aware of the whole second amendment, but is owning a grenade launcher needed?
I have a gun safe and trigger locks on all my guns.
I also have a tomahawk I smoke out of.
Anyone up for a hit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem
Yea but, as Dogma noted, what if they were a million midgets with Kentucky Rifles?
I would like to see someone paint a picture of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o
Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.
I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).
I am slight confused (and I'm sorry for being off topic)
What you are saying is it is not illegal for someone to say they are attracted sexually to kids. Just saying it, nothing physical, no touching kids or having images on your computer?
I think a better question would be, to what extent should buying weapons be legal? I am aware of the whole second amendment, but is owning a grenade launcher needed?
What are your thoughts?
Under the 2nd, as written, there shouldn't be any limit. If I wanted to buy 200 Mk.19 40mm Grenade Launchers, and store a few thousand rounds for each, then it should be no problem.
However, I know that this would really REALLY be a bad idea. I personally think that there is something of a distinction to be made from "military grade" weapons, and non-military weapons. SAWs, M240Bs and the like should remain as they are, in the military to be used by trained professionals. The M-16/M-4 or AK-47 type weapons, I have no problem with the private citizen owning, because more often than not, the versions that can be purchased from vendors, are made to be single semi-automatic, rather than fully-auto. Sure they were still designed with a purely military intent, but there are many folks who either were in the military and enjoy owning/firing them, and there are still more collectors who enjoy the look of them.
The problem with some firearm legislation, is that they place several rules for what qualifies as an "assault rifle", and yet certain muzzle-loading rifles fall into this category because they meet at least 2 distinctions in the legislation, and yet, other rifles do not (which many people would call an assault rifle), IIRC, the M1 Garand is not classified as an assault rifle because of the clip type used, even though it has a bayonet plug on the barrel end.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally. Over 80 percent.
Now I will say there are some issues we have in some areas how anyone can obtain a gun. I don't see an issue for someone to go through a mandatory background check.
Wouldn't sell a gun to a repeat wife beater or a guy just out of prison for attempted murder.
Agreed, I dont have a problem with background checks and the paper work either, to me its a necessary precaution. But you guys seem to not realize, CRIMINALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BUY/OWN FIREARMS.
But the problem with this, is they are criminals, which means they break the law and do CRIME. So yes, they break into peoples homes, and steal things........like FIREARMS. And no saying if we just got rid of the guns, they wouldnt have them either! Is just a stupid argument. They will still carry firearms, and still use firearms, and would then leave law abiding citizens without a means to protect themselves.
Accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 in the USA have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun than children in other developed countries. Residents from the 15 US states with highest gun ownership were 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than those from the 6 states with the lowest gun ownership. For every fatal gun accident, more than 10 people are injured seriously enough in gun accidents to require hospital ER treatment.
Don't you think it's surprising that kids in the US are only 11 times more likely to be killed accidentally with a gun than in places where guns are all but illegal to own? But this doesn't really give an idea of the actual risk.
But it does indicate that guns aren't handled safely.
Suicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns every day. Guns are clearly the leading instrument in successful suicide attempts. Numerous studies have shown that guns in the home are associated with significantly higher rates of suicide, especially for adolescents and young adults.
And this isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of committing suicide. Are gun owners more or less likely to have suicide?
Answer is in the quote.
Homicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 33 Americans were murdered with guns every day. Over 2/3 of all homicides were done with firearms. Of 400 homicide victims from 3 US metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes, over half died from gunshot wounds; in 95% of cases, the perpetrator was not a stranger – in only 14% of cases, was there evidence of forced entry. The presence of a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Quoting homicide statistics doesn't mean there's a risk of owning a gun, it means there's a risk of homicide.
You're right about that, though looking at the UK and US, the US has a higher murder rate and a large proportion of killings using guns. You can put this down to simply having a more violent society and that the guns are just the tool that immediately comes to hand.
Intimidation. Studies of battered women reveal that guns are used to intimidate and coerce; one analysis of Californian shelter data shows this to be a factor in 2/3 of cases.
This isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of battered women. Are women in a gun-owning home more or less likely to be intimidated, controlling for other variables?
No I'll give you that, it's correlation rather than causation.
And none of these actually support your point, because they're not actually relevant to the 'safety' of owning a gun.
What, apart from the fact that suicides are higher? That higher gun ownership correlated with a greater frequency gun related injuries? If we take this quote,
Are people with guns more or less likely to have kids die from accidents in the home?
I don't know actually. But this line of argument appears to be that that perhaps overall numbers of domestic accidents are unchanged with gun ownership, so the fact that people with guns are far more likely to be injured by them doesn't matter, or something. The fact that kids are apparently more likely to be injured by guns in regions with higher gun ownership does somewhat suggest that they aren't handled or stored safely.
But anyway, I notice you missed the other part of my post dealing with the necessity for gun ownership which if you've been reading my posts so far is the other strong thread to my argument.
