Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US? Just noticing that this discussion is pretty much the views of gun supporters in the US vs the rest of the world (noting that the latter hasn't included many supporters of the former). 0.o
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.
Imagine someone's wife comes home, finds her husband in bed with her sister, and shoots them both with her legally owned self-defence pistol. This would obviously be a double murder by a hitherto law abiding citizen in legal possession of a weapon.
I'm dramatizing, of course, however such situations are not uncommon.
Most murders are committed by friends, family and acquaintances. Such people are certainly not always felons in illegal possession of weapons. These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Looking at the sources I listed, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. I suspect that means the 'crimes of passion' are a small percentage of over all gun crimes.
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
I thought discussion was so that eventually everyone that i am right......always.
the "we need guns" people will never change their minds, and the "guns are bad" guys wont either. Give it up guys, its pointless.....
I don't think many of the discussions on similar subjects here on Dakka, or in the greater world ever really come to a one single conclusion. Its the the formulating of the arguments for either side that's the objective, to gain a greater understanding of the either side's points of view to put it bluntly. =P
I thought discussion was so that eventually everyone that i am right......always.
^^ Yeah pitty that most of the other people in such topics are clearly thinking the same way too.
CptJake wrote:Looking at the sources I listed, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. I suspect that means the 'crimes of passion' are a small percentage of over all gun crimes.
It would be interesting to know the proportion of murders committed with legal/illegal guns. We know that about 2/3rds of murders are committed with guns.
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.
Thats because everyone has hookers and weed and are therefore chill.
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 don't need hookers to have sex or drugs to enjoy my life.
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US?
I wonder how many Mexicans support it, what with the rampant gang violence that goes on? It's not like the drug cartels are lacking in guns...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
There are people with very strong opinions on this issue.
I don't own a gun, but I'm not against them. If I were to get one, I'd either keep it in a safe or with a gunlock on it.
I got to shoot my Dad's guns as a child, and he taught me to respect them. It's a hobby, as much as anything else. I just don't feel the need or have the desire to own one right now.
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
oh come on, Melissia! you know that people are more likely to pull a trigger than to kill someone with scissors or beat their brains out with a baeball bat. Your argument is nonesense, sorry. It takes much more anger and aggresion to actively beat and rip and tear a person apart than to just bend your finger.
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
oh come on, Melissia! you know that people are more likely to pull a trigger than to kill someone with scissors or beat their brains out with a baeball bat. Your argument is nonesense, sorry. It takes much more anger and aggresion to actively beat and rip and tear a person apart than to just bend your finger.
Ask anyone who's actually pulled the trigger on somebody. Not as easy as you think. You damn well know what you're about to do. There is no "Oh, I really wasn't thinking when I pulled the trigger."
But, assuming this is a true crime of passion, the emotion is there. And typically, in these types of crimes, once it starts they dont stop until they are physically unable to move whatever body part is used (ie. the arm if beating with fists or other object).
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US? Just noticing that this discussion is pretty much the views of gun supporters in the US vs the rest of the world (noting that the latter hasn't included many supporters of the former). 0.o
Switzerland IIRC has nearly lost their right to conceal carry. But it failed. I would also like to point out that in many areas of the world gun ownership isn't seen as a right. The exceptions being Switzerland, and the Philippines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I support the principal that if someone is threating your life in the street or breaking into your house to kill you, then you should be able to shoot them down. That is survival instinct.
I agree with killkrazy's point about people getting angry and doing something daft. We've all been there and seen fights and lost our temper. Usually, fists are involved and there is no lasting damage, but guns...There a many examples of law abiding citizens with not even a parking ticket between them, who shot down a cheating/husband wife.
Finally, I cannot let that slur from Frazz pass. Yes, I am jealous of the nation that makes krispy Kreme donuts, but the reason I'm getting involved is because certain Americans took it upon themselves to lecture us about law and order following the London riots. Previously, I was happy for the yanks to blast away at each other, but seeing ann coulter pop up on british tv and lecture us about social welfare...well...she was lucky that was a brand new tv otherwise my foot would have went right through it!!!!
Rant over
ps
Come November, I won't be able to switch a TV on without being bombarded with Presedential election coverage. I'm getting involved because my living room is being invaded.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Come November, I won't be able to switch a TV on without being bombarded with Presedential election coverage. I'm getting involved because my living room is being invaded.
Unfortunately for us in the US, or with US television, we are already being carpet bombed a la Dresden with political crap. From what I've been made to understand of the British Parliamentary elections, I WISH we had a system that limited campaign time like that.
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
I think, and I'm no mind reader here, what he's getting at is more akin to getting into an argument about how the brain functions when one side is a "liberal arts" degree or less education, faced with a Neurosurgeon. The person with less education on the subject will not have the same knowledge base, nor the same respect for the subject matter as someone who is expert in that subject.
I think that someone who has never handled a firearm personally, does not have the same respect for them as someone who does on a regular basis. If they are arguing against gun-rights (that is, they feel all firearms should be banned, regardless), depending on their argument points, they could be speaking from a point of ignorance and heresay, rather than using first-hand knowledge to formulate a good argument. In some cases, I have been in arguments with folks who felt that firearms should be banned, yet the points they were using were already under the control of the government, and handled during the purchasing process. In this way, I think that having some base knowledge of gun-control can lead to better arguments
I thought he was getting at how some of the laws use certain terms inaccurately, and that stories about gun crime also tend to be very inaccurate in the terms they use.
For example, the old 'Assault Rifle Ban' that basically classified any black gun as an assault rifle (yes, that is simplifying what the law actually did). Or how many AK47s are used in crimes, when in fact AK47s are a full auto weapon, and are very rarely used in crimes, instead some semi-automatic version is used.
Folks then run with the wrong terms "Street gangs have easy access to AK47s!!!" which confuses the issue because they then come under the impression that full auto (actual assault rifles) are easily available and often used.
They then don't undestand why folks who do know and understand the laws and terms make statements like "you need a class III license to get an AK, the bad guys didn't use one, it was semi-auto". They just know they feel AK47s should be illegal and controlled, but dont understand they already are...
Makarov wrote:I also have a question for those of you whom feel that they should be restricted. Have you ever even seen one in real life, let alone handled one? Do you know how they work? Do you know the difference between a semi auto vs. full auto? Do you even know current US federal/state/local laws when it comes to firearms? The difference between a clip/magazine? Many people who want restrictions don't .
I think they should continue to be restricted where they currently are like the UK. I can say yes to the rest apart from the US federal laws because I'm not from the US. I don't know what needing to know the difference between clip and a magazine has to do with having an opinion on gun ownership. That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
I think, and I'm no mind reader here, what he's getting at is more akin to getting into an argument about how the brain functions when one side is a "liberal arts" degree or less education, faced with a Neurosurgeon. The person with less education on the subject will not have the same knowledge base, nor the same respect for the subject matter as someone who is expert in that subject.
I think that someone who has never handled a firearm personally, does not have the same respect for them as someone who does on a regular basis. If they are arguing against gun-rights (that is, they feel all firearms should be banned, regardless), depending on their argument points, they could be speaking from a point of ignorance and heresay, rather than using first-hand knowledge to formulate a good argument. In some cases, I have been in arguments with folks who felt that firearms should be banned, yet the points they were using were already under the control of the government, and handled during the purchasing process. In this way, I think that having some base knowledge of gun-control can lead to better arguments
@ Ensis Ferrare You hit the nail right on the head. I have lost track of the number of times people think full autos can still be manufactured, and they are easy to get legally.( No, and it pretty freckin hard/expensive/pointless)
And @Howard A Treesong it does. For example the Brady campaign often calls for the ban of high capacity clips. Which do not exist. Then there are gems like this...
CptJake wrote: Or how many AK47s are used in crimes, when in fact AK47s are a full auto weapon, and are very rarely used in crimes, instead some semi-automatic version is used.
Unfortunately, just because it is semi-auto does not somehow make it "not an AK-47". The mode of fire does not in any way alter the make and model of the gun. An AK-47 is an AK-47, semi or full auto.
Makarov wrote:
@Howard A Treesong it does. For example the Brady campaign often calls for the ban of high capacity clips. Which do not exist. Then there are gems like this...
This is American news? That guy definately wouldn't be working in news here. I mean don't put down the person your interviewing. News reporters are supposed to be unbiased and all he seemed to be doing is ignoring the points that she was trying to make and attempting to make her look stupid. She doesn't have to know everything about what the legislation is meant to do, especially not little nitpicky things like what a barrel shroud is (which was probably put in there by someone more informed than her, but she's the spokeswoman for it not them).
Yeah American news really not aught to be used to demonstrate a point. =P
Wyrmalla wrote:Question; are any non Americans actually advocating the private ownership of guns on such a scale as the US?
I wonder how many Mexicans support it, what with the rampant gang violence that goes on? It's not like the drug cartels are lacking in guns...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:These crimes are often crimes passionels which turn deadly because of the impact of a gun compared to knife or saucepan.
Or a car. Or a chainsaw. Or scissors. Or a nailgun. Or a wooden plank with a nail on it.
A person who is angry is going to take the closest thing taht is suitable for use as a weapon and use it.. The results are never good no matter what the weapon is, and gunshots are certainly NOT the worst thing that can happen to someone this way.
The point is that guns are far deadlier than knives, or indeed practically any household object, so sudden personal attacks involving such objects are more likely to result in death when a gun is used.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Here it is. Don't carry guns and less people will get killed, period.
Insulting image removed
back at you... No matter how provoked you are, you are not allowed to call another person idiot on Dakka. Use the Mod Alert button and let us deal with it. MT11
CptJake wrote: Or how many AK47s are used in crimes, when in fact AK47s are a full auto weapon, and are very rarely used in crimes, instead some semi-automatic version is used.
Unfortunately, just because it is semi-auto does not somehow make it "not an AK-47". The mode of fire does not in any way alter the make and model of the gun. An AK-47 is an AK-47, semi or full auto.
Wrong. An AK-47 is a full auto (actually select fire) assault rifle, just as an M4 is an assault rifle capable of a three round burst. Change that and it is not an AK-47 or an M4, it is a semi auto. Just like there is a diference between my HK91 (semi auto civilian version) and a G3 (full auto military assault rifle). It may look like an AK47, but unless it is a selective fire (safe/semi/full auto) it isn't an AK-47.
AK stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova, or “Kalashnikov Automatic rifle ... True AK-47 rifles are fully automatic, however, with the exception of class III dealers it is illegal to posses them in the U.S.
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.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Here it is. Don't carry guns and less people will get killed, period.
flamey image removed. MT11
Care to explain why simons statement is stupd??
To me, LESS GUNS = LESS DEATHS BY GUNS makes a lot of sense!!
Britain has a complete ban on all semi auto rifles, and shotguns. All non black power pistols are banned. Yet, some how during the riots there were shots fired at officers and helicopters. Also the sale of metal bats to the UK according to amazon.co.uk went up by 5000% during the riots.
Howard A Treesong wrote:That's like saying you need to know how a carburettor works before you can opine on car use.
It's more like needing to know the difference between diesel and gasoline. Or the difference between changing lanes and making a turn.
Yes, it's important. Guns are dangerous tools and people who own guns need to know as much about gun safety as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makarov wrote:To me, LESS GUNS = LESS DEATHS BY GUNS makes a lot of sense!!
Because of the difference between a valid argument, a true argument, and a sound argument. Less guns present causing less death is a valid argument. However, looking at the actual history of gun regulation, it is not a true argument. And because it is not both a true and a valid argument, it most importantly is an unsound argument.
IE it is an idealistic argument which is made while not paying attention to the facts. It is the same ideological failure that communism has.
Makarov wrote:
Britain has a complete ban on all semi auto rifles, and shotguns. All non black power pistols are banned. Yet, some how during the riots there were shots fired at officers and helicopters. Also the sale of metal bats to the UK according to amazon.co.uk went up by 5000% during the riots.
I doubt there were really "shots fired". The rioting was bad but it was by and large pretty non-violent when you consider the scale of it. If there really were police/civilians being shot at, the armed police would have been all over it, and the second/third night the army were on standby.
Not sure what you mean about metal bats. Lots of shopkeepers in poor areas want to protect themselves, what's your point?
A few shopkeepers successfully defended their shops...well a lot didn't. If you magically removed all the guns from Los Angeles the night those riots started, the death, casualty and crime rates would have all been significantly lower.
Gun crime is at a ridiculous level in America. There are more schoolchildren murdered with guns in school grounds in Los Angeles than there are people murdered in London every year.
By making guns readily available it increases the chance that there will be gun crime.
Evilledz wrote:Gun crime is at a ridiculous level in America. There are more schoolchildren murdered with guns in school grounds in Los Angeles than there are people murdered in London every year.
By making guns readily available it increases the chance that there will be gun crime.
I would love to see a source for that.
The Metropolitan Police said 125 victims died violently, down from 132 the previous year.
