Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.

Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.

I didn't realize Piers Morgan posted on Dakka!


Seriously though, I don't think anyone here thinks or is proposing that everyone should have a gun at all times. Supporting the right to bear arms and carry a weapon does not equal wanting everyone to be armed.


It's one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever heard, really, and people just keep using it. Someone says they think people should have a right to carry a firearm or that a person who is armed is safer than a person who isn't, and someone comes back with, "Oh, so you think EVERYONE should be armed at all times?!" No, that's not what anybody is saying.

If the opinion you have is that "anyone with a gun is safer" then why wouldn't you want everyone to be armed at all times?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.

Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.

Because there is a difference between a guy beat the gak out of your car and a guy flexing his muscles? You can talk to Purplefood, Mr DWhitey, Soladrin, and Avatar 720. They all know I have at least 1 gun, and they would probably say that I'm a decently level headed guy. My gun is for home defense. If some "tough guy" wants to steal my things, he's going to receive the gift of a bullet.

If you believe that a person deserves to die over theft or damage to property, then I would have to disagree about the level headed remark!

By the way, I own guns too.

Where did I ever say I would kill the man?
Do I want him to die? no, but I'm a big proponent of a bullet wound being an excellent motivator to tell someone to get the feth away from my family and my house. Especially considering that he be receiving said wound after he has broken into my house, set off my alarm, and waited for me to travel from my room in the attic to wherever I encounter him, if he's still in my house after all that, then he probably deserves a good grazing shot. I pray to God I never have to use it, but I was also a boy scout. I'd rather not have to use it, but I would rather be prepared if I had to.

I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

 nectarprime wrote:


I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

You are 100% correct.

Being a gun owner means you need to be responsible. Know when, and when not, to apply deadly force.

I carry because I'm willing to defend myself and others with deadly force. I don't pull it out when someone pisses me off, and I don't wave it around and show it to everyone, and if I ever have to actually fire it, I'm going to do so until the threat has stopped, or has left the area.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the life of someone who forces their way in to people's houses to steal their property as something worth defending.


And before someone accuses me, no I'm not saying shoot to kill if you don't have to, but I wouldn't condemn someone for killing an intruder.

 nectarprime wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.

Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.

I didn't realize Piers Morgan posted on Dakka!


Seriously though, I don't think anyone here thinks or is proposing that everyone should have a gun at all times. Supporting the right to bear arms and carry a weapon does not equal wanting everyone to be armed.


It's one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever heard, really, and people just keep using it. Someone says they think people should have a right to carry a firearm or that a person who is armed is safer than a person who isn't, and someone comes back with, "Oh, so you think EVERYONE should be armed at all times?!" No, that's not what anybody is saying.

If the opinion you have is that "anyone with a gun is safer" then why wouldn't you want everyone to be armed at all times?

Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to. There are a lot of people who have no desire to carry a weapon, so it's not really that huge of a concern. Someone who is properly trained and can safely handle a firearm and is armed is going to have more options than someone who is unarmed. If someone chooses to go unarmed, they are taking a risk that they might need a weapon not have one, but that is up for the individual to decide.

 Hordini wrote:


And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.

America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?

The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.

And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:


Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.

Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?

Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?

 Firehead158 wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:


I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

You are 100% correct.

Being a gun owner means you need to be responsible. Know when, and when not, to apply deadly force.

I carry because I'm willing to defend myself and others with deadly force. I don't pull it out when someone pisses me off, and I don't wave it around and show it to everyone, and if I ever have to actually fire it, I'm going to do so until the threat has stopped, or has left the area.

Bolded for emphasis. This is important to note, responsible gun owners don't do this. This is a great way to lose your CCW and no longer be allowed to own firearms.

 nectarprime wrote:
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.



Edit: I'm not sure if Firehead read nectarprime's post, or the quotes got messed up... His words don't seem to match up with his "agreement" to nectarprime's post... But then again I'm on cold meds, and could be reading this wrong.

I would argue that anyone with a gun, no matter how well their training has been, could be disarmed and have that weapon used against them. I couldn't label someone who does not walk around with a weapon as "at risk".

