NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic is about why Americas gun murder rate so much higher than other countries. Reports show that England, Australia, Japan and many other countries have a gun murder rate less than 200 kills by gun per year. But in America reports show that there are over 10,000 kills by gun per year.
Why is this?

I guess the answer is obvious, right? A total lack of self-control on the part of gunowners in the USA!!! :(

Because you touch yourself at night

I'm tired of the consecutive topics about the same thing. It all ends up the same. Me defending against all these anti-gun nuts who claim that Americans are too immature to handle guns.


Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

I guess the answer is obvious, right? A total lack of self-control on the part of gunowners in the USA!!! :(

SEE? SEE????

Because you touch yourself at night

I'm tired of the consecutive topics about the same thing. It all ends up the same. Me defending against all these anti-gun nuts who claim that Americans are too immature to handle guns.


Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

I agree Colodia. :evil: who are these people that supposedly know more about America than we do?

Because you touch yourself at night

I'm tired of the consecutive topics about the same thing. It all ends up the same. Me defending against all these anti-gun nuts who claim that Americans are too immature to handle guns.


Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

I agree Colodia. :evil: who are these people that supposedly know more about America than we do?

Oddly enough, I would wager that the bulk of them are Americans, between the ages of 14 and 35, from suburban white middle-class backgrounds (upper middle-class), who get "A's" in their Social Sciences classes and look down their noses at the rednecks over in the industrial arts programs-most of whom barely scrape by with 'D's (or whatever the grading-mark flavour of the month is) in classes with names like: "Contemporary World Problems", "Women's Studies", "(fill in the victim group/ethnicity) History and Culture", etc.

The rest, of course, are good European and Canadians, who believe what their teachers and media outlets tell them about us.

Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

Isn't it "Who wants to take over the world?"

And the answer to that one is: the imperialist clan Bush refers to as "his cabinet". :lol:

Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

Isn't it "Who wants to take over the world?"

And the answer to that one is: the imperialist clan Bush refers to as "his cabinet". :lol:

Bush is not even close to that in comparison to what Europe has done

oh wait...ahahahaha

Because you touch yourself at night

I'm tired of the consecutive topics about the same thing. It all ends up the same. Me defending against all these anti-gun nuts who claim that Americans are too immature to handle guns.


Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

I agree Colodia. :evil: who are these people that supposedly know more about America than we do?

Mmmh, you do realize that it is quite easy to prove that in general non-USAers know more about the USA than the USAers themselves, right? 8)

I mean, you guys are lucky if you can pinpoint the USA on a map of the world. :lol:

Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

Isn't it "Who wants to take over the world?"

And the answer to that one is: the imperialist clan Bush refers to as "his cabinet". :lol:

Bush is not even close to that in comparison to what Europe has done

oh wait...ahahahaha

Ah, still living in the past, are we? :lol:

Because you touch yourself at night

I'm tired of the consecutive topics about the same thing. It all ends up the same. Me defending against all these anti-gun nuts who claim that Americans are too immature to handle guns.


Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

I agree Colodia. :evil: who are these people that supposedly know more about America than we do?

Mmmh, you do realize that it is quite easy to prove that in general non-USAers know more about the USA than the USAers themselves, right? 8)

I mean, you guys are lucky if you can pinpoint the USA on a map of the world. :lol:

haha...no...just....no

it aint the guns, its the lack of Christian values in the home and the schools. Guns don't kill. People do.

Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

Isn't it "Who wants to take over the world?"

And the answer to that one is: the imperialist clan Bush refers to as "his cabinet". :lol:

Bush is not even close to that in comparison to what Europe has done

oh wait...ahahahaha

Ah, still living in the past, are we? :lol:

Only when it benefits me of course!

First post ever!! hurray!
well, in my opinion, i think there are more deaths related to guns in the US for quite simple reasons :
1-/ It is legal to have guns
2-/ In European countries it isn't
3-/ Violence is practically carved in our minds, all the wars our country engages in, the fact that we had to fight for our freedom a couple hundred years ago.

In bref : When we get bullied around, we "automatically" want to deal with our problems using violence, what better way that our dad's gun? The Europeans would do the same, but they don't have guns to turn to, instead they use bats or something, i dunno..

Yes you have guns this will happen. BUt you can not ban guns its a right the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have. When citizens give up their guns they cease all control of the country to the government not to mention self defense against criminals. My family owns guns we are responsible with them we have actually used them when I was younger to ward of an immigrant from mexico who was attempting to rob us, god knows what could have happened. You can ban guns and the crooks are still going to get them anyway and thus law abiding good people won't get them and thus are screwed when a crook shows up. And what about hunters and sportsmen? I say keep guns, and hell how about less regulation and control.

Access to guns and a bad attitude.

Im a Brit and when I am driving and get cut up by some bloody idiot in a BMW there is nothing I would wish to do more than start shooting at him, but we don't have guns so all we do is swear!

By the way, a joke:

Whats the difference between a hedgehog and a BMW?

On a hedgehog the pricks are on the outside! :lol:

:twisted:

Here are my thoughts on why America has such a high death rate due to firearms.

1. Guns are legal in most states which means many people own them, which in turn means the people commiting crimes own them as they waant to be able to kill anyone who wants to kill them.

2. America has grown up as a country around guns, when us Brits and other folks first colonised America it was a violent time and guns = protection.

3. They have no history of their own (being such a young nation) and feel the need to constantly show themselves off as big / clever / tough or whatever, and like a ferrari......they just enjoy the power it gives them.

Here are my thoughts on why America has such a high death rate due to firearms.

1. Guns are legal in most states which means many people own them, which in turn means the people commiting crimes own them as they waant to be able to kill anyone who wants to kill them.

2. America has grown up as a country around guns, when us Brits and other folks first colonised America it was a violent time and guns = protection.

3. They have no history of their own (being such a young nation) and feel the need to constantly show themselves off as big / clever / tough or whatever, and like a ferrari......they just enjoy the power it gives them.

Okay...just because guns are illegal doesn't mean MANY people own them

And that second part of 1. only applies to gangs, mobsters, mafia, things of that nature. Hardley the majority of Americans

Oh yeah. Every single people here on America has had family living here since 1776. Right....do you not know about all the immigrants pouring into here every year?

200+ years is young. But that doesn't mean we have no history. We DO have a history of showing up the Brits, Mexicans, etc. within 100 years of our exsistance as a nation

And do you honestly think we kill others because we want to show off?

If it weren't for guns, people would be killed by other means. Guns are merely a tool. Clubs and knives work just as well in many instances. As to the original poster's absurd 'figures', you do realize what a murder RATE is, right? You refer to murder rates by guns, and then to raw numbers of murders by guns. Anyhow, a more telling statistic would be to compare murder/homicide/manslaughter/whathaveyou rates of different countries. Each country accounts for 'murders' differently, anyhow, so the statistics are difficult to compare. For example, I believe that in the USA "manslaughter" is factored in with murder, while in the UK it is not, I think. Most gun deaths in the USA are the result of criminals killing eachother, anyhow.
Comparative analysis of murder rates by guns in different American states would be more informative than trying to do the same with the USA and another country. Foreigners tend to forget how important states are in the USA. 'America' isn't some monolithic entity, it's really 50 little countries in one.

Guns don't kill. People do.
And monkeys do to (if they have a gun)

You obviously missed the satire.....but then that also shows that most Americans don't understand humour or irony.

I've worked in America........Houston, tExas. And let me tell you Texans aint shy about the whole shooting people thing. I would say a good 85% of the people I talked too in work / bars sports clubs etc etc owned firearms. Their friends owned firearms, in fact most people they knew owned firearms.