But gun murders were up 11 to 29, blamed partly on a rise in gang killings and a worrying trend for more teen- agers to use guns.
Evilledz wrote:Gun crime is at a ridiculous level in America. There are more schoolchildren murdered with guns in school grounds in Los Angeles than there are people murdered in London every year.
By making guns readily available it increases the chance that there will be gun crime.
I would love to see a source for that.
Give me a minute I just need to find it in a book =P
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P
Makarov wrote:
@Howard A Treesong it does. For example the Brady campaign often calls for the ban of high capacity clips. Which do not exist. Then there are gems like this...
This is American news? That guy definately wouldn't be working in news here. I mean don't put down the person your interviewing. News reporters are supposed to be unbiased and all he seemed to be doing is ignoring the points that she was trying to make and attempting to make her look stupid. She doesn't have to know everything about what the legislation is meant to do, especially not little nitpicky things like what a barrel shroud is (which was probably put in there by someone more informed than her, but she's the spokeswoman for it not them).
Yeah American news really not aught to be used to demonstrate a point. =P
She deserved to be made to look like an idiot for not knowing what she was trying to ban. I congratulate the man for not just following along with the normal politician, talk about something else bs.
Evilledz wrote:Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P
What was his source?
Bill Bryson is just a humorist, not a statistician, and that quote does not have any actual source.
Evilledz wrote:Gun crime is at a ridiculous level in America. There are more schoolchildren murdered with guns in school grounds in Los Angeles than there are people murdered in London every year.
By making guns readily available it increases the chance that there will be gun crime.
I would love to see a source for that.
Give me a minute I just need to find it in a book =P
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P
Seriously, you are quoting a humorously written travel/fiction book written in '89 but have no stats to back up your claim?
CptJake wrote:
Nice try . Look at my earlier post in this thread:
CptJake wrote: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)?
If the collection is the result of harming others, then why is the threat of harming others not also a similar reason for concern?
If I were to listen to humorists and take their statements as facts instead of humor, I would think noone would want to live in the UK . The dentists rule tyrranically over peopple who eat gakky food and drink gakky beer, with constant riots by thuggish soccer fans and people becoming criminals just so they can so other people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:If the collection is the result of harming others
Explain?
It's not like gun collectors are mugging people to buy their guns. Or specifically buying guns taht have been used on people.
Makarov wrote:Britain has a complete ban on all semi auto rifles, and shotguns. All non black power pistols are banned. Yet, some how during the riots there were shots fired at officers and helicopters.
Obviously there are illegal firearms in the country, there are also legally owned ones too.
But to my knowledge there was only one incident in which police were fired upon during the riots, in Birmingham, and no one was injured or killed as a result of gunfire on either side. Can you say the same for riots of the same size in the US?
"In 1987 there were 635 homicides in Detroit, eight times the national average."
Doesn't that seem slightly ridiculous to you? I'm not saying you shouldn't own a gun for whatever reason (hunting etc), I'm saying that by making guns readily available it is most likely increasing violent crime. Fair enough if you want to own a gun for personal reasons but if gun laws were stronger don't you think that it would reduce crime?
Evilledz wrote:"In 1987 there were 635 homicides in Detroit, eight times the national average."
Doesn't that seem slightly ridiculous to you? I'm not saying you shouldn't own a gun for whatever reason (hunting etc), I'm saying that by making guns readily available it is most likely increasing violent crime. Fair enough if you want to own a gun for personal reasons but if gun laws were stronger don't you think that it would reduce crime?
You do realize that you couldn't carry legally in Detroit in 1987, right? So the murder rate was done while carrying the gun was already illegal. You do realize that a law that increased mandatory sentencing for illegal carrying went into effect in early 1987 and that the homicide rate still went up? You do realize that the ordinance was largely unenforced (making the point that MORE laws are not really what are needed, when enforcement of current laws is not being done).
During the time where all firearms were banned from civilians in Washington DC, they were enforcing that with a hand so heavy it had its own gravitational pull.
Violent crime still went up.
The facts bear this statement out: Removing guns has not been proven to have a direct correlation with removing violent crime.
dogma wrote:The second part of my post, about the threat of harming others, is what relates to gun regulation.
But that isn't "the result of harming others", it's merely potential harm, and even then only if the weapons are loaded. Gun collectors don't usually load their weapons unless they're going to use them, and oftentimes they won't often use most of their weapons because use decreases value and increases risk of damage which further decreases value.
Melissia wrote:Even increased enforcement won't help much.
During the time where all firearms were banned from civilians in Washington DC, they were enforcing that with a hand so heavy it had its own gravitational pull.
Violent crime still went up.
The facts bear this statement out: Removing guns has not been proven to have a direct correlation with removing violent crime.
I understand that. I was trying (obviously not successfully) to point out that the knee jerk reaction to make new laws often ignores the fact that existing laws generally already would do what the proposed new law would. Or that new laws making illegal activity redundantly illegal don't change the fact that the illegal activity is already illegal before the new law.
Fair enough. I wasn't aware that it was illegal to carry guns in Detroit in 1987. However I do agree with you that if there are laws in place to stop the carrying of guns and they are doing very little then something is wrong with either the law or the enforcement.
However, I did state that gun laws should be stronger which doesn't necessarily relate to creating new laws, just strengthening them...
Melissia wrote:But that isn't "the result of harming others", it's merely potential harm, and even then only if the weapons are loaded. Gun collectors don't usually load their weapons unless they're going to use them, and oftentimes they won't often use most of their weapons because use decreases value and increases risk of damage which further decreases value.
The part about the result of harming others was related to child porn.
I'm basically arguing that things that are result of harming others, and things that have the potential to harm others are closely associated, and that the reason for regulating both is basically the same.
Realistically, even child porn is regulated on this basis, as it does not bring necessary harm to any children, or necessarily result from harming any children.
Evilledz wrote:Fair enough. I wasn't aware that it was illegal to carry guns in Detroit in 1987. However I do agree with you that if there are laws in place to stop the carrying of guns and they are doing very little then something is wrong with either the law or the enforcement.
However, I did state that gun laws should be stronger which doesn't necessarily relate to creating new laws, just strengthening them...
Is the lack of improvement a sign that something is wrong with the law or the enforcement.
Or is the lack of improvement a sign that banning guns is not having the effect people imagined it would have.
Basic science teaches us that we start with an idea (guns = crime, so more gun control = less crime), then you do an experiment to see if your idea holds up. You set up an environment in which you set up your idea (more gun control) and see if if it has the hypothetical effect (is crime going down). The data shows that as gun control increases, crime did not decrease but at times increased. At what point do you accept the data presented by the experiment and stop running the same test over and over?
If you decided that (water is wet, petrol is wet, so if water stops fire then petrol must stop fire) and run an experiment where you pour petrol on a fire to see if the fire decreases, how long do you watch the fire get bigger until you realize that your idea is wrong?
Yeah it does necessarily do so. Although perhaps I'm making too big of a distinction between drawn art / stories / sculptures and actual child porn involving children.
Guys can we just stop talking about child por altogether. Its a screwed up subject to even be discussing and I don't think that the rational minded amongst us really want to be hearing any arguments advocating it or saying that its an acceptible way for people with a problem to let out their vices or whatever. ¬¬
I've said it before. In America there is this sense that ultimately, every person should be responsible for their own safety and the safety of their family. When it all boils down, police do not prevent crime, they respond to it and (hopefully) catch the criminal(s) responsible. Granted this idea isn't unanimous across the country, and indeed some people seem to think that not only should the general public not be responsible for themselves in any fashion, but indeed that the general public is incapable of being responsible for themselves in any fashion.
However, the men who wrote the basic principles of our entire country were (thankfully) of the former opinion. The public can, should, and indeed must, be responsible for themselves; "Government inevitably tries to take too much power from it's citizens, so here's the framework for preventing that." Naturally a clause in our constitution that basically says "Hey! Keep an eye on your leaders!" has fostered an attitude of "Sure! While I'm at it, I'll keep an eye on my neighbors too!"
Firearms are the best way to make sure that I can be responsible for myself and loved ones. They allow me to provide the MOST basic needs: food, shelter and clothing, and to make it very difficult for others to take these things from me. Granted this is a very apocalyptic view, but it can also apply to contemporary society.
Yes all these things can be, and have been, accomplished with the use of other tools such as knives, spears, and bows ( and very recently a katana), but firearms are the most efficient method. The likelihood of incurring harm to oneself during hunting or defense while using a non-firearm is an order of magnitude greater (probably hyperbole) than when using a firearm.
What our Euro friends seem to not understand that most murders in the US are related to the illegal drug trade just like our high rate of murder in the 20's was related to prohibition.
Lordhat wrote:I've said it before. In America there is this sense that ultimately, every person should be responsible for their own safety and the safety of their family. When it all boils down, police do not prevent crime, they respond to it and (hopefully) catch the criminal(s) responsible. Granted this idea isn't unanimous across the country, and indeed some people seem to think that not only should the general public not be responsible for themselves in any fashion, but indeed that the general public is incapable of being responsible for themselves in any fashion.
There are also people like me that would prefer a society in which only myself, my friends, and my family are allowed to own firearms.
Because, ultimately, those are the only people whose rights and freedoms I consider to be important.
Take it down a notch boys, things seem to be getting a bit heated between some people here, who have been warned. Remember the rules and play nice please - MT11
She deserved to be made to look like an idiot for not knowing what she was trying to ban.
Agreed. Legislating from ignorance is a scourge, regardless of topic.
If a "barrel shroud" is sufficiently evil to warrant felony convictions (With all the life-long perks that come with it.) for having them in combination with other things on a firearm, I want to hear a compelling reason as to why, and I would recommend being able to give me a well thought out answer. This goes double in a situation where a safety feature such as a barrel shroud is the subject.
The above is about on par with seeing a drunk driver in a monster truck getting into a head-on collision and killing someone, and then going about banning any vehicle with a roll cage and throwing anyone who doesn't comply into a cell for a half decade. It is deserving of ridicule.
I think that the barrel shroud things about the fact that most weapons that require them are fully automatic. As far as I can tell barrel shrouds are used to prevent injuring oneself from an overheating weapon, but I guess that government was thinking that people really shouldn't be firing weapons that require them at such a rate that the user should need protection. It may be because the number of weapons with them that have been used to kill people or the like, ie the criminal may not have been quite as effective if their weapon hadn't been prevented from overheating or the like, but I don't really know too much about the subject, just speculating. =P
Evilledz wrote:Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P
What was his source?
Bill Bryson is just a humorist, not a statistician, and that quote does not have any actual source.
Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.
You are likely exactly right. Unfortunately it is completely incorrect.
Keeping ones hands away from moving parts around or near the barrel is an immediate concern where barrel shrouds are involved, and even aimed semiautomatic fire can heat a barrel to 2nd-3rd degree burn level readily. Guns in the real world, unlike call of duty and day of defeat, do not magically cease functioning when they get a bit warm. If you are talking about 800-1000 rounds of sustained full automatic fire in non-stomp belt or magazine dumps, Sure. You can pop gas tubes, rupture barrels that heated to the point where metal plasticized, etc.
TL;DR? Presence or absence of a barrel shroud (Among other things lobbied for in the AWB) makes absolutely zero difference to the dude shooting a bunch of unarmed children and schoolteachers.
So it does nothing to actually impede criminals (Granted, it wouldn't change my opposition, but I could at least give a nod to a logical effort.) and gives out felonies to people who DON'T make it a habit of shooting people. Great job.
The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.
Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal.
Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.
Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it?
Have you stopped to consider that perhaps PREVENTION of such incidents is impossible, and the RESPONSE to said incidents is where the focus should be?
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"?
Staggering simple.
If you come at me with a chainsaw, I'll stay on the balls of my feet, leap backwards as you take a swing and then mash my elbow into your temple and kick you all the way to the police station.
If you come at me with a phone booth gun like an Ingram, you will saw me and another 20 people in half with no bother at all.
Knives, swords and flails are more likely to injure a victim in an amateurs hands, but any dumb feth can butcher a crowd with an automatic!
if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it?
Have you stopped to consider that perhaps PREVENTION of such incidents is impossible, and the RESPONSE to said incidents is where the focus should be?
I think not having them available in the first place would go a hell of a ways to preventing the problem, thus leading to there not being as much of a problem to deal with (or at least a different problem on a lesser scale). =/
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.
Because I have a family. If anyone feths with them (including the wiener dogs and Rusty the Tiger) I will fight to defend them to my last breath.Nothing, absolutely nothing, not hopes not dreams nor the lives of millions means anything to me. Just them. My father gave everything for his family, and my whole world view is focused on protecting them and lifting them up so they can fly and live the dreams I would have had if I could.
I have told both my kids, plan for the future, but fly. live their dreams and make my parents proud, make me proud. Nothing else matters.
Sorry a l;ittle bit drunk here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
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.
Even Australia would not have Frazzled and Tbone. We're just too mean.
Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.