Of course these are just my opinions on the subject.

I'm still kind of upset that no one considered my humble and bipartisan recommendation...

 daedalus wrote:
I'm still kind of upset that no one considered my humble and bipartisan recommendation...

I considered it, but I'm a people and I don't like the idea of having to be eradicated for the good of humanity... Next you'll be telling me that I need to cover myself in sandtrouts for 3500 years...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.

I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.

If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.

If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.

There are a bajillion things that go into firearms ownership and carry. I can't tell you all of it that I've learned over the last 8 years of training to fight people with a firearm in my hands.

@MeanGreen: Again, my scenario is not fantasy, its fact. It happens, look it up, do some research and create a well informed opinion. Just recently in a movie theater an armed citizen stopped a man who had entered brandishing a firearm by shooting him. Don't accuse me of creating "hero" fantasies that are a reality, in attempt to justify your closet reality of firearms and their use in public.

Anecdote: I was roughly 16 or 17 and my father was overseas in Italy, and I awoke at 3 AM to the sounds of rifle fire. I looked out my window to see two men standing near their car firing rifles down the street. I grabbed my rifle and headed into my living room. My mother, was peering out the window and I told her to call the police. As she did so I took aim with my rifle. I hesitated, however, and chose not to fire. The two men got in their car and left. I went outside to check for casualties and to assist them if need be. Upon talking with the police who arrived about an hour later, I would have been justified in the shoot. Had this happened to me now, with the level of training and knowledge I have, I would have fired. Again I chose not to. Armed citizens don't intervene though, right? I tell you this because YOU live in a fantasy world where this stuff doesn't happen, and apparently the opportunity for a citizen to help his fellow man in a time of need doesn't exist.

@Nectar: You're right, its always a possibility that you could be disarmed and have it used against you. It has happened.

Bottom line, we live in an imperfect world where someone will attempt to take your life, or anothers, without even a second thought. If you choose to take on the responsibility of helping your fellow man, then that is great. Good on you. However, you're unwillingness to fight for your or another persons life shouldn't infringe on my ability to do so. Crime will happen, only the tools change.

Here is a little piece for those of you that think the attacker has the initiative and will win:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/05/1-criminal-dead-72-year-old-man-alive-after-his-handgun-protects-him-from-armed-intruders/

 nectarprime wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.

I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.

If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.

If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.

The ammunition for the gun I own doesn't come in hollow point form... to my knowledge... Granted... I use this for home defense (until I get my handgun):


It should be noted: That I have plenty of hallway space, AND... in the 10 years I've lived in this house/city... we've never had a break-in, so I use it mostly for target practice.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.

America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?

The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.

And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.

As other people have already posted, those statistics do not only include gun murders. The vast majority of our gun murders take place in urban areas that have gang and drug problems, and also happen to be places with strict gun control. Comparing the US to military junta's and South American "hell holes" grossly ignores the cultural issues that cause high gun murders in urban areas in the US.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:


Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.

Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?

Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.

So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.

I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.

If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.

If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.

what are you defending from. bears? lol

kinda silly to try to defend with a rifle like that, (not the easiest to quickload, or to bring to bare, in an inclosed area)

The ammunition for the gun I own doesn't come in hollow point form... to my knowledge... Granted... I use this for home defense (until I get my handgun):


It should be noted: That I have plenty of hallway space, AND... in the 10 years I've lived in this house/city... we've never had a break-in, so I use it mostly for target practice.

 Desubot wrote:
what are you defending from. bears? lol

kinda silly to try to defend with a rifle like that, (not the easiest to quickload, or to bring to bare, in an inclosed area)

Maybe... >_>

It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).

Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.

I would think with all the stuff trying to kill you in Austrailia that would be reason enough to carry a gun

EDIT: got a chance to watch the video.

The victim handled that as best he could. Were I in that situation, I probably would've tried to do the same. That guy had to have a lot of guts to keep his cool during that, and I'm amazed he didn't run the guy over.