Now of course I am not saying that EVERY American owns a gun or that every American is some gun toting war mongering freak.......what I am saying is that America grew up with the attitude of 'might is right' and that violence settles the argument. Sure.....things ARE starting to change (slowly) but it is still instilled into the collective American psyche that guns = protection.


Now for the other comment you made........

EXACTLY what has America ever shown the Brits up in? I would dearly love to hear this!

You obviously missed the satire.....but then that also shows that most Americans don't understand humour or irony.
Shut the hell up. You just showed that you don't know what you're talking about.

I've worked in America........Houston, tExas. And let me tell you Texans aint shy about the whole shooting people thing. I would say a good 85% of the people I talked too in work / bars sports clubs etc etc owned firearms. Their friends owned firearms, in fact most people they knew owned firearms.
Oh my, how special? How many Brits (or whatever the hell you are) own clubs, knives, pens, pencils, or fists? Merely owning a gun doesn't mean that you're going to run out kill someone with it.

Now of course I am not saying that EVERY American owns a gun or that every American is some gun toting war mongering freak......

You're just saying that every American that happens to own a gun is a "gun toting war mongering freak." I love how you heap together owning a gun and war mongering.

.what I am saying is that America grew up with the attitude of 'might is right' and that violence settles the argument.
Off topic, but violence doesn't solve an argument? Then what happened to the Carthaginians, Confederates, Czars, Imperial Japanese, and Nazis?

Sure.....things ARE starting to change (slowly) but it is still instilled into the collective American psyche that guns = protection.
That's because guns Do provide a modicum of protection for the average citizen. No matter what one does, criminals will be able to acquire firearms. So, if 5 people are trying to attack you, what are you going to do? Pull off your pants and then sit on your hands? Beg them to let you live, like a little bitch?

EXACTLY what has America ever shown the Brits up in? I would dearly love to hear this!
We're the predominant world power, and you're not. Your former colony grew up to beat you at your own game.

You obviously missed the satire.....but then that also shows that most Americans don't understand humour or irony.

I've worked in America........Houston, tExas. And let me tell you Texans aint shy about the whole shooting people thing. I would say a good 85% of the people I talked too in work / bars sports clubs etc etc owned firearms. Their friends owned firearms, in fact most people they knew owned firearms.

Now of course I am not saying that EVERY American owns a gun or that every American is some gun toting war mongering freak.......what I am saying is that America grew up with the attitude of 'might is right' and that violence settles the argument. Sure.....things ARE starting to change (slowly) but it is still instilled into the collective American psyche that guns = protection.


Now for the other comment you made........

EXACTLY what has America ever shown the Brits up in? I would dearly love to hear this!

You were talking in the tone of a moron, I responded appropriatly

Texas? You went to Texas? OF COURSE YOUR GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT GUN USEAGE! Try a place like California or Oregon instead.

Guns do EQUAL protection. When a man breaks into your house and is waaaay too close to killing you, wouldn't a gun be handy? Thought so.

Concerning the Brits

Well basically, you Brits were so marinated in your own power that you were oblivious to the fact that the American colonies were an uprising Anti-British power. Despite being a world superpower of the 18th century, the Brits were defeated.


Again, in the 19th century. The Brits spark things up by themselves between them and the U.S. They dare try and start a war with us. We gave em one hell of a run for their money. Sure, they burned the capitol. But I don't see us going "God Bless the Queen" or any of that junk.

ROFL!! Shut the hell up? A fine retort! Very typically American!! Your just proving my points with the replys you give, very aggresive and un-bending!

Brits (whatever the hell we are?) Again, showing your ignorance about other countries.......this is what many people were trying to say....WE (everyone aside from Americans) know a hell of a lot more about your country than you do ours. American ignorance?

I did not at any point say that Americans who carry guns are war mongering freaks - I said that not every AMERICAN (not gun-carrying American) is a war mongering freak. Read my words son.

No violence does not settle the argument. Just take a look at the situation we are all in now with Iraq..........violence hasn't really done anyone any good now has it? Sure violence at times is neccesary and justified, but Americans are all too keen to try the violent route first. And I hate to say it but President Blair seems to be following in your psycho dictators footsteps.

Your the dominant world power eh? I think not. Your a country full of poverty and un-educated people with a social programme that is disgusting. You promote violence and the way of the ollar bill (even tho the Dollar is worth NOTHING in the world markets). Your a self centered, ignorant and incredibly dumb country. But hey, you get to carry guns so you must be cool.

What an Idiot!

There's no point in wasting time with him. He's a lost cause. Incapable to opening his mind to the wonders of NON-ANTI-AMERICAN REALITY!

And if a couple of battles against us brits in the past is all you have to shout about....well, hang your head in shame! Remember we bitch slappedyou for ages before you rallied enough people to your cause....and bearing in mind we had a hellof a long way to get re-inforcements, we did alright.

anyway, that matters not. what matters is the here and now.....and 'gosh' your doing 'swell' aint ya!

I'm certainly not anti-american.....I just like winding them up, it's what we brits do to Americans. And you lot love it, you know you do.

ROFL!! Shut the hell up? A fine retort! Very typically American!! Your just proving my points with the replys you give, very aggresive and un-bending!
Thank you, you've just proven my point about you being a moron. Your generalizations are ill-informed and somewhat amusing.

Brits (whatever the hell we are?)

Stupid fuck, don't misquote me. I said whatever the hell YOU are, because I didn't know where you were from.


Again, showing your ignorance about other countries.......this is what many people were trying to say....WE (everyone aside from Americans) know a hell of a lot more about your country than you do ours.
How do you figure that? Are you going to quote some 'study' that purposely polled morons in order to reach the desired conclusion? Even if that were true, the reason you know a lot more about America than Americans know about your country is because the USA is the most prominent nation in the world.



American ignorance?

I did not at any point say that Americans who carry guns are war mongering freaks - I said that not every AMERICAN (not gun-carrying American) is a war mongering freak. Read my words son.
You lumped them in together, that quite clearly illustrates your opinion. Don't try to condescend to me, Rahlise, I'm bloody well NOT your son. Now piss off.

No violence does not settle the argument. Just take a look at the situation we are all in now with Iraq..........violence hasn't really done anyone any good now has it?
Holy shit, a single example compared to most of human history.

Sure violence at times is neccesary and justified, but Americans are all too keen to try the violent route first. And I hate to say it but President Blair seems to be following in your psycho dictators footsteps.
Bush is a psychotic dictator? No, he isn't. YOU, however, are a grade-A idiot.

Your the dominant world power eh? I think not.
America isn't the dominant world power? Damn moron, you really put your foot in it now. America quite clearly IS the dominant world power, fool.

Your a country full of poverty and un-educated people with a social programme that is disgusting.
Proof, or are you just spouting bullshit again? You don't know ANYTHING about the USA.

You promote violence and the way of the ollar bill (even tho the Dollar is worth NOTHING in the world markets).
The dollar's not worth anything, eh? I guess that 10-trillion dollar economy is worth, what, 0 Euros?


Your a self centered, ignorant and incredibly dumb country. But hey, you get to carry guns so you must be cool.
Proof? Wait, you're Rahlise the Omniscient. You don't need anything as insignificant as proof. You're just a generalizing fool, and have amply demonstrated such in your previous posts. It'd be best for you to be quiet right now, as you'll further damage your credibility (did you even have any) if you continue to spout your ignorant bullshit.