But if the legislation is banning assault rifles then there is no need for the ban on barrel shrouds. In fact all it would do is endanger people firing semi automatic weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Evilledz wrote:Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P
What was his source?
Bill Bryson is just a humorist, not a statistician, and that quote does not have any actual source.
Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.
Nothing wrong with wikipedia if you check the sources of the article.
I think not having them available in the first place would go a hell of a ways to preventing the problem, thus leading to there not being as much of a problem to deal with (or at least a different problem on a lesser scale). =/
The problem with this is, people who are constantly on the wrong side of the law will still acquire the means of perpetrating further acts... Just because you remove a firearm from a law abiding citizen does not mean that the guy who (depending on who you believe) played too much GTA, smoked too much weed, was beat by his father/mother, etc. and turned to a life of crime, does not still have access to firearms.
The problems with many of the laws in regards to gun control, is that they attempt to stifle the ability of law abiding, reasonable people to own reasonable firearms in a reasonable amount (that amount varying depending on the person, and their justification of course), and only add a punishment to someone who has ALREADY broken several laws. They really do nothing to prevent or stop crimes from being committed, only take the ability of people to defend themselves away.
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.
Now I only read the first few posts and then a few random posts along the way but since I work at a gun counter selling firearms this thread is all to familar to me so here is my defult response.
The reasons to own a gun for saftey are the same as wearing a condom to prevent pregnancy. Now with that Im sure you can think of several ways to avoid the latter but you also admit its usefulness and really the logic applied for condoms is the same for firearms.
Would the world be a less lethal (in a murderous way) without guns? Yes but truely without them not lack of access to them. But in a world that fireams do exist and are used for more than petty street crime (no offense to anyone thats been shot at on the streets. I know how terrifing that really is) but in the mass genocidal ways that fireams are used. Sudan, Dubai, These are two great examples where is a puplic were armed than maybe the genocides that do go on wouldnt be what they are now. Libia is another example of a public defending themselves in a way blades and martial arts cannot.
Educated firearm owners are not a threat and ultimately help keep insane tyranical warlords in check, and while in western current culture that is a life we cant fully understand now the idea is that we shouldnt have to later.
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.
Libya is an example of lightly armed people being crushed by a better equipped dictator until high-tech air power was used to eliminate that advantage.
1-i wrote:Cleary you havnt had the nervous wait to see if the test was "-" or "+"
Like watching a really delayed trigger on a bad gun. Is that sucker going to go off and ruin everything?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:
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.
Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.
My hoods badder holmes
The pictures from my family reunion might look pretty similar, just different ethnicity.
And also nobody would have their fingers on the trigger, that just makes you a dumbass.
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.
Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.
Well your homicide rate in one fifth of that of the United States
If I really wanted to kill someone I would do it, it would not matter if guns were outlawed or not, the biggest thing is with modern forensics it is generally easier to solve a gun crime than a knife crime. And actually you can compare condoms to guns. I would rather have one and not need it, rather than need it and not have it, until I can shoot lightning out my ass at will I will keep my guns.
As a note I am a gun owner, and I am just too lazy to sign up with the NRA
Wardragoon wrote:If I really wanted to kill someone I would do it, it would not matter if guns were outlawed or not, the biggest thing is with modern forensics it is generally easier to solve a gun crime than a knife crime. And actually you can compare condoms to guns. I would rather have one and not need it, rather than need it and not have it, until I can shoot lightning out my ass at will I will keep my guns.
As a note I am a gun owner, and I am just too lazy to sign up with the NRA
mattyrm wrote: Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.
I don't claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge. As an aside, I didn't pull my sources from wikipedia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thenoobbomb wrote:You cant compare guns with condoms.
You clearly haven't paid attention to anti-birth control arguments...
Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.
I know I'm coming late to the show, but here goes anyways.
@Wyrmalla:
In the U.S. owning a fully automatic weapon isn't as 'easy' as you make it sound for the citizen on the up-and-up. Doing it the right way requires a legal due process, through ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Department), your Local Police Office. Included, you get a fee to pay $250.00 non-refundable & you get finger printed. You're arse is now in the system, you do anything stupid and they already know who you are & where you live. For any straight-shooting (pun intended) law biding citizen this is enough to keep you honest while having what's called a "Class-3 License/Permit" for your automatic weapon (or silencer, or any other Class 3 stamped item). This fee isn't needed to be re-paid every year either. The same process including a required class is also needed for obtaining a Concealed Carrier Permit, except this is only through the State so the ATF isn't involved.
Now, the 'criminal' isn't going to buy this from a respected weapons dealer at a store, he's going to buy from a Black Market arms dealer under the table and totally illegal. He's not going to pay the $250.00 fee, he's not putting his information in the system, he's not being finger printed, he's not being checked through local police officials and is going to use that weapon to commit a horrible act/crime.
@Anti-gun sentiments:
Most people don't like getting shot. So why on earth would anyone with a brain and a well deserved phobia of being injured take revenge/act-of-violence at some location they might get shot at? Which is why most 'shootings' these days are happening at locations where carrying a firearm is illegal. They have a higher probability of not being shot until the Police respond and if they're really smart and planned well, they'll have an exit strategy that emphasizes the same rational at minimizing their receiving gun fire as they flee (if they do in fact flee of course). Others, just don't care, they don't think past the rational of "what do I do after I've shot him/her?" they don't think past that part and thats why you see most people turn the guns on themselves in these actions. They've done what they set out to do, and now reflect and realize, this wasn't as good an idea as first intended. Typically ending in either a suicidal shot to the brain or death-by-cop (which is a real thing) because they don't feel like going to jail and being arse pounded for the next 25-to-life. Although some do give up and go to jail and now I have to pay for their incarceration for the next 5-25+ years. (Go hard earned tax dollars to stupid fething idiots who never learned to deal with life, woo! )
In our society (the U.S.) guns are here, they're not going anywhere anytime soon. I moved from a gun free state to a gun control freak state...what a bummer for me. >_< But I have to work and this is where the work is so I moved. I like my pistol and rifle, I refuse to give them up, I live in an apartment and have no problem with it. The rifle is more for recreational shooting, which is hard as hell to do here but is possible, while the pistol is for personal protection, should the need arise. I've done my fair share of shooting with my pistol, I know how to handle it and being ex-military I know how to respect the power that comes with gun ownership. I am by no means the norm for most gun owners, I know this and accept this. However, my CCW isn't valid in this state and to get one in this state as a civilian is laughable by anyone who would have to approve it. A shame really, I don't mind guns, I don't mind people carrying them. I mind being ill prepared for a situation that I could plausibly be prepared for. I'm not saying I want to shoot someone, because I don't. But if it's life or death I want something more then my fists/knife when going up against someone who has a gun; facing down the barrel of a gun from another person (drugged out or not) is a scarey thing for anyone. I don't see the harm in being prepared. Not to mention those that are carrying, shouldn't even be known to be carrying. (If they're doing it right of course) You or I should have no idea if that person is carrying a gun or not, kind of the whole concept of 'concealed' carry. Which means, the general public (you anti-gun people included) would be none the wiser until a situation occurred that needed that response. Otherwise, you go about your daily lives completely oblivious and happy.
Crimes will happen, with or without guns. I just prefer to have a resource that helps keep me on the upper scale of things. Yes I know not every situation would I be able to pull and (hopefully) out-shoot my criminal opponent. However, why is it assumed that just because I have the gun that if I got into an altercation that I would immediately jump to whipping it out and shooting at the perp until I hear the metallic clicking of my hammer against the firing pin with an now empty clip in the mag well? Having the gun and carrying it doesn't mean I'm going to solve my daily problems with it, quite the opposite, it should only used in the most dire of situations where lives are on the line and time isn't a luxury easily afforded at the current moment.
Yes, if guns never existed then I would have no need for one, probably true, but they are here, might as well accept that fact and move past it. Like it's been said controlling the guns isn't the bigger problem, it's controlling the people that are using them in negative ways. Fix the person, you fix the need to kill.
I really wish they'd push through a national concealed carry law for revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. Just have it only cover public places such as streets, sidewalks, public parking lots (IE non-gated ones), alleyways, etc-- and then the states can regulate where these things apply in other locations like schools, businesses, parks, etc.
It's kinda weird being both pro gun and not giving a gak about state rights. Most people who are against the more extreme anti-gun laws are also extreme for state rights...
Melissia wrote:I really wish they'd push through a national concealed carry law for revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. Just have it only cover public places such as streets, sidewalks, public parking lots (IE non-gated ones), alleyways, etc-- and then the states can regulate where these things apply in other locations like schools, businesses, parks, etc.
It's kinda weird being both pro gun and not giving a gak about state rights. Most people who are against the more extreme anti-gun laws are also extreme for state rights...
On one hand I agree and then on the other I don't. Not everyone is socially capable of handling that, which is why I think the CCW permit should be more regulated and harder (but not impossible, like my current State ) to obtain, but I do like the idea of a national CCW permit being recognized in all States and not just individual State by State basis like they are now.
Oh, I never denied that it should take time to get. The right to concealed carry should be based off of your knowledge of gun safety, your criminal history, and mental problems that you have been diagnosed with. I just wish it was consistent!
mattyrm wrote: Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.
The wikipedia blackout should prove an interesting day then.
Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.
As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Jubear wrote:
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Seriously, that would be your biggest fear? You fear some guy that may or may not be there and may or may not have a gun which he may or may not be proficient with rather than the violent thug that IS there, pointing a gun at you.
My guess is you have never had someone with bad intent actually threaten you with a gun.
Jubear wrote:
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Seriously, that would be your biggest fear? You fear some guy that may or may not be there and may or may not have a gun which he may or may not be proficient with rather than the violent thug that IS there, pointing a gun at you.
My guess is you have never had someone with bad intent actually threaten you with a gun.
Nope because I live in oz and its nigh impossible to get a hand gun unless you need it for work (and funnily enough this leads to fairly minimal gun crime) And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero. You may see that as weak and if you do then that is fine but I prefer my own countries system when it come to handguns. The idea of untrained people carrying around handguns is frankly scary, I am not anti gun at all if you someone enjoys firearms as a hobby and wants to spend some time at the range then I am all for it but I think its just common sense to limit the amount of easily concealed weapons in the hands of the general populace.
I have seen enough fights at the pub to understand that folk do stupid things in the heat of the moment and I would rather see to guys just have a good old fashioned brawl then someone getting shot over a spilled beer.
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Jubear wrote: My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Obviously a guy using a gun to commit crimes isn't a real threat to his safety.
Maybe where he is from criminals take gun safety course to be authorized by the Muggers Union to use firearms as they ply their trade? You know, they types of courses that concealed carry folks take here in the states.
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Yes it is because its going to escalate the situation if a mugger wants my wallet and hes got a gun pointed at me he can have it. Its not that hard to cancel credit cards and i do not carry around my wages in cash....What I dont want is someone who has no training turning an inconvenience into a potentially lethal situation that could get myself my partner or my friends and family killed.
Besides if someone is threatening me with a pistol they are probably within a few feet of me is it that unreasonable that I do not trust a complete stranger to take a shot when I am within a few feet of his target? Also I do not see how i could get a gun out of a holster if someone has already got the drop on me without forcing them to shoot.
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Yes it is because its going to escalate the situation if a mugger wants my wallet and hes got a gun pointed at me he can have it. Its not that hard to cancel credit cards and i do not carry around my wages in cash....What I dont want is someone who has no training turning an inconvenience into a potentially lethal situation that could get myself my partner or my friends and family killed.
Besides if someone is threatening me with a pistol they are probably within a few feet of me is it that unreasonable that I do not trust a complete stranger to take a shot when I am within a few feet of his target? Also I do not see how i could get a gun out of a holster if someone has already got the drop on me without forcing them to shoot.
You haven't thought this out have you. Losing your wallet is the littlest thing. How about a good pistol whipping? How about the robber shoots you in the face and rapes your wife?
Nor have you, Is the rapist going to walk up to me with a big sign declaring his intent? How am I going to get a weapon out in time if he already has the drop on me?
What if the "hero" misses and shoots my partner or myself and the most importent point of all why are you putting yourself in the situation in the first place?
What ghetto ass areas are you folk living in where you live in constant fear all the time?
Maybe I dont get it because I dont live in fear 24/7 nor do I feel a giant need to play hero or put folk at risk with my own actions.
And besides if it was my X that they were trying to rape I am nearlly 95% sure that her vagina has teeth that she can deploy at will.
Jubear wrote:Nor have you, Is the rapist going to walk up to me with a big sign declaring his intent? How am I going to get a weapon out in time if he already has the drop on me?
Then you're an idiot? Be aware of your surroundings.
What if the "hero" misses and shoots my partner or myself and the most importent point of all why are you putting yourself in the situation in the first place?
You seem to keep harping on this "play hero thing" when you and only you are talking about it.
What ghetto ass areas are you folk living in where you live in constant fear all the time?
