So... not having guns makes you safer?

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.

**SilverMK2**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
anointing your armor with the blood of women is ok, but a picture of a woman is wrong.

It's what's inside (slathered on the outside of your armour) that counts.

**whembly**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
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.

Bah... dat's what is wrong with our 'Murrican culture. We readily show violence, blood & gore... but boobeh is bad.

**Hordini**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
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?

My point is, our cities that have the highest murder rates also tend to have some of the strictest gun control laws. It's a cultural problem, and gangs and drugs are a factor. Yes, we have more guns so more people will be killed with guns, but the presence of guns is not the sole driving force behind the high murder rate in those areas.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

I'm sorry that you had to be on the receiving end of that kind of idiocy, but just because there are morons who support the second amendment doesn't mean that everyone who supports believes that kind of crap about America being the only free country. Just because I refer to America as a free country doesn't mean I think that every other country is less free by default.

I definitely agree with you that most of Western Europe and the United States have more in common than they have differences, but the United States' right to bear arms is a significant difference and one that a lot of us don't take lightly. That doesn't mean it's wrong for European countries to do things the way they do, but neither is the way we've decided to handle things either.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Too be fair, at the beggining he was driving on the wrong side of the road.

**whembly**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

Just maybe, we ARE a bit different!

Only this much:

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Having a gun wouldn't have made a difference in safety, as the incident would have still happened, but with a different outcome.

You have to admit though, if the GG had a claymore it would have been a waymore interesting video. Further, if the GG was in a pinky bunny suit AND had a claymore, imagine the shenanigans! BG goes berserk. The next thing you hear the BG screaming and running, followed by a giant sword wielding killer bunny.

perfection.

**Mattman154**

Kanluwen wrote:
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?

At what point is it more than road rage and just plain ol' assault?

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.

**Kilkrazy**

Darth Vader disliked guns.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Darth Vader disliked guns.

Well, when you are a master swordsmen, can hurl refrigerator sized objects at people, and can stop plasma bolts with your hand, you'd not care about guns either.

**Lordhat**

The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

**Frazzled**

Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

*OK in Austin here they are only about 150 seconds away. In Houston, however, you're talking 15 - 18 minutes, at best.

**Desubot**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Darth Vader disliked guns.

Well, when you are a master swordsmen, can hurl refrigerator sized objects at people, and can stop plasma bolts with your hand, you'd not care about guns either.

Why would he need a gun when he has a death star. well had.

**Kilkrazy**

Look how well the Death Star worked out.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Look how well the Death Star worked out.

That was due to a poor engineering flaw. A side effect of government highering out to the lowest bidder.

**Kilkrazy**

Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.

Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?

**Lordhat**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.

Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?

Safe =/= unharmed.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.

Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?

That's really hard to measure. There is 1.1 deaths per every 100,000,000 miles driven in the US (per the US Census). Australia doesn't post a statistic like that. That would be a true comparison, since the amount of time on the road to the amount of deaths will be the strongest correlation of safety.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?

I don't think "road rage" and "accident" work as compatible terms. Also, given the number of firearms circulating in America, shouldn't that figure be significantly higher?

So, having just watched the video, I'm struck by the stupiditiy of that emergency call handler. Did I hear her actually advise the caller/driver to go back and give aid to the perp? Also, unmanned police stations? Seriously? I also thought I heard her ask what the caller did to instigate the situation. Did I hear that right? Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose. After seeing this, I think I'd rather buy a truck like Christopher Dorner's and take my chances with the LAPD.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Lordhat wrote:
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

No, you posted it, now you explain how his situation would have been better off if he was in an environment where he and his attacker both had firearms.

**azazel the cat**

Lordhat wrote:The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.

If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.

That did not happen.

Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.

**insaniak**

Lordhat wrote:
"We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself.

What? He has the ability to protect himself. Just not with a firearm.

In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation.

That was indeed a failure. There are many places in Oz where police coverage is spread thin, or is only part-time. The town I went to high school in had a police station manned by 3 officers. After 10pm, emergency calls were routed to another town half an hour away. While it creates sucky situations, it's part of the price we pay for having a small population that is rather spread out.

That being said, I still have yet to see anyone explain how adding firearms to the mix would have made this specific situation better. You say he was 'lucky' to escape unscathed. I would say from looking at the video that the attacker, while quite clearly a little bit mental, was venting his frustration at (in his perception) being cut off, and was taking it out on the car, not the driver. If the victim had moved to defend himself, that would have turned it into a personal confrontation... and that might not have ended so 'luckily'...

It's really easy to sit behind a keyboard and say that the attacker would have deserved whatever he got, and that pulling a gun to defend yourself is perfectly justified. It's quite another thing to actually have to live with the fact that you've just killed someone.

**MetalOxide**

Guns make you safer? Stop kidding yourself. I think that firearms in this case would make the situation unecessarily more messy; if the victim had a gun, I'm pretty sure the other dude would of had one as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
Lordhat wrote:The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.

Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.

If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.

That did not happen.

Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.

Well said! Firearms increase the probability of death; it could of only took one shot to kill the victim.

**insaniak**

Breotan wrote:
Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose.

Not sure of the full story there, but video evidence from Jo Public is still a bit of a grey area here in Oz. While it's been used in certain situations, like catching hoons who have foolishly posted videos of their exploits on youtube and the like, for an incident like this they would have to consider the idea that the video may have been edited to make the situation look different to what actually happened.

**Grey Templar**

This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose.

Not sure of the full story there, but video evidence from Jo Public is still a bit of a grey area here in Oz. While it's been used in certain situations, like catching hoons who have foolishly posted videos of their exploits on youtube and the like, for an incident like this they would have to consider the idea that the video may have been edited to make the situation look different to what actually happened.

Its fairly easy to tell if a video has been altered unless its been done in a very professional manner, which is not going to be worth it.

**MetalOxide**

Grey Templar wrote:
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead

**Grey Templar**

MetalOxide wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead

I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.

**Mattman154**

Grey Templar wrote:
MetalOxide wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead

I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.

He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.

**MetalOxide**

Grey Templar wrote:
MetalOxide wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead

I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.

I'd rather back out of the situation than get blood on my hands; even if I killed in self defence and the person was a total scum bag, it would still haunt me for the rest of my life.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Mattman154 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
MetalOxide wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.

If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.

I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)

Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead

I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.

He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.

Yeah remember when all those pussy Brits just threw their hands up during the Battle of Britain? Complete wusses.