Guns don't kill. People do.

people with guns do

Guns don't kill. People do.

people with guns do

and so do people with knives

If there are more guns available, of course there's going to be more gun-related deaths. That's simple logic. Also, I really don't believe owning a gun is any form of protection against gun-toting criminals. A criminal is a lot more likely to start shooting at you if he sees that you're packing as well.

Guns don't kill. People do.

people with guns do

and so do people with knives

And so do mokeys......with guns.

If there are more guns available, of course there's going to be more gun-related deaths. That's simple logic. Also, I really don't believe owning a gun is any form of protection against gun-toting criminals. A criminal is a lot more likely to start shooting at you if he sees that you're packing as well.

Would you try and beat down a man that was equally as strong as you were in your right mind? Or would you try and beat up the weaker man instead

hahahaha I love it. You Americans really do have your heads shoved right up your asses.

I bow before the mighty Americans, the strongest, most intelligent and most well loved nation on the planet! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

If there are more guns available, of course there's going to be more gun-related deaths. That's simple logic. Also, I really don't believe owning a gun is any form of protection against gun-toting criminals. A criminal is a lot more likely to start shooting at you if he sees that you're packing as well.

Would you try and beat down a man that was equally as strong as you were in your right mind? Or would you try and beat up the weaker man instead

You can't compare a fist fight with guns. Fist fights rarely end in death, but with guns all you need is one unlucky shot and you're gone. Besides, who would get the first shot in? The homeowner or the hardened criminal?

hahahaha I love it. You Americans really do have your heads shoved right up your asses.

I bow before the mighty Americans, the strongest, most intelligent and most well loved nation on the planet! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

Hey...reality check bub

http://www.hey.com/bydanegolden/arnold_vs_cruz/assets/arnold.jpg
That's MY Governor!

http://www.newyorkslime.com/bush-cowboy.jpg
That's MY President! (although I'm not too fond of him...)

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/53583.jpg
That....is the British Prime Minister Tony Blair....I think....


See the difference?



http://www.surfnetkids.com/images/ladyliberty-pc.jpg
Now see, if I designed the Liberty lady, I'd lose the torch and make her stick out her middle finger. Then I'd put Lady Liberty on a platform that rotates 360 degrees so I could point it at any country I damn well please


We are Americans. Kiss our asses, because we pwned you right from the start

hahahaha I love it. You Americans really do have your heads shoved right up your asses.

I bow before the mighty Americans, the strongest, most intelligent and most well loved nation on the planet! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!
I love it, Rahlise the moron can't respond effectively so he simply resorts to generalizations and a pathetic "Oh poor dejected non-American me, Americans are so damned arrogant" tactic. Thankfully, most Brits probably aren't as stupid as this sorry bastard. It goes to show that every nation has its share of morons.

I apologize for the kiss our asses part. Despite it all being kinda true, it was uncalled for.

Well....I should've just directed that sentence to a particular person, but then I'd risk a warning.....too many already

Guns don't kill. People do.

people with guns do

If we are going to be pedantic about it, Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people, the bullets do!!

A bit like falling of a tall building, its not the fall that will kill you, its the landing!

There might be more gum related murders because there are more guns?

Its possible isn't it.

Can we move on now.

Ahh so when you told me to "shut the hell up" that could be considered a good argument? I think you guys are just showing that the majority of Americans have been drummed so full of crap that you truly believe that your country is the greatest? really quite sad.

Lets have a look at your president shall we.

Lowest IQ of all presidents. Ex coke addict and alchoholic, a violent, rich boy with too much power.

As for your Guv'nor - a sadistic self confessed womaniser who abused women on his film sets and who supported the Nazi party.

Ace people you got there 'Buddy'

Now shut the hell up and go much a burger you self serving, ignorant totalatarian scum. :)

PS - I love you really xxxxxxx

I love it, Rahlise the moron can't respond effectively so he simply resorts to generalizations and a pathetic "Oh poor dejected non-American me, Americans are so damned arrogant" tactic. Thankfully, most Brits probably aren't as stupid as this sorry bastard. It goes to show that every nation has its share of morons.

So random curse words and flames without even a hint of a coherent and relevant arguments *is* responding effectively? All you're doing is proving the point that you're denying. Thankfully, most Americans probably aren't like you.

When citizens give up their guns they cease all control of the country to the government

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Ho ho ho

Oh dear me.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. And there was me thinking democracy was based on the ballot box and not violence.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun helps. It wouldn't be much use if you just shouted BANG!" - Eddie Izzard

"If we didn't have guns the King of England could just come over here and take over our country" - Homer Simpson.

Isn't Homer the wisest man around?

Ahh so when you told me to "shut the hell up" that could be considered a good argument? I think you guys are just showing that the majority of Americans have been drummed so full of crap that you truly believe that your country is the greatest? really quite sad.

Lets have a look at your president shall we.

Lowest IQ of all presidents. Ex coke addict and alchoholic, a violent, rich boy with too much power.

As for your Guv'nor - a sadistic self confessed womaniser who abused women on his film sets and who supported the Nazi party.

Ace people you got there 'Buddy'

Now shut the hell up and go much a burger you self serving, ignorant totalatarian scum. :)

PS - I love you really xxxxxxx

Why dont you be a big boy and quit repeating what your media tells you. None of your "leaders" can match the superiority of ours. They're still busy talking lunch with the UN while we're busy taking action

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA OH MY GOD, i CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT,


Firstly, I take it you sit on your governments benches and listen into conversations and liase directly with the president? No, thought not, So I guess you get your information from the media too.

Secondly, when we talk and hold meetings and discuss things, it's called diplomacy. It's the opposite of going into a country, destroying anything that moves (including friendlies) and running around with your stars and stripes because the great and almighty American army got to jump on another army that's 30 years behind them technology wise (not too mentioned outnumbered)

Yes, you truly are a great nation and I applaud you. I wish we British were like you, I really do.

Oh, and I'm well aware that our government has made some almighty f'up's with Iraq diplomaticaly, I can assure you that we do not in any way share the same 'gung ho' attitude that you bunch of colonised freakazoids do. 300 years old and so impudent, down boy! *pats head*

http://www.nato.int/pictures/review/9903/b9903-26.jpg
"All in favor?"

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2003/0309/wwmd0928.jpg
"All in favor?"
"Shut up, just bury the damn thing"

As a Brit, I actually have SOME sympathy with the pro-gun lobby in the US (though I still think they're wrong). Why? Because they are subject to the same lack of true debate as the hunting debacle in the UK (I don't actually have an opinion on fox hunting, boys & girls, it's just an example). In each case, the opposition believe they are on a moral crusade which means they are automatically right and answerable to no-one.

Rather like George Dubble-Ya, I hear the Europeans cry. Maybe. Here's another example. In Iraq right now, the US Army are getting shot to sh1t while the British are .... not (not quite so much, anyway). Why? Friendlier towns? Further distance from Baghdad? Nicer weather? Better access to CNN?

Or maybe it's cos the British Army doesn't go in guns blazing aiming to crush any resistance. A bit more intelligent thinking and, oh look, many of the local population are quite welcoming.

Strength does not equal rightousness. No really.

It's estimated that anywhere between 400,000 and 1 million times a year a firearm is used in the US to prevent a crime. The majority of the time no shot is fired.

Quit all the:
'OMG Yank are sooooo stooopiid'
'OMG we ruleeezzz, we pwned you'

You make yourselves look like stupid kids.

It's a serious issue. The Second Amendment is not about hunting and it does preserve the individual's right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is a check on government abuses and a measure of national defense. Japanese admiral said in WWII that an invasion of the US was impossible because 'there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass'. Don't remember reading any of Hitlers generals saying that about France, Holland or Britain.