Mass shooting have occurred in churches, hospitals, banks, and restaraunts. Indeed Texas CHL laws were first started by survivors of the cafeteria mass killing here. PLus we have that whole open border / Mexico war going on.
Maybe I dont get it because I dont live in fear 24/7 nor do I feel a giant need to play hero or put folk at risk with my own actions.
I don't either. I also don't worry 24/7 about fires, floods, or auto wrecks, yet I still have insurance for those and escape plans for fire.
And besides if it was my X that they were trying to rape I am nearlly 95% sure that her vagina has teeth that she can deploy at will.
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
Feth gun clubs. Just make people take and pass gun safety and responsibility classes.
As an aside, part of self defense classes for women is being aware of your surroundings and not going in to situations where you can be suddenly jumped like Jubear suggests.
Jubear wrote:Maybe I dont get it because I dont live in fear 24/7 nor do I feel a giant need to play hero or put folk at risk with my own actions.
Do you have a problem with police officers being armed and patrolling the streets to reduce crime?
There is a world of difference between a trained police officer and some random person who has no training. Marksmanship is a perishable skill that requires constant training to maintain, you need the use of that weapon to be a trained reflex through muscle memory etc. If you read my earlier post you will see I advocated mandatory and regular classes on the subject should be part of the conditions of owning a hand gun. I cant stress enough I am in no way arguing Americans rights to bear arms it is obviously part of your collective culture and in some ways I agree with it (we havent been able to own anything but bot action rifles/shotguns etc in Oz for years and it would be nice not to have to reload every fething shot at the range) My argument is that a hand gun is not a toy and part of responsible ownership requires proficiency with the weapon from both a accuracy point of view and safety.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Jubear wrote:Nor have you, Is the rapist going to walk up to me with a big sign declaring his intent? How am I going to get a weapon out in time if he already has the drop on me?
Then you're an idiot? Be aware of your surroundings.
What if the "hero" misses and shoots my partner or myself and the most importent point of all why are you putting yourself in the situation in the first place?
You seem to keep harping on this "play hero thing" when you and only you are talking about it.
What ghetto ass areas are you folk living in where you live in constant fear all the time?
Mass shooting have occurred in churches, hospitals, banks, and restaraunts. Indeed Texas CHL laws were first started by survivors of the cafeteria mass killing here. PLus we have that whole open border / Mexico war going on.
Maybe I dont get it because I dont live in fear 24/7 nor do I feel a giant need to play hero or put folk at risk with my own actions.
I don't either. I also don't worry 24/7 about fires, floods, or auto wrecks, yet I still have insurance for those and escape plans for fire.
And besides if it was my X that they were trying to rape I am nearlly 95% sure that her vagina has teeth that she can deploy at will.
Your X was a faery? Impressive.
Did I not advocate in my post that you should not be putting your self in these type of situations?
The hero reference is regarding fok wanting to try and help by drawing weapons but not having the skill sets to be effective in rendering aid.
Having shot at the same club as trained police officers came to qualify I'd be wary of using them as an example of someone that know how to handle a gun.
It might just be a localized issue, police officers in other parts of the world might have better shooting skills (and grasp of the four rules).
My uninformed guess is that most police officers are more concerned with the other bazillion things they need to know in their daily work. And the gun is more of a tool they seldom use, so just barely passing qualifying is OK. Especially when training budgets and time don't allow for keeping your proficeincy above the level of "just passing the grade".
pixelpusher wrote:Having shot at the same club as trained police officers came to qualify I'd be wary of using them as an example of someone that know how to handle a gun.
It might just be a localized issue, police officers in other parts of the world might have better shooting skills (and grasp of the four rules).
My uninformed guess is that most police officers are more concerned with the other bazillion things they need to know in their daily work. And the gun is more of a tool they seldom use, so just barely passing qualifying is OK. Especially when training budgets and time don't allow for keeping your proficeincy above the level of "just passing the grade".
Most cops can't shoot for squat and only care when they have to pass their qualifiers. Some departments have higher standards, but many don't. For obvious reasons their focus is not on shooting but on the more important aspects of policing.
pixelpusher wrote:Having shot at the same club as trained police officers came to qualify I'd be wary of using them as an example of someone that know how to handle a gun.
It might just be a localized issue, police officers in other parts of the world might have better shooting skills (and grasp of the four rules).
My uninformed guess is that most police officers are more concerned with the other bazillion things they need to know in their daily work. And the gun is more of a tool they seldom use, so just barely passing qualifying is OK. Especially when training budgets and time don't allow for keeping your proficeincy above the level of "just passing the grade".
Really that surprises me, I figured sweedens mandatory military service would result in a population with quite high standards of marksmanship. Still you guys have the highest
(or close to it) rate of gun ownership on earth and almost no gun related crime I think that speaks volumes for what a little training can do.
Our formerly (we finally did away with a conscript army) mandatory military service never really made people that proficient in gun use. Too much else that matters when being in the military. And besides, after 10+ years you'd still suck if you didnt keep your skills honed and up to date.
Gun related crimes are rising here as well, and it's not rising due to legally obtained weapons. Unless I somehow missed that you can now get licenses for AK-clones. I might get back into shooting just because of that!
pixelpusher wrote:Our formerly (we finally did away with a conscript army) mandatory military service never really made people that proficient in gun use. Too much else that matters when being in the military. And besides, after 10+ years you'd still suck if you didnt keep your skills honed and up to date.
Gun related crimes are rising here as well, and it's not rising due to legally obtained weapons. Unless I somehow missed that you can now get licenses for AK-clones. I might get back into shooting just because of that!
Agreed it takes regular practice to maintain any kind of proficiency my groupings would be terrabad now
I guess sweeden can always rely on the fact that no sane country would want to interfere with the supply of sweedish woman.
Jubear wrote:
And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero.
My best friend complied. He got shot anyway. He lived, but compliance didn't help him. After the muggers got what they wanted from him, they shot him anyway. That's what compliance gets you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one more thing
Jubear wrote:
There is a world of difference between a trained police officer and some random person who has no training.
Jubear wrote:And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero.
My best friend complied. He got shot anyway. He lived, but compliance didn't help him. After the muggers got what they wanted from him, they shot him anyway. That's what compliance gets you.
Indeed. These are criminals. By definition,they are donkey-caves.
Ever go to Camden, New Jeresy? Yeah, not only were they one of the highest ranked in crime, but they also just laid off half their police force. And slightly OT, I'm surprised on how many of us live in southeastern PA. Go team go
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Ever go to Camden, New Jeresy? Yeah, not only were they one of the highest ranked in crime, but they also just laid off half their police force.
Jubear wrote:
And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero.
My best friend complied. He got shot anyway. He lived, but compliance didn't help him. After the muggers got what they wanted from him, they shot him anyway. That's what compliance gets you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one more thing
Jubear wrote:
There is a world of difference between a trained police officer and some random person who has no training.
My best friend was held up at gun point.
The mugger ordered him to hand over his wallet. He complied. He didn't get shot. The mugger ran off. My friend had to cancel his bank cards and buy a new wallet.
Jubear wrote:
And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero.
My best friend complied. He got shot anyway. He lived, but compliance didn't help him. After the muggers got what they wanted from him, they shot him anyway. That's what compliance gets you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one more thing
Jubear wrote:
There is a world of difference between a trained police officer and some random person who has no training.
My best friend was held up at gun point.
The mugger ordered him to hand over his wallet. He complied. He didn't get shot. The mugger ran off. My friend had to cancel his bank cards and buy a new wallet.
That's what compliance got him.
I changed your quote to make it more accurate. Doesn't always work out that way.
Jubear wrote:
And if someone did stick a gun in my face I think compliance is more likely to get me out alive then some unskilled idiot trying to play at being a hero.
My best friend complied. He got shot anyway. He lived, but compliance didn't help him. After the muggers got what they wanted from him, they shot him anyway. That's what compliance gets you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one more thing
Jubear wrote:
There is a world of difference between a trained police officer and some random person who has no training.
My best friend was held up at gun point.
The mugger ordered him to hand over his wallet. He complied. He didn't get shot. The mugger ran off. My friend had to cancel his bank cards and buy a new wallet.
That's what compliance gets you.
Nice save by that police man.
In those situations compliance is a myth. The criminal has pretty much already made up his mind on if he's gonna shoot you either way. Being a hero just ensures that he's gonna try to go for it
In those situations compliance is a myth. The criminal has pretty much already made up his mind on if he's gonna shoot you either way. Being a hero just ensures that he's gonna try to go for it
According to whatever research Richard Poe did for his book, "Seven Myths of Gun Control" he basically flat out refutes this stating in essence, that unless the "criminal" is hopped up on drugs, he is actually most likely more afraid of whats going on than you are. Sure there are all sorts of verbal techniques to diffuse the situation, but refusal to comply and not backing down in a non-threatening manner are actually your best bet.
In those situations compliance is a myth. The criminal has pretty much already made up his mind on if he's gonna shoot you either way. Being a hero just ensures that he's gonna try to go for it
According to whatever research Richard Poe did for his book, "Seven Myths of Gun Control" he basically flat out refutes this stating in essence, that unless the "criminal" is hopped up on drugs, he is actually most likely more afraid of whats going on than you are. Sure there are all sorts of verbal techniques to diffuse the situation, but refusal to comply and not backing down in a non-threatening manner are actually your best bet.
Gun shop guy speaking again ( I only state that since Im unknown on this forum)
I agree with the Aussie Jubear, and as a guy that has been gangmuged, robbed at gun point and way too close to a drive by shooting I can say that if I had a handgun at the time I would have been powerless in most of the above situations. Then gangmug was the only one that a firearm could have helped as it was a garbage can lid did the job and obviously I got away and currently live a fine life.
The drive by was focused on the other side of the street and by the time I comprehended what was happening it was done, no warning to the events, no time for a split second preperation and if I had pulled a gun I probally would have gotten myself and worse some one else near me shot.
The robber was a situation that my arogance and ignorace led me into and if I used a fraction of common sense I would have just walked around the block and avoided the idiot.
Again gun owenership is good in my mind but knowing how to avoid a situation and keeping your head and sense during a crisis is a thousand times more valuable.
1-i wrote:Again gun owenership is good in my mind but knowing how to avoid a situation and keeping your head and sense during a crisis is a thousand times more valuable.
Already beat you to it.
Melissia wrote:As an aside, part of self defense classes for women is being aware of your surroundings and not going in to situations where you can be suddenly jumped like Jubear suggests.
thenoobbomb wrote:You cant compare guns with condoms.
Tell that to an AIDs statistic. Yes you can, and the poster your referring to, actually did rather nicely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Yes it is because its going to escalate the situation if a mugger wants my wallet and hes got a gun pointed at me he can have it. Its not that hard to cancel credit cards and i do not carry around my wages in cash....What I dont want is someone who has no training turning an inconvenience into a potentially lethal situation that could get myself my partner or my friends and family killed.
Besides if someone is threatening me with a pistol they are probably within a few feet of me is it that unreasonable that I do not trust a complete stranger to take a shot when I am within a few feet of his target? Also I do not see how i could get a gun out of a holster if someone has already got the drop on me without forcing them to shoot.
I can tell you, that yes you can actually get the drop on a criminal in this situation. My oldest brother was an armed security guard a couple years ago. His cruiser broke down so he used his personal car, because it was winter outside and cold. While sitting there in his car, a guy came up and knocked on his window with a gun. As my brother was getting out of his car, my brother positioned himself in such a way that the guy didnt see him pulling his gun. My brother quickly swapped the dudes gun and fired 3 shots into his stomach, putting him down immediately. Keep in mind, the criminals gun WAS loaded with a round in the chamber.
See here, in America, chances are pretty good, that if a criminal has a loaded weapon, your going to be shot. Whats the sense in leaving a witness behind to send you to jail? If it werent for him being armed, my brother probably would of been killed
thenoobbomb wrote:You cant compare guns with condoms.
Tell that to an AIDs statistic. Yes you can, and the poster your referring to, actually did rather nicely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Jubear wrote:As a former sports shooter I have no problems with gun ownership BUT I do think you should have to belong to a club and should be required to have a secure (ie bolted to the ground) gun safe.
However there is no reason to let the general population have access to hand guns and any country that does allow hand gun ownership should have mandatory and regular courses on gun safety.
My biggest fear if I was being held up at gunpoint is some dumb rambo trying to intervine and getting me shot due to his own inept use of the weapon.
Really thats your biggest fear? I would think being shot by the robber would be a much more immediate fear.
Yes it is because its going to escalate the situation if a mugger wants my wallet and hes got a gun pointed at me he can have it. Its not that hard to cancel credit cards and i do not carry around my wages in cash....What I dont want is someone who has no training turning an inconvenience into a potentially lethal situation that could get myself my partner or my friends and family killed.
Besides if someone is threatening me with a pistol they are probably within a few feet of me is it that unreasonable that I do not trust a complete stranger to take a shot when I am within a few feet of his target? Also I do not see how i could get a gun out of a holster if someone has already got the drop on me without forcing them to shoot.