The only difference had I been the one in that scenario is that near the end, when the guy started punching through the window, he WOULD have been shot by me, especially if I didn't think my car could get away. Everything else I would just attribute to road rage, call the cops, and try to get the guy to calm down. But at that point, he's shown that he's lost all control over his temper.

I don't care what you people say, any man furious enough to drive into oncoming traffic, sideswipe you, follow you off the road, intentionally tries to wreck your vehicle, and PUNCH HIS WAY THROUGH A WINDSHIELD, is beyond reasoning with. He's already assaulted you multiple times with a deadly weapon (or at least, that's how it's seen in the USA if you ram someone with a car) and by that point, he's proved that he's not wanting to just exchange numbers. He's already attempted to harm you with lethal force, he shouldn't be surprised if the victim defends himself with lethal force as well.

To everyone saying "if he'd had a gun, that man would've died." Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. But what if this guy's car hadn't started up again? What if that guy was allowed to keep bashing through the windshield. Then there's a pretty good chance the victim would've died. The fact that the guy went into the opposite lane, off the road, oncoming traffic, etc, proved he wouldn't stop. Do you honestly think a guy that angry would've just pulled you out, hit you a few times, and been done with it? Best case scenario is that you would've been beat to within an inch of your life. To be honest, the only reason he finally stopped was probably because he was seriously wounded when he fell off the car. Had he missed that rearview mirror, it's pretty obvious he would've kept coming. You have to realize, in hindsight, we can always say "well, it all worked out alright, so he didn't need it." But in the heat of the moment, you don't have time to wonder about if it's going to end peacefully or not. You've got a very short period of time in what could very well be a life or death situation. You say you're glad that the victim didn't have a gun, but were you in his shoes, I'm pretty sure you'd be begging for one when that guy started bashing through the windshield. Of course, at this point, everyone has picked a side so no amount of arguing can sway the other, so I'm kind of wasting my time here sadly.

Also, what the heck do you Australians smoke that makes you that angry?

FINAL EDIT: To alfndrate, no man can call his nugget a home defense weapon without the bayonet attached

 Alfndrate wrote:

Maybe... >_>

It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).

Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.

Im actually jelly because i wanna get a 1911. (curse you plastic crack addiction)


Edited because i broke quotes.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I would think with all the stuff trying to kill you in Austrailia that would be reason enough to carry a gun

Yeah man, 'cuz everyone knows that them drop bears are hella scary!

 Desubot wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Maybe... >_>

It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).

Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.

Im actually jelly because i wanna get a 1911. (curse you plastic crack addiction)


Edited because i broke quotes.

My boss is an ex-military guy, that I would consider a gun-nut... he has some weird views on the world, government, and... things... But it's got some custom pieces to it (after market springs, grips and a recoil pad), I made a very good argument that people weren't buying handguns and that they were buying "assault weapons" (of which he wants) and that he would be hard pressed to find a buyer... he didn't think too much about it and made the deal

 Nasakenai wrote:

Notice how the title of the graph and the actual graph data key shown on the left aren't worded the same? The top says "murders" and the actual data says homicides. What you're seeing here is a severely misleading statistic. Homicides include all death by gun including justifiable, people shot by cops, suicides which would happen with or without a gun, etc. etc.

That aside, most of the actual gun crime that occurs within the US is concentrated in a few urban areas with very strict gun control and usually gang problems (Chcago, etc.) So in other words no your graph is completely dishonest and misleading, and posting it in the way you did can only be chalked up to yes man propaganda.

Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.

Also this whole tread is needlessly dumb. It's the exact same posters arguing with the exact same arguments on the exact same topics.



I'll let you get back to regurgitating the same arguments you've all been having since Newtown.
I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. But recycled arguments with no amount of progressive dialogue are the soup du jour. I'm with you Alby. OT used to be fun, so see you when its fun again.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:


Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.

Japan has an extremely high suicide rate without having many guns.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.

Not in some people's opinion. Some folks like to think that person's life is just as precious as the victim's.

Who are you to decide that his life isn't?

You're some anonymous person on the Internet putting forth the idea that a guy who was involved in a road rage incident deserves to be shot dead.
Do you see where that idea falls apart?