These statistics bandied around about how many children die each year - many of them include 'children' up to the age of 21.

How often do school shootings really occur?

All the people getting shot - are they being shot by legal firearm holders or by illegal firearms in the hands of criminals? When you outlaw guns - only the outlaws will have guns.

Disarming innocents only leaves them as prey to those who would prey on them - people who will always use guns.

Many states have enacted concealed carry laws. Crime rates have gone down and there have been no shootings due to road rage by CC holders.

Firearms DO NOT make ordinary people killers. It is pretty bloody difficult to kill someone, especially when you are a responsible gun owner who knows what gunshot entails.

Guns are out of Pandora's Box - we can never do away with them completely again. In Britain since all the bans GUN CRIME HAS GONE UP. Where are these guns coming from - where they always did, and that is not from being stolen from legal gunowners - it is ILLEGAL SOURCES.

And all this is from a Brit who decided that it was too easy to dismiss 'yanks' as gun-owning, inbred rednecks and that research was in order.

Politically I fall somewhere between an anarchist and a libertarian socialist, so I'm not taking the side of either the U.S. or British governments when I say this. Ok, shall we begin? :D First off, I hardly find the U.S. leaders to be much "superior" to any other world country leader. They are just like any other, some better some worse, and I personally believe our current one to be much much worse. Yes, he took action. And to do this he used false information and misled the American public. Whether he knew that he was doing this or not, is basically in my mind irrelevant. One should know these facts for certain when going in for "regime change". The U.S. is militarily the most powerful country in the world (though China may come close due to population). Because of this we can sit around and swat whatever less powerful country we want. Theres no great tension in dealing with a country you know you can beat. I honestly have more respect for Jacque Chirac (the french president) for standing up to the U.S. during the Iraq war, standing up to the U.S. in his much smaller, much weaker country. And as I said I don't take the side of the Brits either. I just find it ironic that the brits might criticize us of prancing about other peoples countries. This is for two reasons. Firstly- Wasn't there a saying "the sun never sets on the british empire". The Brits gave us the prototype, the U.S. followed it out. Second- The Brits were are main support in Iraq (I say this as a country and not a people, as I know a great deal in the U.K who didn't want this war). So yep, that ought start plenty of people yelling at me. Heh heh, just an idea.

http://www.surfnetkids.com/images/ladyliberty-pc.jpg

Doesn't compare to this:
http://www.hearingconcern.com/angel.jpg

As a Brit, I actually have SOME sympathy with the pro-gun lobby in the US (though I still think they're wrong). Why? Because they are subject to the same lack of true debate as the hunting debacle in the UK (I don't actually have an opinion on fox hunting, boys & girls, it's just an example). In each case, the opposition believe they are on a moral crusade which means they are automatically right and answerable to no-one.

Rather like George Dubble-Ya, I hear the Europeans cry. Maybe. Here's another example. In Iraq right now, the US Army are getting shot to sh1t while the British are .... not (not quite so much, anyway). Why? Friendlier towns? Further distance from Baghdad? Nicer weather? Better access to CNN?

Or maybe it's cos the British Army doesn't go in guns blazing aiming to crush any resistance. A bit more intelligent thinking and, oh look, many of the local population are quite welcoming.

Strength does not equal rightousness. No really.

Oh. So your a military official then? What's it like being on the front lines in the small town of Yelonel, where 121 old men and women stare at you while you point your gun at them all day?

[]



I'm sorry...but that looks like the Wright Brothers gone wild...

Firstly- Wasn't there a saying "the sun never sets on the british empire". The Brits gave us the prototype, the U.S. followed it out.

Before Americans get too comfortable, the British Empire lasted a few hundred years while real US power has been around for little over 50. And we didn't have Europe getting itself (slowly) organised.

[]



I'm sorry...but that looks like the Wright Brothers gone wild...

You may laugh, but it is only to hide your insecurities. You know the Angel of the North is better.

Actually, its a load of shite

Oh. So your a military official then? What's it like being on the front lines in the small town of Yelonel, where 121 old men and women stare at you while you point your gun at them all day?

Dunno. Why don't you ask a British Army commander what it's like being on the front lines in the town of Basra, where 1,121 old men and women chat with you while you be friendly back and point your gun elsewhere - at the real threat - and don't get rattled.

How many Brits have been killed by American friendly fire? How many Americans by Brits? Firing a gun is a priviledge, not a right.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. And there was me thinking democracy was based on the ballot box and not violence.


Democracy does indeed work by the ballot box. However, one should not dismiss how that democracy was created in the first place. Democracy was created in the United States when a bunch of colonists got their muskets and threw off the king. Democracy was won again for Europe at Omaha, Juno, Utah, Gold, and Sword beaches at Normandy by soldiers with their weapons. When directly confronted and attacked by those who would destroy democracy and freedom by violence and war, one must be able to defend one's own life and liberty. A lot of good people shed a lot of blood so we could have a system of government that is based on the ballot box.

It was simply pointed out that governments (foreign or domestic) tend to be the entites in society most likely to threaten destruction of democracy by violence. Some of us simply ask for the ability to defend ourselves and our ballot boxes.

Oh. So your a military official then? What's it like being on the front lines in the small town of Yelonel, where 121 old men and women stare at you while you point your gun at them all day?

Dunno. Why don't you ask a British Army commander what it's like being on the front lines in the town of Basra, where 1,121 old men and women chat with you while you talk back and point your gun elsewhere - at the real threat.

Whatever :roll:

I don't see why you guys think that civilian gun use = military gun use



And really...if you Brits saw someone shooting at you, I REALLY THINK YOUR GONNA FIRE BACK TOO!

And really...if you Brits saw someone shooting at you, I REALLY THINK YOUR GONNA FIRE BACK TOO!

Quite right, but as a last resort not a first one. Because we understand that while trying to crush resistance CAN work, more often than not it just winds the enemy up even more.

Ergo, if I can fire at you then you can fire at me. Then what?

This topic is about why Americas gun murder rate so much higher than other countries. Reports show that England, Australia, Japan and many other countries have a gun murder rate less than 200 kills by gun per year. But in America reports show that there are over 10,000 kills by gun per year.
Why is this?

Well, let's get three things straight:

1) the homicide rate by gun is a pointless thing to discuss. What really is important is total homicide rates. If people are killed, why do I care what they're killed with. America's NON-gun homicide rate is stil higher than Japan's total.

2)Before 1920, Britain had NO gun laws. It had far less murders than what it has now. According to a study run by a researcher for the University of Cambridge (UK), no proof exists that firearms laws are influencing the difference between US/UK

3)America has far les that 10,000 homicides per year. Check the number.

This topic is about why Americas gun murder rate so much higher than other countries. Reports show that England, Australia, Japan and many other countries have a gun murder rate less than 200 kills by gun per year. But in America reports show that there are over 10,000 kills by gun per year.
Why is this?

Well, let's get three things straight:

1) the homicide rate by gun is a pointless thing to discuss. What really is important is total homicide rates. If people are killed, why do I care what they're killed with. America's NON-gun homicide rate is stil higher than Japan's total.

2)Before 1920, Britain had NO gun laws. It had far less murders than what it has now. According to a study run by a researcher for the University of Cambridge (UK), no proof exists that firearms laws are influencing the difference between US/UK

3)America has far les that 10,000 homicides per year. Check the number.

I saw you enter the forum and I knew this thread was here and I just knew it was only a matter of time. :lol:

1) the homicide rate by gun is a pointless thing to discuss. What really is important is total homicide rates. If people are killed, why do I care what they're killed with. America's NON-gun homicide rate is stil higher than Japan's total.