I have no choice in the matter. We have a pseudo stalker situation, so its irrelevant if a maybe is involved. If said stalker appears its go time on instinct.
I can tell you, that yes you can actually get the drop on a criminal in this situation. My oldest brother was an armed security guard a couple years ago. His cruiser broke down so he used his personal car, because it was winter outside and cold. While sitting there in his car, a guy came up and knocked on his window with a gun. As my brother was getting out of his car, my brother positioned himself in such a way that the guy didnt see him pulling his gun. My brother quickly swapped the dudes gun and fired 3 shots into his stomach, putting him down immediately. Keep in mind, the criminals gun WAS loaded with a round in the chamber.
See here, in America, chances are pretty good, that if a criminal has a loaded weapon, your going to be shot. Whats the sense in leaving a witness behind to send you to jail? If it werent for him being armed, my brother probably would of been killed
I can't fathom the minds of people who live in an environment where a random violent attack was perceived to be so commonplace that the only rational thing to do would be to arm yourself.
I mean it's seriously mal-ajusted. Seems strange that so many people are okay with it.
AustonT wrote:The fundamentalist Christian brainwashig is working.
Nah, my father is an atheist and my mother is non-practicing. I'm probably more religious than either of them, despite the fact that I don't claim any particular religion or sect.
Joey wrote:I can't fathom the minds of people who live in an environment where a random violent attack was perceived to be so commonplace that the only rational thing to do would be to arm yourself.
I mean it's seriously mal-ajusted. Seems strange that so many people are okay with it.
Let me put it like this, I have never gotten into a wreck yet I wear my seat belt all the time. Never been mugged/had a violent crime happen to me, however I still carry. The thing is that the Law Enforcement are NOT on every corner, and in many places response time is attrocious meaning that if someone wanted to commit a violent crime towards myself or those I care about they would have all the time in the world to do it. Now it is my opinion that you should only carry if you have the head for it. If you carry be aware that if you can resolve an issue peacefully e.g. mugging than do so, however if the criminal is intent on hurting yourself or others than you must make the decision to use your firearm.
AustonT wrote:The fundamentalist Christian brainwashig is working.
Nah, my father is an atheist and my mother is non-practicing. I'm probably more religious than either of them, despite the fact that I don't claim any particular religion or sect.
Before I was mostly kidding, but now that you've agreed we can picket the abortion clinic together! Yay! Field Trip.
The thing is, you lot need to start living in the real world and and start dealing with what's most likely. Picking the worst possible scenario in order to illicit an emotional response doesn't make for a good argument, it makes you look childish.
I mean, im not going to pick everyone apart individually but come on.. muggers getting total compliance and then shooting you afterwards for kicks?! Or getting your wallet and then giving your wife a thorough raping afterwards?
And clearly most of you don't believe this nonsense. The politicians play the fear card but not the populous. I don't walk around the US and see fear etched into the faces of an eternally terrified society. I go round the bars and everyone is as friendly and welcoming as at home. It really doesn't marry up with the picture some of you attempt to paint to win your internet debates.
Short answer, a mugger is likely to take your stuff and run off. Not murder you out of malice or stop to finger your wife. Can we stick with what's not an exception to the rule?
The Aussie was spot on. Your less likely to die if the people around you don't have firearms.
mattyrm wrote: The thing is, you lot need to start living in the real world
I do. That's why I want to be prepared.
Yes mel but there is an equation to be made between practicality and preparation.
My Dad could have a heart attack, i don't carry adrenalin. A shoe lace could snap, i don't carry laces. My missus could get raped, i don't make her wear a chastity belt. My nephew could get killed by a pedo, I don't keep him on a chain in my house when he visits.
There are infinite possibilities for bad things to happen. But you do the math and come to a conclusion. As i said, im no hippy, if you want a firearm that's your call to make, but it's a fact that your more likely to die when your surrounded by guns, and im glad the UK isn't like the US on this issue even though i kinda want a machine gun in my bedroom.
Joey wrote:I can't fathom the minds of people who live in an environment where a random violent attack was perceived to be so commonplace that the only rational thing to do would be to arm yourself.
I mean it's seriously mal-ajusted. Seems strange that so many people are okay with it.
If you can be prepared, then why not be prepared? I don't have a constant fear of natural disasters either, but I do live in an area where Tornadoes and Winter Storms happen. I have an emergency prepardness kit in the garage for those situations. I carry a spare in the car to be prepared as well, and before I was married I carried condoms.
Guns are simply not a big deal in the US, and since we have laws that state "if you take this class, prove that you are able to safely use a handgun, and pass a pretty stringent background check, then you can be licensed to carry a gun on your person" people will choose to take advantage of it.
I don't go around telling people that they are stupid and irresponsible if they do not carry and are not prepared to defend their family if somebody attacks them or breaks into their home. People make a choice and have to decide for themselves if the risk of having a gun is greater than the risk of not having a gun. I do firmly believe that with owning a firearm comes great responsibility and I don't take gun ownership lightly. I see people with their young kids in the firing range, and I do not have a problem with that at all. Kids need to learn from an early age that death is permament, and that a gun is not a toy but a deadly weapon. If you make sure that kids are familiar with firearms and know about them, then you remove the curiosity that can get kids in trouble with firearms. I think that people who are not responsible with their weapons have no business owning them.
Can we stick with what's not an exception to the rule?
But it's cool to advocate total disarmament, or the banning of certain types of firearms because, well, there may be an exceptional situation? If one side of the argument is guilty of this, the other certainly isn't going to be dodging much.
I hate to say it, but firearm accidents, particularly resulting in a fatality are not the norm. Nor are people taking AK47s to school. Nor is some dude getting ticked off and blowing the head off the cashier for having a <CENSORED> attitude at the wal-mart that day.
None of these things (and similar.) are anywhere approaching "The Rule (TM)"....If it was, with the amount of (HOW many tens of millions again, BATFE?) gun owners in this country, we would all be dead, and the guns would be floating on their own accord across the borders to seek more victims.
mattyrm wrote: The thing is, you lot need to start living in the real world
I do. That's why I want to be prepared.
Yes mel but there is an equation to be made between practicality and preparation.
My Dad could have a heart attack, i don't carry adrenalin. A shoe lace could snap, i don't carry laces. My missus could get raped, i don't make her wear a chastity belt. My nephew could get killed by a pedo, I don't keep him on a chain in my house when he visits.
1: No, but you do have a car to take him to a hospital, I assume?
I know I do, and I know wheret he closest hospitals are just in case I have to take one of my parents to them. I've had to just that twice in the past half-year (once for my grandmother, once for my father). I do not have the qualifications to procure and inject adrenaline in to my father, nor do I trust myself with needles (or like them particularly).
2: No, but you do (or do you?) have extra laces at home. I mean I do. A shoe is ruined without proper length laces after all, and despite the stereotype I don't have a massive collection-- too expensive and I have other things I need to buy. So an extra set of laces kept at home is perfectly valid preparation. Like having an extra coat-- I kept my old duster after getting my new one, jsut in case something bad happened to the new one.
3: No, but you do have her go to self defense classes at the very least, right? I did. And I want to be armed on top of that, because I don't trust my own martial arts skills, nor do I want to get in close to begin with and risk getting beat up. I also encourage my family to keep physically fit, too, though that is less successful probably.
And even if a chastity belt does its job perfectly, it won't prevent her from being raped. If a gun does its job perfectly, it will prevent this.
4: But you do watch him carefully and tell him not to talk to strangers, right? I talked my (older) nephew in to enrolling in to a karate class for self defense as well, which includes teaching him what NOT to do so he can avoid trouble.
mattyrm wrote:
The Aussie was spot on. Your less likely to die if the people around you don't have firearms.
Yes right.
There was a guy making a post on another gaming forum a while ago, and had posted pictures of a battle report. In one of the pics, below the overhang of his stomach there was a holstered pistol. In a gaming shop that almost certainly had children in it. Now the guy went off on one about how it was his right to carry a gun, and how he was highly trained and would wrestle to the ground anyone who tried to steal the gun off him (although looking at him, the only thing he had wrestled recently was the lid off a KFC family bucket). But if my kid was playing in that store it wouldn't matter if the guy was a Navy Seal, there still exists the potential for something to go wrong and when it does there are few things that can take a life as quickly or as easily (except maybe a bear or a tiger, which you wouldn't allow in a gaming store with children in it, even if it was muzzled).
mattyrm wrote:
The Aussie was spot on. Your less likely to die if the people around you don't have firearms.
Yes right.
There was a guy making a post on another gaming forum a while ago, and had posted pictures of a battle report. In one of the pics, below the overhang of his stomach there was a holstered pistol. In a gaming shop that almost certainly had children in it. Now the guy went off on one about how it was his right to carry a gun, and how he was highly trained and would wrestle to the ground anyone who tried to steal the gun off him (although looking at him, the only thing he had wrestled recently was the lid off a KFC family bucket). But if my kid was playing in that store it wouldn't matter if the guy was a Navy Seal, there still exists the potential for something to go wrong and when it does there are few things that can take a life as quickly or as easily (except maybe a bear or a tiger, which you wouldn't allow in a gaming store with children in it, even if it was muzzled).
You would want to watch what city you lived in in the sates then. Anyplace that allows concealed carry may have armed folks out and about. Of course concealed means concealed, and if you don't conceal you can be busted for brandishing a weapon. Unless of course you are in a place with open carry.
Bottom line, it must suck to live your life in fear that some one may go nuts and have a weapon on them. I feel sorry for you and those like you.
mattyrm wrote:
The Aussie was spot on. Your less likely to die if the people around you don't have firearms.
Yes right.
There was a guy making a post on another gaming forum a while ago, and had posted pictures of a battle report. In one of the pics, below the overhang of his stomach there was a holstered pistol. In a gaming shop that almost certainly had children in it. Now the guy went off on one about how it was his right to carry a gun, and how he was highly trained and would wrestle to the ground anyone who tried to steal the gun off him (although looking at him, the only thing he had wrestled recently was the lid off a KFC family bucket). But if my kid was playing in that store it wouldn't matter if the guy was a Navy Seal, there still exists the potential for something to go wrong and when it does there are few things that can take a life as quickly or as easily (except maybe a bear or a tiger, which you wouldn't allow in a gaming store with children in it, even if it was muzzled).
You would want to watch what city you lived in in the sates then. Anyplace that allows concealed carry may have armed folks out and about. Of course concealed means concealed, and if you don't conceal you can be busted for brandishing a weapon. Unless of course you are in a place with open carry.
Bottom line, it must suck to live your life in fear that some one may go nuts and have a weapon on them. I feel sorry for you and those like you.
People over in Europe basically don't live in fear that someone may go nuts and have a weapon on them.
Maybe not all folks, but folks who make comments like
But if my kid was playing in that store it wouldn't matter if the guy was a Navy Seal, there still exists the potential for something to go wrong and when it does there are few things that can take a life as quickly or as easily (except maybe a bear or a tiger, which you wouldn't allow in a gaming store with children in it, even if it was muzzled).
Obviously do have some fear of that happening. And it sucks to live that way.
Joey wrote:I can't fathom the minds of people who live in an environment where a random violent attack was perceived to be so commonplace that the only rational thing to do would be to arm yourself.
I mean it's seriously mal-ajusted. Seems strange that so many people are okay with it.
You say that yet you still in Britain? Have you been to s shrink to deal with your mal adjustment?
But he's right. When I was in New England, I visited towns and villages that were calm, peaceful and packed with friendly people, and the most serious crime was probably jaywalking. And yet, people had Mr Colt nestling in their hip pocket. When I asked why I wondered if they were still fearful of British invasion. Most replies cited constitutional rights, one or two said in case the government came, and bizarrely, one person mentioned terrorism. It was all friendly conversation, and no doubt some people like to go hunting, but it did get me wondering.
In comparison to travels in Switzerland, yeah, the Swiss have guns, but nobody ever made a fuss about in. Ditto Finland as well.
But, and it's a big but, it's not for me to comment on American society. I've seen everything from Carter's inauguration to Bob Dole trying to crack jokes. No More!!!
Obviously do have some fear of that happening. And it sucks to live that way.
We will have to agree to disagree. I feel no fear, neither in the US or the UK, and ive lived in both.
Maybe one day I will get raped and I will walk around in perpetual fear, but until that time, im dandy. It's statistically unlikely that I will be attacked at gunpoint If I dont do stupid gak. There will always be easier marks than me to pick on, so no, there aint no fear here. Im a pretty arrogant and confident bloke, im convicned nobody will look at me and think "target" so I walk around safe in the knowledge that because im not an idiot I wont be a target, statistics (getting attacked by strangers at gun point in civilian settings is rare)and common sense tells me ive got no reason to be afraid. ( a thug will pick on someone older slower, fatter and stupider)
If you lot want to justify your argument by basically boiling it down to "you must be gaking yourself all the time then!" and that's good enough for you, your welcome to it, but its a laughable thing to say. Basically, its a gak argument and Im convicned that you all know it.