However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger
A study of all gunshot injuries in Galveston, Texas, over a 3-year period found only 2 that were related to residential burglary or robbery. In one, the homeowner was shot and killed by a burglar; in the other, the homeowner shot the burglar. During the same interval, guns in the home were involved in the death and injury of more than 100 residents, family members, friends, or acquaintances
------------
Deterrence. Lower crime rates have been reported in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. The reverse is also reported in other studies.
Thwarting Crimes. In fact, actual use of a gun is extremely rare – in about 1% of home invasions and 0.1% in sexual assaults, according to police reports; and the reports indicate that a lot of these are inappropriate use of the gun. And a poorly-trained gun owner is even more unlikely to use the weapon effectively, even when self-defense is involved.
Piston Honda wrote:
Most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally. Over 80 percent.
Now I will say there are some issues we have in some areas how anyone can obtain a gun. I don't see an issue for someone to go through a mandatory background check.
Wouldn't sell a gun to a repeat wife beater or a guy just out of prison for attempted murder.
Exactly. I don't think that the US needs to ban guns, rather just enforce the background checks that are already in place. There is also the whole deal with a store's right to "refuse service to anyone" which has proved quite useful in recent months for many establishments.
CptJake wrote: Again, who the feth are you or anyone else to give a toss about what anyone else collects/buys/has?
So you endorse the freedom of people to possess child porn?
Nice try . Look at my earlier post in this thread:
CptJake wrote:0Why should anyone give a toss what another free person decides to own/collect as long as the items collected are not themselves the result of harming another human (kiddie porn comes to mind)?
I would have thought guns illegally acquired are not done so though shops but bought second hand or just stolen. Seems a bit silly to try and trick a gun store into selling you something in case the inform the police.
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally. Over 80 percent.
...
thenoobbomb wrote:The biggest reason so many criminals over there have so many guns because they are allowed too.
If your not feeling safe, get better locks on your door and window.
Most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally. Over 80 percent.
...
Have you got a source for that?
I would be interested to see the data.
I would too, as a supporter of gun rights I would love for that to be true.
As a person who believes facts are paramount it sounds patently false.
I've looked around at several websites that claim the 80% number in regards to percentages of gun crimes committed using illegal firearms, but I haven't been able to nail down the source material. The link does show that most people arrested for gun crimes either did obtain their gun illegally or found that it was very easy to obtain a gun illegally.
FBI reports:
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –
■a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
■a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
■family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
In other words, it ain’t legal purchases from firearms dealers in legal shops or gun shows that criminals use.”
Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.
The article goes into straw buyers and other methods used to illegally obtain guns.
Another article:
Ninety-five percent of US police commanders and sheriffs believe most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources, according to a survey released by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Coincidentally, data released by the US Department of Justice appears to confirm this claim by our nation's police executives. The DOJ study refutes the conventional wisdom that guns used in criminal acts are purchased at retail stores or gun shows.
FBI reports:
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –
■a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
■a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
■family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
In other words, it ain’t legal purchases from firearms dealers in legal shops or gun shows that criminals use.”
Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.
The article goes into straw buyers and other methods used to illegally obtain guns.
Another article:
Ninety-five percent of US police commanders and sheriffs believe most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources, according to a survey released by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Coincidentally, data released by the US Department of Justice appears to confirm this claim by our nation's police executives. The DOJ study refutes the conventional wisdom that guns used in criminal acts are purchased at retail stores or gun shows.
Especially: "Ninety-five percent of US police commanders and sheriffs believe most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources, according to a survey released by the National Association of Chiefs of Police."
I've looked around at several websites that claim the 80% number in regards to percentages of gun crimes committed using illegal firearms, but I haven't been able to nail down the source material. The link does show that most people arrested for gun crimes either did obtain their gun illegally or found that it was very easy to obtain a gun illegally.
That doesn't surprise me much as it is the same in the UK.
The proportion of the following categories would be interesting to know.
1. Rate of crimes involving guns versus overall crime rate.
2. Rate of crimes involving illegal guns compared with rate of crimes involving use of a legal gun by the perpetrator.
Kilkrazy wrote:
The proportion of the following categories would be interesting to know.
1. Rate of crimes involving guns versus overall crime rate.
2. Rate of crimes involving illegal guns compared with rate of crimes involving use of a legal gun by the perpetrator.
In regards to number 2, do you mean a situation where one of a couple things (examples) happens:
a. Group of armed robbers robs a bank using AK-47s and other weapons that are generally illegal for the general public to own (as in L.A.)
b. a guy breaks into a house with a Glock 40 that was "acquired" from another place, with the intent of knocking it over and taking any valuables.
I think that either situation 'type' would greatly influence numbers involved.
thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.
How's the inner city heroin or crack cocaine problem there? How's the street gang problem there?
Both are pretty rampant here in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and I'm positive that it is an issue in many other cities. Muggings, beatings, and home invasions happen all the time here. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