2)Before 1920, Britain had NO gun laws. It had far less murders than what it has now. According to a study run by a researcher for the University of Cambridge (UK), no proof exists that firearms laws are influencing the difference between US/UK

3)America has far les that 10,000 homicides per year. Check the number.

I also believe Switzerland has some quite relaxed gun laws, while retaining quite a low homicide rate.

And really...if you Brits saw someone shooting at you, I REALLY THINK YOUR GONNA FIRE BACK TOO!

Quite right, but as a last resort not a first one. Because we understand that while trying to crush resistance CAN work, more often than not it just winds the enemy up even more.

Ergo, if I can fire at you then you can fire at me. Then what?

Okay sooooo you just let them walk all over you....nice....

Ergo, if I can fire at you then you can fire at me. Then what?

Okay sooooo you just let them walk all over you....nice....

Why do you only need a gun to stop that?

I love it, Rahlise the moron can't respond effectively so he simply resorts to generalizations and a pathetic "Oh poor dejected non-American me, Americans are so damned arrogant" tactic. Thankfully, most Brits probably aren't as stupid as this sorry bastard. It goes to show that every nation has its share of morons.

So random curse words and flames without even a hint of a coherent and relevant arguments *is* responding effectively? All you're doing is proving the point that you're denying. Thankfully, most Americans probably aren't like you.
Actually, I did have a coherent argument, see my preceding posts. I was merely responding to the idiot's assertion that America is "an incredibly stupid and arrogant country!!!!111!!!oneone!" or whatever he's on about. Learn to read. Rahlise is quite clearly a fool. What, you don't want to call a spade a spade? Fine, he's an "underinformed individual".

It's george bush. I like the face :? so squashy, like a monkfish.


on a serious note, why do have americans guns, what's the point. don't give me that gun behind every blade of grass, a) the japs were planning an invasion of USA, midway stopped them,, and iraq have a gun behind every lump of sand.

guns don't serve a useful purpose

I think not.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans think they are the greatest, as demonstrated by the posts made here.

I replied back stating why I thought America had high levels of gun deaths (albeit in an attempted sarcastic / humurous way) but you were the one who then went into a triad of abuse along with your other buddy who called me a bastard. I forgot that Americans have no sense of humour.

You have also stated along with your buddy that America is THE greatest nation on earth and that your way is the right way, the just way.

Brits and Americans have different attitudes towards war, while our troops are professional, yours are just out for a kill.

I think not.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans think they are the greatest, as demonstrated by the posts made here.

And Brits just love to correct every little mistake the U.S. makes...isn't that cute?

guns don't serve a useful purpose

Who are you to decide that?

That is the point. People who wish to see guns taken away are interested in the control:

"I don't have one, they don't need one"

It's a bad argument. People hunt with firearms. The Second Amendment preserves the right of the individual to possess firearms. It's in the American Constitution, a document designed to recognise PRE-EXISTING rights of man, and to LIMIT THE POWER of government. Those both seem like good aims to me.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans think they are the greatest, as demonstrated by the posts made here.

I'm sure it says the word 'Diplomat' under your name there, Rahlise...

:wink:

Guys drop the whole 'americans are stupid', 'no british people are'

There is a good issue being obscured by nonsense in this thread.

Heh heh @ Goble. Yeah mate, I have a lot to learn :D

And really...if you Brits saw someone shooting at you, I REALLY THINK YOUR GONNA FIRE BACK TOO!

Quite right, but as a last resort not a first one. Because we understand that while trying to crush resistance CAN work, more often than not it just winds the enemy up even more.

Ergo, if I can fire at you then you can fire at me. Then what?

Okay sooooo you just let them walk all over you....nice....



In basra, british soilders have been stoned, mobbed, had people grabbing at their rifles and set on fire by molotov cocktails. they didn't kill a single person and have not been killed for around a month.


it's so important to talk to and get to know the people. a shooter in basra was mobbed by the people of basra and killed by iraqies.

ps - i like the face :? bush man

Guys drop the whole 'americans are stupid', 'no british people are'

There is a good issue being obscured by nonsense in this thread.

An issue that will soon be as thrashed as the gay issues on this forum.

St Johns......I admit to not knowing the full in's and out's of the constitution...I know the basic but not much above that.....can you clarify what "document designed to recognise PRE-EXISTING rights of man" implies /means?

Thx mate.

Guys drop the whole 'americans are stupid', 'no british people are'

There is a good issue being obscured by nonsense in this thread.

Quite so. Especially as each of us seems to have few friends in the world at the moment as it is... :P

So, attempting a sensible topic:

"Gun use in America is characterised by over-reliance on that medium, and use before other forms of communcation have been exhausted. Discuss."

P.S. I'm British. And I like America(ns). Really.

Guys drop the whole 'americans are stupid', 'no british people are'

There is a good issue being obscured by nonsense in this thread.

An issue that will soon be as thrashed as the gay issues on this forum.

Probably and it's been done before I am aware.

I just like posting the alternative to 'stupid Americans with their guns' and being a Brit too.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans think they are the greatest, as demonstrated by the posts made here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample

I would argue that the conclusion made above about Americans, especially when drawn only by the example of the posts made here, was so drawn from a biased sample. Those who hang out on political message boards tend to have the strongest opinions about things, thus a more extreme viewpoint is observed. However, since the sample represented here is fantastically small compared to the total population of the United States, it can hardly be said to be representative of the views of the entire nation.

I stand before you as an American who thinks his country is very seriously messed up. The generalization is, therefore, exploded.

Ergo, the conclusion drawn about Americans above is false (as are conclusions drawn in a similar way about any other nation.)

Gruntie: I suggest you read www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Rahlis: The http://www.jpfo.org/BoRpnt.gif]Bill of Rights [/URL]

Gruntie: I suggest you read www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Rahlis: The Bill of Rights (http://www.jpfo.org/BoRpnt.gif)

St Johns......I admit to not knowing the full in's and out's of the constitution...I know the basic but not much above that.....can you clarify what "document designed to recognise PRE-EXISTING rights of man" implies /means?

Thx mate.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, nor should it been seen that way. It recognises rights - i.e the right to free speech. You don't have the right to free speech because you are American according to this doctrine - you always have that right, when you lack it that is because your government takes it away from you.

It's not a semantic difference. Anything that is given can be taken away. The Founding Fathers recognised this and designed the Constitution as recognising the rights of Americans and so restricting the powers of government.

guns don't serve a useful purpose

Who are you to decide that?

That is the point. People who wish to see guns taken away are interested in the control:

"I don't have one, they don't need one"

It's a bad argument. People hunt with firearms. The Second Amendment preserves the right of the individual to possess firearms. It's in the American Constitution, a document designed to recognise PRE-EXISTING rights of man, and to LIMIT THE POWER of government. Those both seem like good aims to me.


MAYBE the constitution is outdated. it's not such a terrible thought.

the only point for a gun is to kill people. OK that's a generalisation as a rifle is used for hunting elk, a shotgun for foul. but what is a pistol used for. killing people. the constitution is allowing people to defend themselves against invasion from the british or red indians, a hang over from the guerilla warfare style in the war of independence. it's also allowing people to attack and kill people. Judge, jury and executioner.


If it's ok to bear arms then why can't they bear a rocket launcher.

You don't have the right to free speech because you are American according to this doctrine - you always have that right, when you lack it that is because your government takes it away from you.

I think the phrase "self evident truths" comes into it somewhere too.

Not trying to start a whole new topic (especially on a rather sensitive topic), but since we're on the Constitution...