If you carry a gun your nearly 5 times more likely to get shot. And I didnt need to google it to work that one out, because its common sense.
If you have a gun your more likely to get involved when you dont need to. (witness a guy pull a gun on another guy outside Ralphs, and get involved even though you dont know gak about the situation) In that case, I simply briskly walk in the other direction. = Your more likely to get shot than me.
If you hesitate, your more likely to get shot. Normal humans who havent shot people before sometimes do. They are convinced they are a tough guy till it actually happens and your staring into someones eyes and your going to splatter them across the sidewalk, you can hesistate and wind up getting slotted. = Your more likely to get slotted.
A mugger stops me in an alley and asks for my wallet, im not carrying. I give him it hold my hands up and say "relax, stay calm" 99 times out of 100 he hot foots it with his loot. If your carrying a gun yourself, you might think your a tough guy and go for it, win or lose = Your more likely to get shot than me.
An unarmed burglar is in your house, but you have a gun in your dresser and he finds it and picks it up in a panic because you interrupt him halfway through. = Your more likely to get shot than me.
I could give 100 gak incidents but im not going to bore you, the fact remains the same. If there are guns around, you are more likely to get shot.
With their gun, with your gun, with a gun they found in a dumpster, it makes not a jot of difference. Having guns all over the place increasaes your likelyhood of getting shot.
And in reply to SOFDC, I am NOT arguing for total disarmament! I said ten pages ago that it is impossible. Your stuck with them. And being a green beret, I like guns, and I have no issue with owning them. My argument is very simply boiled down to two points.
1. I am far less likely to get shot in the UK than the US and this is a good thing.
2. People in nations like France and the UK dont walk the streets in perpetual fear, and I would argue that clearly it is more frightening for a citizen in the US because you are far more likely to bump into an irate individual armed with a firearm during your lifetime.
Those two points are what you are all arguing against with me, not total disarmament, because only a moron would advocate attempting to carry out an impossible task. Im not saying that, im merely saying that on this topic, the Europeans are way better off than the Americans, and if you can argue that with a straight face your delluding yourself because you really really really like guns.
There is no need for it, because nobody is going to take your guns off you anyway.
So rather than get all messy, lets just the numerous people disagreeing with me answer this simple question with one word, just so I can see who can actually reason and be honest, and who is fully delluding themselves.
You are more likely to die via gunfire in the US than the UK - Yes/No
Getting shot really ruins your day - Yes/No
I disagree with your views, but not where they come from. I think that's OK. In between the two is the understanding that we come from different cultures, similar but different. I think I may have said this a couple pages ago.
BTW is it any coincidence that Matty is in California and all of a sudden there's a dismembered body in Hollywood?
I disagree with your views, but not where they come from. I think that's OK. In between the two is the understanding that we come from different cultures, similar but different. I think I may have said this a couple pages ago.
BTW is it any coincidence that Matty is in California and all of a sudden there's a dismembered body in Hollywood?
While you might be less likely to get shot in the UK, you are far more likely to be assaulted or the victim of a petty crime or a rape. Per capita the UK leads the US in all those areas.
The chances of someone coming into my home and shooting me with my own gun are nil, because when I'm not home my gun IS WITH ME.
As for all this "perpetual fear" blathering... having a spare in my trunk doesn't make me "perpetually afraid" of having a flat tire. It just makes me prepared for a flat tire. I don't carry a weapon out of fear; it is a method of preparing me to handle an unexpected emergency, nothing more.
Crime rates in the UK are pretty misleading. If you remove the statistics from less than half a dozen inner city areas in London especially, also Birmingham and Manchester, then the per capita crime figures are tiny.
To take my own county as a microcosm, if you removed the crime figures from say Chaddeston and Sinfin from the crime figures of all 1,000 square miles of Derbyshire, crime would be virtually non-existant.
Outside of inner city areas like that, crime is very, very low. Most places in the UK are very safe areas to live.
I had assumed it was the same in the USA, that outside of crime-ridden ghettos, in the sub-urbs, it was actually pretty safe.
But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
Joey wrote:Crime rates in the UK are pretty misleading. If you remove the statistics from less than half a dozen inner city areas in London especially, also Birmingham and Manchester, then the per capita crime figures are tiny.
To take my own county as a microcosm, if you removed the crime figures from say Chaddeston and Sinfin from the crime figures of all 1,000 square miles of Derbyshire, crime would be virtually non-existant.
Outside of inner city areas like that, crime is very, very low. Most places in the UK are very safe areas to live.
I had assumed it was the same in the USA, that outside of crime-ridden ghettos, in the sub-urbs, it was actually pretty safe.
But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
Yes and if I selectively removed the areas of high crime in ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD, then I could make a case for it being crime free. You know without the warlords Mogadishu is a peaceful Utopia. This particular thread of argument is ill-conceived.
Joey wrote:Crime rates in the UK are pretty misleading. If you remove the statistics from less than half a dozen inner city areas in London especially, also Birmingham and Manchester, then the per capita crime figures are tiny.
To take my own county as a microcosm, if you removed the crime figures from say Chaddeston and Sinfin from the crime figures of all 1,000 square miles of Derbyshire, crime would be virtually non-existant.
Outside of inner city areas like that, crime is very, very low. Most places in the UK are very safe areas to live.
I had assumed it was the same in the USA, that outside of crime-ridden ghettos, in the sub-urbs, it was actually pretty safe.
But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
Yes and if I selectively removed the areas of high crime in ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD, then I could make a case for it being crime free. You know without the warlords Mogadishu is a peaceful Utopia. This particular thread of argument is ill-conceived.
If crime in the US is limitted to certain areas, why do people who do NOT live in those areas fear crime so much that they have a gun?
Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
Joey wrote:But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
incorrect. WE're incredibly armed in case we're invaded by British food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
Your criminals got patriotic and decided to be #1?
Kilkrazy wrote:Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
I am a little skeptical about this site now, I already don't like the fact that it doesn't use per capita statistics in addition to the ones provided, but then look at the drug offenses line.
Kilkrazy wrote:Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
I am a little skeptical about this site now, I already don't like the fact that it doesn't use per capita statistics in addition to the ones provided, but then look at the drug offenses line.
That drug statistic alone makes me doubt those figures. It was my understanding that during the Bush years police were keen to arrest lots of small scale cannabis users, police in Britain are pretty lenient. You have to be caught with it 3 times in order to be registered on the system (and let off anyway).
Also the car offenses. America is six times the size of Britain, there's no way that's accurate.
Uggg, I can FEEL the bolt group moving in it and it bothers me, like an overgrown Auto-5. Or undergrown...whatever.
My first centerfire rifles were a pair of AKs, one in 5.45 and one in 7.62. I do not mind that feel. Only thing that's really bothered me about the SCAR-Ls i've put my hands on was the...."Nerf gun plastic that was made just ever slightly TOO thin" feel. Everything else I thought was workable or good.
...Well, and I am paranoid about the charging handle smacking me in the knuckles.
Kilkrazy wrote:Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
I am a little skeptical about this site now, I already don't like the fact that it doesn't use per capita statistics in addition to the ones provided, but then look at the drug offenses line.
That drug statistic alone makes me doubt those figures. It was my understanding that during the Bush years police were keen to arrest lots of small scale cannabis users, police in Britain are pretty lenient. You have to be caught with it 3 times in order to be registered on the system (and let off anyway).
Also the car offenses. America is six times the size of Britain, there's no way that's accurate.
It's a perfectly believable number considering at 1/6 the size of the US, Britain also has HALF the crime.
If you can find a better comparison I'd love to see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SOFDC wrote:
Uggg, I can FEEL the bolt group moving in it and it bothers me, like an overgrown Auto-5. Or undergrown...whatever.
My first centerfire rifles were a pair of AKs, one in 5.45 and one in 7.62. I do not mind that feel. Only thing that's really bothered me about the SCAR-Ls i've put my hands on was the...."Nerf gun plastic that was made just ever slightly TOO thin" feel. Everything else I thought was workable or good.
...Well, and I am paranoid about the charging handle smacking me in the knuckles.
I'm not a fan of the Mattel feel, but I try not to let myself be swayed by that. What bothers me is that I can feel ( or at least I think I can) the cycle of operation completely. The only comparison I could make was between a Beretta 391 and an Auto 5. One simply cycles smoothly without any observed feel and the auto 5 I can feel the bolt move through the receiver as it clunks back and forth. I still think I'm not articulating what I feel correctly but I hope you get the gist, it just feels awkward in a way I don't even get from AK types.
Joey wrote:If crime in the US is limitted to certain areas, why do people who do NOT live in those areas fear crime so much that they have a gun?
If you love your family, why don't you have one?
Because why would I need one? I can't envisage a situation where I'd need one, short of foreign invasion.
Melissia wrote:
Your question was loaded. And also stupid. Which means it is stupid^2, because loaded questions themselves are stupid.
What?
You say you need a gun to defend yourself against crime, yet in all liklihood the area that you live in has very little crime, so why the precaution?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
It's a perfectly believable number considering at 1/6 the size of the US, Britain also has HALF the crime.
If you can find a better comparison I'd love to see it.
Because you love your family. Don't you love your family enough to buy a gun, just in case something happens?
The chance of me being found with a gun and sent to jail (mandatory minimum sentance) is far greater than the liklihood of-
being burgled
AND
being aware of being burgled
AND
being in a state to do something(not drunk or otherwise incapacited)
AND
the burglers not immediately fleeing (which nearly all of them will do anyway)
AND
the burgler having a weapon
AND
the burgler being physically larger than me (this is very unlikely)
So, that's why.
What is "loaded" about "If you live in a low-crime area, why would you need a gun to protect yourself from crime?"
Ah, so your answer is that you don't love your family enough.
You should really pay attention to what is actually said rather than your gut emotional response, you know. You're practically trolling by sneering at people who have guns claiming they're afraid of everything, and your loaded questions are illogical and frankly not worthy of consideration-- which is why I'm giving you the exact same thing right now, to give you an idea of how you're acting.
Connecticut is one of the safest places in the US but gak still happens to good people like this horrible story. Granted its a 1 in a million chance of happening, its still a good idea to be prepared. Having a gun is like having a fire extinguisher, its just a good idea.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Connecticut is one of the safest places in the US but gak still happens to good people like this horrible story. Granted its a 1 in a million chance of happening, its still a good idea to be prepared.
The chance of that happening is one in a million.
The chance of someone having a heart attack around you is pretty high. I assume you also know CPR.
Do you also know how to rescue someone who's drowning?
I could go on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Ah, so your answer is that you don't love your family enough.
You should really pay attention to what is actually said rather than your gut emotional response, you know. You're practically trolling by sneering at people who have guns claiming they're afraid of everything, and your loaded questions are illogical and frankly not worthy of consideration-- which is why I'm giving you the exact same thing right now, to give you an idea of how you're acting.
...what?
Okay then maybe I'm seriously misunderstood. Why do so many people have guns, then?
Kilkrazy wrote:Without guns there would be nothing to stop the gangs invading the suburbs.
I'm surprised the UK has such a higher rate of rape than the USA since it's only a few weeks since we had a thread discussing the reasons why the USA had so much higher a rate of rape than the UK.
I am a little skeptical about this site now, I already don't like the fact that it doesn't use per capita statistics in addition to the ones provided, but then look at the drug offenses line.
That drug statistic alone makes me doubt those figures. It was my understanding that during the Bush years police were keen to arrest lots of small scale cannabis users, police in Britain are pretty lenient. You have to be caught with it 3 times in order to be registered on the system (and let off anyway).
Also the car offenses. America is six times the size of Britain, there's no way that's accurate.
It's a perfectly believable number considering at 1/6 the size of the US, Britain also has HALF the crime.
If you can find a better comparison I'd love to see it.
The UK is 1/40th the size of the US with 1/6 the population.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Connecticut is one of the safest places in the US but gak still happens to good people like this horrible story. Granted its a 1 in a million chance of happening, its still a good idea to be prepared.
The chance of that happening is one in a million.
The chance of someone having a heart attack around you is pretty high. I assume you also know CPR.
Do you also know how to rescue someone who's drowning?
I could go on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Ah, so your answer is that you don't love your family enough.
You should really pay attention to what is actually said rather than your gut emotional response, you know. You're practically trolling by sneering at people who have guns claiming they're afraid of everything, and your loaded questions are illogical and frankly not worthy of consideration-- which is why I'm giving you the exact same thing right now, to give you an idea of how you're acting.
...what?
Okay then maybe I'm seriously misunderstood. Why do so many people have guns, then?
Im 16 and i know how to do those things.
Because some people find them fun. And other people aren't capable of defending themselves without one. and/or feel safer with a tool that would be an equalizer should the gak hit the fan.
Associating preparedness with fear is utterly nonsensical.