 Hordini wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:


Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.

Japan has an extremely high suicide without having many guns.

It also has an amazingly different culture. Of course, to actually be on track you would need to compare the number of attempted suicides to successful suicides between the two countries, as well as the different methods used, as that is what is being presented, not just what the base number of suicide are.

 Hordini wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.

America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?

The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.

And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.

As other people have already posted, those statistics do not only include gun murders. The vast majority of our gun murders take place in urban areas that have gang and drug problems, and also happen to be places with strict gun control. Comparing the US to military junta's and South American "hell holes" grossly ignores the cultural issues that cause high gun murders in urban areas in the US.

Did you just tell me that more gun murders occur in America where there are more people? Of course there will be a higher rate of murder in urban areas.
You then say it's down to crime and drugs, if this was the case, there would be an equal rate of homicide in inner cities in other first world nations, like the UK or Australia or Germany, I'm guessing that's not the case and the rate is far higher in the US. All these countries have their share of crime and poverty in the cities, yet their homicide rate is dramatically lower. Perhaps the lack of ready access to lethal weaponry might play at least a part in those figures?

 Hordini wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:


Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.

Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?
Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?

Don't start that crap with me. I did not say that nor have I ever implied that. I've spent several years living in Germany and Austria, and I hold both of those countries in high regard. That doesn't mean I love everything about them, but I'd be the last Dakkaite to come on here and make some stupid claim that America is a free country and the UK or Ireland or Germany are not. Neither am I a self-hating American. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. As an expat, I'm guessing you can relate.
In the United States, however, we have the right to bear arms and as I'm sure you already know, that is something many of us take seriously. It is a yardstick within the US, because it is what we expect and is how we have done things since the nation was founded. In the UK, Ireland, and Germany, there is no right to bear arms so it's no surprise that they don't have many firearms and have stricter gun control than the US. A lot of that comes down to cultural differences. There are things you can do more easily in Germany than you can in the US, and vice versa; both countries have their pros and cons.
So from the perspective from within a country with the right to bear arms, yes, being able to choose to carry a weapon or choose not to is a measure of freedom within that country, and I stand by my previous post. This a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.

I'm sorry, here I am guilty of layering what you have said with the accusation I was on the receiving end of several times in central PA, that my country is a socialist state with no personal freedoms, that I am a pussy for letting 'yur guvmunt take away yur guns'. You see, I hear this spoken about in utterly sacrosanct terms, the 'right' to bear arms as being utter and absolute, like the right to draw breath or fall in love or feel the sunlight.
All those things have been denied to many people due to the 'right' to guns, I come from a society where we don't have them, I was utterly unaware of feeling oppressed or being denied a basic right and quite certain I felt a damned cite safer there.
And honestly, cultural differences between the Western Europeans and the United States are fairly slim, it's why we Euros can't understand the obsession with guns.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:


Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.

Japan has an extremely high suicide without having many guns.

It also has an amazingly different culture. Of course, to actually be on track you would need to compare the number of attempted suicides to successful suicides between the two countries, as well as the different methods used, as that is what is being presented, not just what the base number of suicide are.

Woah, so you mean like, culture makes a difference? I feel like I've heard that before somewhere.

 Hordini wrote:
Woah, so you mean like, culture makes a difference? I feel like I've heard that before somewhere.

Well I've said it before, and will no doubt have to say it again, so you might be remembering me having said it before.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Woah, so you mean like, culture makes a difference? I feel like I've heard that before somewhere.

Well I've said it before, and will no doubt have to say it again, so you might be remembering me having said it before.

I might be remembering me saying it as well, in this very thread.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. .

Since when is it frown'ed upon??

BRING IT BACK! They make the world go a'round!

 whembly wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. .

Since when is it frown'ed upon??

BRING IT BACK! They make the world go a'round!

Last time I tried to put an American flag bikini photo in a gun thread one of the mods took it down. Apparently a family site means discussions of anointing your armor with the blood of women is ok, but a picture of a woman is wrong.