Given that "all men are born equal", how did anti-black discrimination laws get passed in the US last century? Or, come to that, slavery pre-civil war? Or am I misunderstanding that part of the Constitution?

Marineres : You are perfectly correct, it's certainly wrong for me to make a comment like that based on the few Americans I have met on these boards.

When I worked in Texas it was true that most of them did carry guns BUT they were very nice individuals and in the bars we got into some good discussions about America Vs Britain and the whole war.

It was civilised and a good laugh, the banter was great....the Americans abused me, and I abused them and we had a good luagh.

I often wonder why the same dicussions seem to end up nasty on the Internet.....maybe it's because we can't express tone or see each others faces like we could in the bar so we knew it was in good jest.

Anyways, I do stand by my opinion that America is overly gung ho and too keen to pick a fight, I concede that britain hasn't exactly done a great job with Iraq (though I think our boys handle the pressure better than American soldiers - purely because brits are used to village-village, house-house fighting)

I apologise for calling Americans stupid and ignorant, your probably not all like that :P

I still rock tho.

americans are not all stupid. don't a chavster ned ya britooash.

there are plenty of smart americans, you don't become top dog by accident.

just remember that we brits beat you on scrap heap chalenge, (the one where they had to build a plane in 24 hours).

:? hey condeleza, d'ya want a beagle? :evil: shut up bush man, with your face.

the constitution is allowing people to defend themselves against invasion from the british or red indians, a hang over from the guerilla warfare style in the war of independence. it's also allowing people to attack and kill people. Judge, jury and executioner.

If it's ok to bear arms then why can't they bear a rocket launcher.

I think the citizen militia model works very well; take Switzerland for example. Guns, and not just pistols/handguns but military arms, are literally everywhere. Very heavly armed population, probably the most heavly armed population of any country in the world. Yet gun crime there is still quite rare and Switzerland has not be involved in direct combat in any modern armed conflict to date.

What makes it work in Switzerland? I think its the fact that Swiss culture understands the defensive value of an armed citizenry. Swiss culture takes that value very seriously, demanding respect and responsibility in reguards to firearms and in reguards to policy that has maintained the safety of the Swiss people for over 700 years.

Compare this with other countries whose varying (but increasing) levels of gun control insure that their citizens will *not* take responsibility and will *not* have respect for firearms. This is why you see so much gun crime in countries that enact increasing gun control.

St Johns : Thanks for that explanation. Ok based on that, when the constitution was created in America would it be fair to say it was a violent time?

Given how much time has passed since then and our ever changing lives and ideals and opinions on what is acceptable human behaviour, can the document still be held in the high regard that it is?

What I mean to say is, the constitution allows people to bear arms as a pre-existing right, in a time when guns were neccesary for day to day survival - now that is no longer the case, so should the constitution of old still be applicable given it's viewpoint at the time of creation?

Given that "all men are born equal", how did anti-black discrimination laws get passed in the US last century? Or, come to that, slavery pre-civil war? Or am I misunderstanding that part of the Constitution?

As Condoleeza Rice said at the 9/11 Commission; 'When the Founding Fathers said "all men are born equal", they didn't mean me.'

Different times. Which is the argument that others use:

MAYBE the constitution is outdated. it's not such a terrible thought.

Maybe it isn't a terrible thought. Maybe we don't need the first Amendment or all those pesky ones about not holding people without trial and yadda yadda in these times of Terrorism

The thing is the Second Amendment isn't a big issue in terms of crime. It is a big issue when it comes to a check against tyranny and the right to self-defense.

but what is a pistol used for. killing people.

Criminals have guns and kill people. A law-abiding citizen uses pistols for sport/hunting and/or self-defense.

he constitution is allowing people to defend themselves against invasion from the british or red indians, a hang over from the guerilla warfare style in the war of independence. it's also allowing people to attack and kill people. Judge, jury and executioner.

Nope, the 2A says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It also uses the term militia which people interpret as the National Guard - but the NG was formed 130 years after the Constitution was written. Refer to the term the right of the people in the 2A as you would when it used anywhere else in the Constitution - protection of an individual right.

It's not allowing people to attack others. People do that regardless of the laws of the land. It recognises the right of people to defend themselves when they are attacked.

(apologies for the delay - you all have the pre-existing right not to live in a world where I have a beard. I badly needed a shave)

1) the homicide rate by gun is a pointless thing to discuss. What really is important is total homicide rates. If people are killed, why do I care what they're killed with. America's NON-gun homicide rate is stil higher than Japan's total.

2)Before 1920, Britain had NO gun laws. It had far less murders than what it has now. According to a study run by a researcher for the University of Cambridge (UK), no proof exists that firearms laws are influencing the difference between US/UK

3)America has far les that 10,000 homicides per year. Check the number.

I also believe Switzerland has some quite relaxed gun laws, while retaining quite a low homicide rate.


Switzerland is about the size of New Jersey right?

St Johns : Thanks for that explanation. Ok based on that, when the constitution was created in America would it be fair to say it was a violent time?

Given how much time has passed since then and our ever changing lives and ideals and opinions on what is acceptable human behaviour, can the document still be held in the high regard that it is?

What I mean to say is, the constitution allows people to bear arms as a pre-existing right, in a time when guns were neccesary for day to day survival - now that is no longer the case, so should the constitution of old still be applicable given it's viewpoint at the time of creation?

Have times really changed? Pretty violent these days too.

"should the constitution of old still be applicable given it's viewpoint at the time of creation?" - you'd better hope your government doesn't decide that free speech and habeas corpus are 'of their time' and outdated.

Law-abiding firearms owners hurt no-one. Criminals with guns do. Criminals will always have guns whether or not law-abiders do.

"God created man. John Moses Browning made them equal."

In a 'liberal' society that allows responsible people to make responsible choices (about firearms) the 90lb woman can fight off her 200lb would-be rapist/killer.

MAYBE the constitution is outdated. it's not such a terrible thought.

My favorite response to people who argue that the Second Amendment no longer applies because it is written on 228 year old paper is that all those other rights that people tend to enjoy -- the freedom of speech and religion, etc -- are written on the same paper; what makes those one's different?

Surely those who argue that the Second Amendment is outdated do not also believe that freedom of speech, religion and all those other rights are outdated as well?

Switzerland is about the size of New Jersey right?

And your point is?

Let's compare Switzerland vs. NJ.

NJ has very tight gun laws - draconian even, yet it's homicide rate is very high compared both to Switzerland and most other states, why?

Switzerland is about the size of New Jersey right?

More like a bit less than twice the size of New Jersey, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Size and population most likely has little to do with Switzerland's success in reguards to gun crime anyway.

I'd venture that it has more to do with the fact that everyone and his uncle (and perhaps his aunt, too) is armed. Such a situation coupled with a strong tradition of armed neutrality creates a culture where firearms are normal and known; instead of being feared, firearms are respected, treated with responsibility, and most importantly rarely abused.

I blame bowling.

Aidan

(Actually, I think a violent foreign policy is also an important factor.)

What I mean to say is, the constitution allows people to bear arms as a pre-existing right, in a time when guns were neccesary for day to day survival - now that is no longer the case, so should the constitution of old still be applicable given it's viewpoint at the time of creation

1.The constitution doesn't ALLOW anything at all. It only FORBIDs the government to restrain certain right which the founders believed to be pre-existent.

2.Old or not, it's still law. You want to ignore laws because they are too old.

3.Let's ignore the 4th Amenmdnet while we're at it. If we did, it would be so much easier for police to catch criminals, wouldn't it?