You don't have to be paralyzed with fear over your house catching on fire to realize that it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher and smoke detector in your house. You don't have to be afraid of heights to realize that guard railings on stairs and elevated walkways are good ideas. You don't have to be afraid of snakes to realize a snake infestation in your house is bad news, causing you to nip the problem in the bud. You don't have to be aquaphobic to buy flood insurance. Nor do you have to be agoraphobic to want a roof over your head.
And you don't have to be afraid of anything to buy a gun and be prepared for a bad situation that might happen, however unlikely.
Your insinuation of fear is stupid and insulting, and frankly just makes you nothing more than a worthless troll as long as you insist upon it.
Joey wrote:The chance of that happening is one in a million.
The chance of someone having a heart attack around you is pretty high. I assume you also know CPR.
Do you also know how to rescue someone who's drowning?
I could go on.
I do in fact know CPR.
I know how to rescue someone who's drowning, yes.
I'll admit to not knowing how to punch out a puma in a cage match, but please do go on. You seem to be making an argument that people should be prepared for the unexpected, and I'm in full agreement with that. It's why I carry. And know those other things.
Melissia wrote:Because we wish to be prepared.
Associating preparedness with fear is utterly nonsensical.
You don't have to be paralyzed with fear over your house catching on fire to realize that it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher and smoke detector in your house.
True.
Melissia wrote:
You don't have to be afraid of heights to realize that guard railings on stairs and elevated walkways are good ideas.
You do if you live in an area that doesn't have many heights
Melissia wrote:
You don't have to be afraid of snakes to realize a snake infestation in your house is bad news, causing you to nip the problem in the bud.
You do if you live in an area with few snakes
Melissia wrote:
You don't have to be aquaphobic to buy flood insurance.
You do if you live in a dry area.
Melissia wrote:
Nor do you have to be agoraphobic to want a roof over your head.
What?
Melissia wrote:
And you don't have to be afraid of anything to buy a gun and be prepared for a bad situation that might happen.
You do because the chance of it happening AND the gun being a determining variable is statistically insignificant, therefore it is irrational.
Joey wrote:If crime in the US is limitted to certain areas, why do people who do NOT live in those areas fear crime so much that they have a gun?
If you love your family, why don't you have one?
Because why would I need one? I can't envisage a situation where I'd need one, short of foreign invasion.
Melissia wrote:
Your question was loaded. And also stupid. Which means it is stupid^2, because loaded questions themselves are stupid.
What?
You say you need a gun to defend yourself against crime, yet in all liklihood the area that you live in has very little crime, so why the precaution?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
It's a perfectly believable number considering at 1/6 the size of the US, Britain also has HALF the crime.
If you can find a better comparison I'd love to see it.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Connecticut is one of the safest places in the US but gak still happens to good people like this horrible story. Granted its a 1 in a million chance of happening, its still a good idea to be prepared.
The chance of that happening is one in a million.
The chance of someone having a heart attack around you is pretty high. I assume you also know CPR.
Do you also know how to rescue someone who's drowning?
I could go on.
Do you not know CPR? I learned it in class in 5th grade.
Do you not know how to save someone who's drowning (by the way, it's get them out of the water)?
Furthermore, I'm not in constant fear of getting a flat tire, but I've got spare in my trunk.
I'm not in constant fear of something catching on fire in my house, but I've got a fire extinguisher.
Let me just paraphrase Joey and all his future responses:
"I think guns are bad and I am right. Everybody who thinks they need to own a gun is wrong, crazy, and/or irrational. If I repeat this often enough it will be true."
I disagree with your views, but not where they come from. I think that's OK. In between the two is the understanding that we come from different cultures, similar but different. I think I may have said this a couple pages ago.
BTW is it any coincidence that Matty is in California and all of a sudden there's a dismembered body in Hollywood?
Oh I saw that on the news yesterday, they found a head in a bag didn't they?!
The news is much more interesting when im stateside!
I have to add that as usual i disagree with Joey. He seems to be basing his single minded stereotypical views off an episode of the Beverly hill billies.
d-usa wrote:Let me just paraphrase Joey and all his future responses:
"I think guns are bad and I am right. Everybody who thinks they need to own a gun is wrong, crazy, and/or irrational. If I repeat this often enough it will be true."
Don't forget "I can kick a mountain lion's ass, naked, with just my bare hands."
I have to add that as usual i disagree with Joey. He seems to be basing his single minded stereotypical views off an episode of the Beverly hill billies.
AustonT wrote:they found the hands and feet as of this morning and had cadaver dogs looking around for the rest.
Matty strikes again! Expect a similar string of "incidents" going south all the way to Argentina...
"I don't know about William Wallace but I really do shoot lightning bolts out my eyes and fart fireballs." -Frazzled on the UK's not so secret secret weapon. Yes!
mattyrm wrote:Yeah I am now.. I've just got back from San Diego.
And in n out is easily the best burger I've had in all the years I've had out here .. who do you recommend?
Ahh my brother lives in SD, did you visit one of the attractions there or just traveling? My heart was nearly broken when my 7 year old nephew announced he was "over" Legoland.
In N Out does make a great burger, but the secret is in the Spongebread bun. Any place that uses never frozen beef, and spongebread should give you the perfect burger. I was just saying In N Out wasnt 12 hours of good...I don't think there is a burger place that is.
The BEST burgers I've ever had were from Ford's Drive In in Great Falls, MT. But the last time I went there in 2010 it seemed like their business was soon to be gone. Local beef, local produce served by a local co-ed always hired by the owner based on looks and feth affirmative action. If they are still open and you happen through it's worth a try, the real claim to fame is their milkshakes.
Joey wrote:
I had assumed it was the same in the USA, that outside of crime-ridden ghettos, in the sub-urbs, it was actually pretty safe.
But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
You are indeed correct, IMHO about the area where a person lives. I have never truly lived in a ghetto area, or the "wrong side of the tracks" as it were. I do not live in constant fear of really anything, but I do feel that being prepared for ANY eventuality is better than needing something and not having it. It's the same reason to stock up on water and canned goods, warm clothes and flashlights (torches) with plenty of spare batteries, etc.
Joey wrote:
I had assumed it was the same in the USA, that outside of crime-ridden ghettos, in the sub-urbs, it was actually pretty safe.
But apparently people on here seem to be so scared of a home invasion that their only option is to arm themselves.
You are indeed correct, IMHO about the area where a person lives. I have never truly lived in a ghetto area, or the "wrong side of the tracks" as it were. I do not live in constant fear of really anything, but I do feel that being prepared for ANY eventuality is better than needing something and not having it. It's the same reason to stock up on water and canned goods, warm clothes and flashlights (torches) with plenty of spare batteries, etc.
You might want to live your life in a constant state of alert...I do not. And I don't want neighbours who do.
Melissia wrote:And for the record, not being alert and attentive is FAR more dangerous than the presence or absence of a gun.
...why?
Because criminals have some special words for unattentive people.
S U C K E R S and V I C T I M S
The first thing they teach someone in self defense classes for women is to be alert and attentive at all times because criminals prefer to go after those who are neither, they're easy pickings. An unattentive person is just a victim waiting to happen.
As an aside, you probably should run anti-virus if you really hold the opinion that you shouldn't be alert and attentive. Because you probably have tons of viruses on your computer as you're a sucker and fall for all the tricks.
Melissia wrote:And for the record, not being alert and attentive is FAR more dangerous than the presence or absence of a gun.
...why?
Because criminals have a word for unattentive people.
S U C K E R S and V I C T I M S
The first thing they teach someone in self defense classes for women is to be alert and attentive at all times because criminals prefer to go after those who are neither, they're easy pickings.
Right. You're a woman, and pretty insecure by the sounds of it. I'm not.
Any criminal is welcome to try what they like with me, I don't need a gun to teach some smackhead a lesson.
Also when you say "criminal" you mean "addicts looking for a fix". Professional criminals don't wander around looking for people to mug.
She thinks you're a sucker (overconfident), you think she's insecure (overcautious). These are not necessarily unreasonable opinions*, but it'd be nice if you both tried to keep them polite. Or didn't trouble responding to one another.
*Actually in some ways almost inevitable; we're all more or less cautious in general, and we all probably think our own position is the most rational way to be. It's like George Carlin's routine about speeding. Anyone driving slower that you is an ***hole, anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.
That's cool. Send em my way. Rather have people around me who don't have their heads buried in the sand so deep they can tell me the exact composition of earth`s core.
You might want to live your life in a constant state of alert...I do not.
So...Don't. Makes no difference to me if the first indication you have that a situation has begun is a brick to the base of the skull, have a blast. Myself, I would prefer to at least have a cursory awareness of whats up, find it helps out in a lot of settings beyond possible self preservation too. Just avoid wal-marts, where you want to be deaf and blind.
Unemployment, disease, relationships. None of these are helped by a gun.
Unemployment? Are you kidding me? Well, I am out of a job and broke, so I could go down to the local supermarket and pay dollars per pound of meat, or take 10 cents to a couple bucks worth of ammo and go shoot a deer/elk/hog/what have you and bring back 50-to-several hundred pounds of meat for the freezer.
Disease? Well, won't cure it...but range time sure makes me forget i'm sick/my joints ache/I took an arrow to the knee/I have ebola death aids and stigmata (or pinkeye.)
Relationships? What? Shooting sports can help a great deal. Started a few too. Can also be used as a litmus test during courtship.
Joey wrote:
Right. You're a woman, and pretty insecure by the sounds of it. I'm not.
Any criminal is welcome to try what they like with me, I don't need a gun to teach some smackhead a lesson.
Also when you say "criminal" you mean "addicts looking for a fix". Professional criminals don't wander around looking for people to mug.
So, basically anyone who prefers to be alert and attentive to their surroundings is now an insecure woman... Well I guess I am now an insecure woman because I definitely pay attention to the crap that goes on around me. I prefer to see the bank robber walk into the bank BEFORE he starts yelling to get down (or whatever he/she does to rob a bank), rather than be utterly surprised when someone starts yelling or what have you.
Maybe it's my time and training in the army that sets me apart from some others here, but walking around life oblivious to surroundings as you seem to suggest is just begging to make YOU a victim of a crime. If you (a person in general) can see something that isn't right headed your way, you have more time to prepare and react, even if that is only a few seconds or minutes.
With all that said, at least for many of us Americans, owning a firearm is simply one more tool in the shed of means to respond to a given situation, should the need arise. A few pages back, I posted the news story of the woman in Oklahoma who shot and killed a man breaking into her home. There were actually two men who were breaking in, and I am fairly confident that things would have been much worse for her and her children had she not had any firearms in the house. According to the story, her husband had recently died of cancer (and apparently it was known that there were certain pain/cancer drugs still in the home as it was only a week or so since he had died), and so these two guys were "addicts looking for a fix" (as you put it). Obviously the police would not have been there in time to stop any further crime and a B/E and maybe robbery, but if they had decided to rape or murder her? No guns would mean a much worse story on the news. Do you think that she ever in her mind stored those guns in her house "knowing" that they would be needed? They probably owned them the same way that I own a spare tire for my truck, or my 40k armies; That is to say they owned it as a just-in-case tool, or her husband had shooting as one of his hobbies.
Joey wrote:Right. You're a woman, and pretty insecure by the sounds of it. I'm not.
Any criminal is welcome to try what they like with me, I don't need a gun to teach some smackhead a lesson.
Also when you say "criminal" you mean "addicts looking for a fix". Professional criminals don't wander around looking for people to mug.
Wait a minute. How are you going to punch out a puma if you're not constantly alert to the potentiality of their presence?
Obviously do have some fear of that happening. And it sucks to live that way.
We will have to agree to disagree. I feel no fear, neither in the US or the UK, and ive lived in both.
Maybe one day I will get raped and I will walk around in perpetual fear, but until that time, im dandy. It's statistically unlikely that I will be attacked at gunpoint If I dont do stupid gak. There will always be easier marks than me to pick on, so no, there aint no fear here. Im a pretty arrogant and confident bloke, im convicned nobody will look at me and think "target" so I walk around safe in the knowledge that because im not an idiot I wont be a target, statistics (getting attacked by strangers at gun point in civilian settings is rare)and common sense tells me ive got no reason to be afraid. ( a thug will pick on someone older slower, fatter and stupider)
If you lot want to justify your argument by basically boiling it down to "you must be gaking yourself all the time then!" and that's good enough for you, your welcome to it, but its a laughable thing to say. Basically, its a gak argument and Im convicned that you all know it.
If you carry a gun your nearly 5 times more likely to get shot. And I didnt need to google it to work that one out, because its common sense.
If you have a gun your more likely to get involved when you dont need to. (witness a guy pull a gun on another guy outside Ralphs, and get involved even though you dont know gak about the situation) In that case, I simply briskly walk in the other direction. = Your more likely to get shot than me.
If you hesitate, your more likely to get shot. Normal humans who havent shot people before sometimes do. They are convinced they are a tough guy till it actually happens and your staring into someones eyes and your going to splatter them across the sidewalk, you can hesistate and wind up getting slotted. = Your more likely to get slotted.