Maybe it isn't a terrible thought. Maybe we don't need the first Amendment or all those pesky ones about not holding people without trial and yadda yadda in these times of Terrorism

But aren't self-evident truths like free-speech and being born equal (apparently excepting Ms. Rice's ancestors) supposedly timeless? If a world event occurs that requires bits of the constitution be ignored, surely that suggests those parts are neither self-evident nor timeless?

I would suggest that while the US Constitution is a very valid document in terms of being a guiding light, it's far too specific. How was George Washington meant to know what the effects of September 11th ever would be? How were ANY of us? Really, you shouldn't need Amendments if the centre-piece is about pre-existing rights.

So, what I'm saying is: champion the right to self-defence, of course. But don't specify how - leave that to specific laws that get passed and can be changed.

The thing is the Second Amendment isn't a big issue in terms of crime. It is a big issue when it comes to a check against tyranny and the right to self-defense.

Rather ironically, the very place that Americans can't carry guns (on airplanes) might very well have been the place they needed them most in September 2001. Then again, they might just have blown the cabin apart in a firefight, so who knows.

Once again I've been mis-understood.

What I meant by 'outdated' was specifically the "right to bear arms" sure back then it was neccesary, now it is not. A constitution should not be written in stone, it should be able to change based on change within civilisations as a whole. carrying a firearm is not a requirement for survival - so my question is, should that remain in there? Is there a reason for it to stay? Are Americans under daily threat so bad they need to carry weapons? if this is the case......is it the kind of country that you want to be living in?

And who decided it was a pre-existing right? some men I'm guessing who thought at the time
that a firearm was neccesary. I wonder of those same people would today make the same decisions?

This is my point. Times have moved on. Things change. The age of a law is irrelevant.

There is a by law in York that states you can still shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow if
he is across this certain river. That law is centuries old and is still on the books, but do you really
think that if someone actually did that they would get away with murder because it's law? because it's
an old law? I think not.

Is there a reason for it to stay? Are Americans under daily threat so bad they need to carry weapons?

Considering the actions of the current Administration and how they inspire a lot a people around the world who I have never met to want to kill me, yeah, I'd say the threat is there. Don't forget regular crime of a non-terrorist nature.

OK SMUCKAROONIES.

I'm not saying trade in the constitution for a debacle of non-sensicle rubbish. i'm not thick. I do admit, not being american, that i don't know it back to front but understand it as a fine example of governship to aspire to.

don't scrap race equality, don't scrap free sheech, however tempting.

what i am saying is that it's not infalable. maybe in this modern world we don't need to carry non hunting firearms; stricter licencing might help as opposed to picking up a glock in walmart.

(ps - ) :? )

there are crazies out there. no need to give them or unbalanced kids an opertunity to blow heads away.


the swiss example is an interesting point, forgot who posted it.

all that seems to highlight is that america, with a much higher gun crime rate compared to switzerland as well as "other contries who have gun control", may not have the maturity to possess gun in every home.

A social problem from when you had to defend the homestead from scalpin injuns.

Rahlise, several points:

1.Why not apply the same argument to other rights as necessary?

2.Why should somebody else determine if I need to carry a gun or not? I recommend, again, that you should consider http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

3.How BAD does a daily threat need to be for you to NEED to carry a weapon? What's that need thing? You don't need an SUV or a Harley-Davidson either, and they are more dangerous than guns. Let's ban them.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_decision.jpg

Marineras - us Brits have had to deal with the IRA since the 70's, you don't see us walking around tooled up.

You guys get some planes crashed into you (horrific and bloody awful as that was) and you are all of a sudden fighting the war on terrorism. We have been doing that for decades, and we didn't start a full blown war doing it.

all that seems to highlight is that america, with a much higher gun crime rate compared to switzerland as well as "other contries who have gun control", may not have the maturity to possess gun in every home.


Continued gun control is not going to solve this lack of maturity, however. If the government removes responsibility for behavior from individuals, which is exactly what blanket gun control laws do, then the responsibility necessary to foster a society like we observe in Switzerland will never be created, and the problem will never be solved. This is why gun control keeps getting tighter and more restrictive, and gun crime keeps going up reguardless.

People cannot learn how to handle and respect something if they are not allowed access to it. It's really that simple.

The Guns dont kill, people do... Need I say more...

all that seems to highlight is that america, with a much higher gun crime rate compared to switzerland as well as "other contries who have gun control", may not have the maturity to possess gun in every home.


Different states have different levels and types of gun control. I will note here that those states with the highest violent crime rates are those with tightest gun laws. Not saying that tough gun laws increase crime, but they DEFINITELY don't decrease it. According to the recent study put out by the CDC, there is no proof, whatsoever, that those laws are actually of any benefit.

Marineras - us Brits have had to deal with the IRA since the 70's, you don't see us walking around tooled up.


I wonder if the fighting against the IRA would have lasted over 30 years if the British government had allowed its citizens to arm and protect themselves from terrorists trying to do harm. I wonder how long the resolve of such terrorists would last if they knew they would be forced to face an armed populace who is sick of being a sitting duck. (EDIT: Switzerland is, again, proof of the effectiveness of such an overwhelming deterrent force)

The government can putz around for decades doing their thing if they want. I want to the ability to defend myself from threats *now*.

The Guns dont kill, people do... Need I say more...

Go back and read the last five pages. You're WAAAAAY behind the rest of us on this debate.

An open question to everyone: the right to self-defence is, in one form or another, pretty well recognised and appreciated. Otherwise you couldn't fight back if attacked, right?

Well, technology has given us the gun. Now what if technology gives us something else, something not quite so lethal but equally effective. Let's say, a Star Trek style phaser-on-stun device that knocks your enemy out for ten minutes, half-an-hour, whatever. Maybe it's even more effective than a gun, and everyone wants one instead.

Could the gun then be banned without infringing on the rights of self-defence? If not, why not?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Fair enough, but tell me......if you wanted to kill me and you had no gun, what do you think your chances would be? Not very high mate, and even if you could, you would get severly injured doing so.

Now take the gun.....you want to kill me, you point and shoot and I die. simple.

Guns don't kill people, they just make them a lot easier for people to kill people.

Also.

1. No of course not, some rights should never change (equality etc) however the right to carry a gun is outdated and un-neccesary. You get bombed a couple of times and you walk around with your gun all paranoid? us brits have been bombed by terrorists hundreds of times, yet we still walk around saying "fu©k you, we're not going to be scared"

2. Why should someone else determine whther you carry a gun or not? fine....why should someone determine if I get to drive at 140mph down the motorways? why should someone determine that I can't just walk up to someone I don't like and smash their face in?

3. How bad does a daily threat need to be? I'd pretty much say post-apocalyptic. you don't need a gun.....you WANT a gun.

SUV as dangerous as a gun? do you actually realise what your saying?

I wonder if the fighting against the IRA would have lasted over 30 years if the British government had allowed its citizens to arm and protect themselves from terrorists trying to do harm.

Well, in a real war that would be debatable. But the IRA bombers weren't real soliders in a real war. They were cowards planting bombs and running away so they wouldn't have to deal with the consequences, or risk their own skin. Even al-Qaeda has the deceny to kill their own.

Actually the IRA question is a good one, because it's comparable to Israel and Palestine. Israel, with massive firepower, has completely failed to secure itself despite supposedly having all the tools to do so. Now, if the British government had launched all out war on Dublin, or given the people of the north firearms to deal with the south, would we have the peace we have now?

Or would it just encourage the terrorists? Ariel Sharon needs to work out the last time bombing a people into submission actually worked. Hiroshima, I think. How far between a pistol and a nuke do we go?