A mugger stops me in an alley and asks for my wallet, im not carrying. I give him it hold my hands up and say "relax, stay calm" 99 times out of 100 he hot foots it with his loot. If your carrying a gun yourself, you might think your a tough guy and go for it, win or lose = Your more likely to get shot than me.
An unarmed burglar is in your house, but you have a gun in your dresser and he finds it and picks it up in a panic because you interrupt him halfway through. = Your more likely to get shot than me.
I could give 100 gak incidents but im not going to bore you, the fact remains the same. If there are guns around, you are more likely to get shot.
With their gun, with your gun, with a gun they found in a dumpster, it makes not a jot of difference. Having guns all over the place increasaes your likelyhood of getting shot.
And in reply to SOFDC, I am NOT arguing for total disarmament! I said ten pages ago that it is impossible. Your stuck with them. And being a green beret, I like guns, and I have no issue with owning them. My argument is very simply boiled down to two points.
1. I am far less likely to get shot in the UK than the US and this is a good thing.
2. People in nations like France and the UK dont walk the streets in perpetual fear, and I would argue that clearly it is more frightening for a citizen in the US because you are far more likely to bump into an irate individual armed with a firearm during your lifetime.
Those two points are what you are all arguing against with me, not total disarmament, because only a moron would advocate attempting to carry out an impossible task. Im not saying that, im merely saying that on this topic, the Europeans are way better off than the Americans, and if you can argue that with a straight face your delluding yourself because you really really really like guns.
There is no need for it, because nobody is going to take your guns off you anyway.
So rather than get all messy, lets just the numerous people disagreeing with me answer this simple question with one word, just so I can see who can actually reason and be honest, and who is fully delluding themselves.
You are more likely to die via gunfire in the US than the UK - Yes/No
Getting shot really ruins your day - Yes/No
Completely agree with this post.
To be fair, I think Melissa and Joey are arguing at cross purposes. It makes far more sense to have a gun in your house for self protection in the US, simply because guns are so much more commonplace and there is every chance the hoody climbing in through the window is carrying one as well. In the UK, unless you are involved in something you shouldn't be, this is very unlikely.
I don't think I could ever get my head around people walking around with guns in the open though, you would expect it in the Wild West or in Baghdad, but not a modern and affluent part of the Western world.
you would expect it in the Wild West or in Baghdad, but not a modern and affluent part of the Western world.
Judging by talking to people who immigrated from the UK to here, it wasn't THAT long ago that a pistol was something an english gentleman wouldn't leave behind.
It truly did surprise me at how rapidly the UK went from a gun ownership culture that rivalled the USA`s (And in some ways much better.) to the state it is in now.
...But I suppose it gives me a very good look at what some want here, along with an incentive to work harder.
mattyrm wrote:Wasn't me mate .. I've got a cast iron alibi.
I was in the toilet for 12 hours after visiting In N Out at the time of the murder.
Corrected your typo
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah I am now.. I've just got back from San Diego.
And in n out is easily the best burger I've had in all the years I've had out here .. who do you recommend?
You're aware of the secret menu right? If not check it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:You might want to live your life in a constant state of alert
Noone said anything about that but you.
And for the record, not being alert and attentive is FAR more dangerous than the presence or absence of a gun.
...why?
What is there to be afraid of?
Unemployment, disease, relationships. None of these are helped by a gun.
See once again you're wrong. You must be tired from wrestling mountain lions.
Unemployment issues are often eased by a quick run to the bank, or a string of banks.
streamdragon wrote:Edit: post sounded better in my head for some reason...
Regardless. Am I simply not allowed to think shooting guns is fun?
Thats why you're a pistol packer. If you were a manly man who could break the neck of a muontain lion with your bare hands it wouldn't be an issue girly boy!
streamdragon wrote:Edit: post sounded better in my head for some reason...
Regardless. Am I simply not allowed to think shooting guns is fun?
Thats why you're a pistol packer. If you were a manly man who could break the neck of a muontain lion with your bare hands it wouldn't be an issue girly boy!
But we don't have mountain lions where I live! Only the occasional black bear wandering down out of the Appalachians...
(although even that is miles and miles to the west of me...)
I'm not sure why people are making the massive mistake in thinking that gun ownership is tied to a fear-based insecurity. Because it's not. Being prepared is not fear induced. It's a cautionary measure, just like being prepared for ANYTHING else is.
As for the US vs UK debate, you want to talk about American's being 'fearful'? What about all your camera's you have on all the streets/buildings/homes? And you call us paranoid/fearful? Really? Not only that they're all government controlled, no thank you. I understand the deterrence it provides, but if the UK was such a 'peaceful' place to live why would you have the need to be watched over by a 'big-brother'?
Not to mention, I'd rather be held up at gun point then knife point. Way more agonizing ways to deal pain with a knife then a gun. Not to mention it's way more personal for someone to cut/stab you then to shoot you. More likely to be mutilated by said person then the one with the gun, that's probably going to shoot once or twice and run instead of covering your mouth and stabbing you a few times in the gut. At least the gun shot alerts others to the fact that someone might've just been shot, where the knife makes almost no noise.
Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton
And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail
Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.
Fexor wrote: Not only that they're all government controlled, .
err.. No, they're not.
Please watch what you post, especially with regards to "amusing" images, gifs etc etc. we try to keep the boards to around a PG 13 rating so we do not want or allow things that, even if faked, are a tad too graphic.
Fexor wrote: Not only that they're all government controlled, .
err.. No, they're not.
Please watch what you post, especially with regards to "amusing" images, gifs etc etc. we try to keep the boards to around a PG 13 rating so we do not want or allow things that, even if faked, are a tad too graphic.
Ta.
Ok, I'll give you the fact that I chalked up "Government funding" as "Government controlled". (Call it paranoia or whatever, but that does seem to be a common trend, a little tit-for-tat if you will.)
However, what image did I post that was too graphic? I'm not asking to be a smart arse, I just didn't think I posted anything borderline offensive. I mean I opened the website at work. >_<
(Or if this isn't applying to me, then I retract the question altogether. I just assumed it was me since I was the one you quoted.)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton
And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail
Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.
Bob Dole approved this message, didn't he Bob. Woo there.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton
And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail
Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.
I go past two CCTV cameras every time I go for a slash at work.
However they aren't mine, and I didn't install them out of fear. The company put them there.
All the CCTV didn't stop someone pinching a console development kit off a guy's desk last night.
CCTVs are basically a means for transferring taxpayer funds to private companies.
At least with a gun you can have a good bang when you want.
Fexor wrote:I'm not sure why people are making the massive mistake in thinking that gun ownership is tied to a fear-based insecurity. Because it's not. Being prepared is not fear induced. It's a cautionary measure, just like being prepared for ANYTHING else is
I haven't read the entire thread, but I want to address this (often fallacious) point.
Having a spare tyre in your care is being prepared.
Having spare batteries in the kitchen draw is being prepared.
Knowing CPR is being prepared.
Having a first aid kit is being prepared.
Why are all these (and similar things) considered to 'be prepared'?
Because they take steps to address likely, potential dangers.
Thats the key. Likely, potential, dangers.
Keeping a firearm 'at the ready' to respond to a violent home invasion is fine.
BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers. Such as: Do you also have a defibrilator in the home? Is everyone trained to use it? Do you own a car with a 5 star safety rating? Is it regularly serviced and maintained? Has every member of your family undertaken advanced/defensive driving courses, and do they complete regular updates? Does everyone in your family hold a high level first aid certificate, and do they complete regular refreshers? Do you have your household electronics regularly inspected? Does everyone follow a strict healthy eating diet and exercise regime?
You see, I'm down with guns as home protetction. I really am. But if you haven't significant taken steps to mitigate all the other far more likely causes of death or injury before you decide to get a gun for home protection, then stop kidding yourself. You're not doing it because it's safe to do so, you're doing it so you can feel like you've got a bigger dong.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!
I never said anything about martial arts classes.
Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.
Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.
Fexor wrote:
Keeping a firearm 'at the ready' to respond to a violent home invasion is fine.
BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers. Such as: Do you also have a defibrilator in the home? Is everyone trained to use it? Do you own a car with a 5 star safety rating? Is it regularly serviced and maintained? Has every member of your family undertaken advanced/defensive driving courses, and do they complete regular updates? Does everyone in your family hold a high level first aid certificate, and do they complete regular refreshers? Do you have your household electronics regularly inspected? Does everyone follow a strict healthy eating diet and exercise regime?
You see, I'm down with guns as home protetction. I really am. But if you haven't significant taken steps to mitigate all the other far more likely causes of death or injury before you decide to get a gun for home protection, then stop kidding yourself. You're not doing it because it's safe to do so, you're doing it so you can feel like you've got a bigger dong.
Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion? Because I think we both know that's fallacious at best. First aid? How often do you injure yourself so seriously that real first aid is required, but 911 or a trip to the clinic isn't quick enough? Not to mention that the things you describe are all things you're asking for a good investment of time to get and then keep refreshed. Getting a gun (especially a shotgun which usually has no waiting period) and learning to properly use it and care for it can be done in a single weekend, and doesn't prevent doing the other (useless) things.
I own two guns. A Colt 19A11 .45 semi-automatic handgun, and a Mossberg 12gauge pump action shotgun. The shotgun I have used (or almost used) on two separate occasions to defend my property. I've lived here for about 4 years now. Twice, in 4 years. I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, with almost no crime. I haven't even had a fender bender or ticket in the last 8, have never needed to use my first aid certification in the last 10 years and have literally never heard of having "household electronics inspected" before.
So you can tell me I'm doing it for a "bigger dong", but you're full of crap and you know it.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!
I never said anything about martial arts classes.
Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.
I made this point myself a few pages back. I also mentioned saving someone from drowning.
But since literally everyone on dakka can do both these things (gosh what conscientious nerds) my point was, apparently, moot.
I should come up with a list of things that are statistically more likely than a person successfully employing a firearm in defence of life/safety/property.
streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?
Really?
You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?
Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!
I never said anything about martial arts classes.
Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.
Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.
My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.
So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.
I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.
Got that covered. Even if I didn't, what exactly would prevent me from going out and learning after I purchased a firearm? Or is there truly some requirement for us as individuals to follow someone else`s arbitrary risk management list of to-dos in order, as this is the only true and proper order?
I do not hunt at all.
I can, and have hunted for food or pest control. Can't say i'm a fan of recreational hunting. On that note, something has always really "amused" me in the line of thinking that one owning a gun to defend the lives of themselves and families is NAUGHTY-BAD, but hey...You wanna go out and kill animals for fun? That's alright.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!
I never said anything about martial arts classes.
Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.
Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.
My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.
So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.
I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.
Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?
Really?
You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?
Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.
No, I want you to show me that the things you've named will do more to mitigate those deaths than a firearm has done to mitigate violent home invasions. Your assertion is that more lives are saved by training regular people in CPR, defensive driving or what have you than by people defending themselves with fire arms. So prove it.
I'm well aware that plenty of people die in car crashes, or by heart attacks. But look up how successful non-EMT CPR is, for instance. It's very low.
Again, I'm not saying that knowing CPR is useless, or that 5 star crash ratings dont exist for a reason (although I do question the efficacy of the tests administered sometimes). I'm simply saying that having a gun in your home is not some power trip. It is a justifiable security measure (among many) that can be used to protect yourself should your safety be compromised.
streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?
Really?
You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?
Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.
No, I want you to show me that the things you've named will do more to mitigate those deaths than a firearm has done to mitigate violent home invasions. Your assertion is that more lives are saved by training regular people in CPR, defensive driving or what have you than by people defending themselves with fire arms. So prove it.
I'm well aware that plenty of people die in car crashes, or by heart attacks. But look up how successful non-EMT CPR is, for instance. It's very low.
Again, I'm not saying that knowing CPR is useless, or that 5 star crash ratings dont exist for a reason (although I do question the efficacy of the tests administered sometimes). I'm simply saying that having a gun in your home is not some power trip. It is a justifiable security measure (among many) that can be used to protect yourself should your safety be compromised.
This is untrue, see above source.
Knowing CPR does not decrease the likihood of saving someone's life in the event of a heart attack.
Having a gun DOES increase your liklihood of being killed.
Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)
Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.
Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)
Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.
Someone claims that guns help you defend yourself.
I produce evidence to the contrary.
Stop whinging.
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.
Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.
AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!
I never said anything about martial arts classes.
Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.
Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.
My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.
So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.
I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.
Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
But you can prove anything with facts, eh?
The study you linked even admits that it included peope with at-risk lifestyles (read: gang members) in its numbers. It also includes those who take their guns outside their homes:
Your link wrote:
While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
So your study isn't exactly the situation we're referring to: home protection. It also doesn't filter out people in high-risk professions like police or security guards, who are likely to get shot in the line of duty. These are also not people protecting their homes, which is what I (and many others) have been talking about.
Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)
Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.