"Jaw jaw is better than war war" - Winston Churchill

all that seems to highlight is that america, with a much higher gun crime rate compared to switzerland as well as "other contries who have gun control", may not have the maturity to possess gun in every home.


Continued gun control is not going to solve this lack of maturity, however. If the government removes responsibility for behavior from individuals, which is exactly what blanket gun control laws do, then the responsibility necessary to foster a society like we observe in Switzerland will never be created, and the problem will never be solved. This is why gun control keeps getting tighter and more restrictive, and gun crime keeps going up reguardless.

People cannot learn how to handle and respect something if they are not allowed access to it. It's really that simple.

But equally, if people are not mature enough to handle and respect a lethal weapon, then they shouldn't be given easy access to it. The question is, is American society mature enough to cope with large-scale gun ownership? The figures for gun crime in the USA compared to those in Canada or Switzerland surely suggest that it is not.

If there are more guns available, of course there's going to be more gun-related deaths. That's simple logic. Also, I really don't believe owning a gun is any form of protection against gun-toting criminals. A criminal is a lot more likely to start shooting at you if he sees that you're packing as well.

No..a criminal is more likely to cut and run..they are cowards....and expect an easy mark..pull a .45 on them and watch how fast they turn and run.....I should know..I protected my house from just such a situation..two punks broke in thru the back door..they thought they had it easy because my car was in the shop and the wife had taken her car because she was staying with some family...so the punks thought no one was at home..they broke in, I heard them..pulled my .45 from it's resting place, the magazine from the nitestand, locked and loaded and waited for them as they proceeded to try to lift my television...I showed myself, one had the tv...the other turned..I said..."You have 3 seconds to lay face flat on the ground..otherwise I will shoot you"...lo and behold..they did so..one had a 9mm pistol..the other a knife.. And my story isn't the only one..having a gun has saved many more lives.

The city of Camden NJ has 75,000 people..and approximately only 500 police officers..1/3 of whom are off duty..another 1/3 whom are asleep, leaving just under 175 police officers to patrol a city of 75,000..bottom line..I can not count on the police for my protection, nor is it the job of the Police Dept to protect every home..that right is bestowed on me.

With regards to the "how longwould it have lasted if Brits had been armed" I'm not sure.....but your forgetting that terrorists are not an army as such, there is no real tangible thing to shoot at....these people skulk in the dark planting bombs in shopping centres or near schools and killing people unawares.

Now tell me how a gun protects you from that? It doesn't......what it does do it place an easily useable object of massive killing potential into the hands of people who can easily lose their temper, lose control and shoot smeone in a moment od madness.

You would have teenagers running round with firearms because they are easily accesible and 'cool', I wouldn't feel very safe knowing that most people carried guns. I'm sure most brits feel the same.

You should try living in this country for a while, I think you would notice a marked difference.

And it is very very very very rare that people in this country break into your house with a gun VERY rare. The police in this country are crap at a lot of things, but if someone is in your hosue and you call them, they get there pretty f'ing quick!

I had my house robbed once, I heard them....called the police....about 10 minutes later two police cars and they got arrested. Job done and I didn't have to risk my life doing it.

if there had been a third person in your house and you had your gun on his two friends, do you think you would be posting on this board today?

I think personal responsibility has a big part to play.

Rahlise - I'm British too. Bowling for Columbine had one valid point and that is the fear in aspects of American society. We are catching up though, see fear of asylum seekers and drug addicts and our new and Orwellian 'anti-social behaviour laws'.

Firearms were issued to people who recieved specific threats from terrorist groups in NI. Makes you wonder about all the dead people that didn't recieve specific threats and were killed in their homes in front of their children.

3. How bad does a daily threat need to be? I'd pretty much say post-apocalyptic. you don't need a gun.....you WANT a gun.

And so? Law-abiding responsible citizens do no harm with their wanted guns. They may do some good.

Someone I know once responded to the question 'why do you carry a firearm' with - 'so that if anyone tries to harm you while I'm around they'll have to climb over my dead body and expended brass first'.

Gobble - sure technology will move on. 2A really should allow you the citizen to keep pace with the people who may come to oppress you.

Remember - Hitler introduced gun registration. None of his subjects could then fight back - especially not the Jews.

Marineras - us Brits have had to deal with the IRA since the 70's, you don't see us walking around tooled up.


I wonder if the fighting against the IRA would have lasted over 30 years if the British government had allowed its citizens to arm and protect themselves from terrorists trying to do harm. I wonder how long the resolve of such terrorists would last if they knew they would be forced to face an armed populace who is sick of being a sitting duck. (EDIT: Switzerland is, again, proof of the effectiveness of such an overwhelming deterrent force)

The government can putz around for decades doing their thing if they want. I want to the ability to defend myself from threats *now*.

As has been pointed out, the IRA's weapons of choice were the secretly planted bomb and the sniper. A population packing pistols really doesn't make much difference against that kind of threat -- apart from hugely increasing the amount of guns and ammunition available to the terrorists (who, incidentally, got a lot of their guns and money from good ol' Plastic Paddies in the USA -- I never did figure out how so many Americans could give so much money to a Marxist terrorist organisation).

I wonder if the fighting against the IRA would have lasted over 30 years if the British government had allowed its citizens to arm and protect themselves from terrorists trying to do harm. I wonder how long the resolve of such terrorists would last if they knew they would be forced to face an armed populace who is sick of being a sitting duck. (EDIT: Switzerland is, again, proof of the effectiveness of such an overwhelming deterrent force)

The government can putz around for decades doing their thing if they want. I want to the ability to defend myself from threats *now*.

Leaving aside I disagree with your political read of the IRA: I know of no government on earth that wants its citizens running around with guns in a panic because of terrorism or some other threat. That would be great, instead of people calling the police to report someone they swear is a terrorist because he looks arab or was doing something "weird" they'd just shoot him. We have trained people with guns called police and we have trained people called judges who determine innocence before sentencing.

Now tell me how a gun protects you from that? It doesn't......what it does do it place an easily useable object of massive killing potential into the hands of people who can easily lose their temper, lose control and shoot smeone in a moment od madness.

You would have teenagers running round with firearms because they are easily accesible and 'cool', I wouldn't feel very safe knowing that most people carried guns. I'm sure most brits feel the same.

I don't feel the same. Do you not trust your compatriots? Do you not trust yourself?

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean normal people just shoot others. Even in war soldiers have great difficulty killing.

a criminal is more likely to cut and run..they are cowards....and expect an easy mark..pull a .45 on them and watch how fast they turn and run.....I should know..I protected my house from just such a situation..

Clearly very difficult to argue against guns in a situation where the outcome was obviously positive. Well done, by the way.

The question surely then is how you deal with the negative sides of it. Everything has its good and bad sides.

Salishe sounds like a responsible gun owner, and if everyone was like that it wouldn't be a problem. But not everyone is. There are people I wouldn't want in charge of a kitchen knife, let alone a pistol. The fact is that everyone is not equal - some people are not responsible citizens.

St Johns : law abiding responsible people......and who determines who is like that? I could be the nicest person in the world, but maybe one day my kid gets killed in a traffic accident, or I come home to find my wife in bed with someone else, or say I get fired and loose the plot......

I then have the means to go execute people, no gun = no means. and before you say "you could use a knife" a knife doesnt take someones face off at 50m.

Guns should be in the hands of police and military, not citizens.

Someone on here mentioned keeping a .45 in a night stand, I hope to god you don't have children running around.

Do I not trust my compatrits? The ones I do know I trust with my life.....everyone else, in a word. No. Why should I trust people I don't know? I'll be friendly to people, help where I can and be a nice person....but trust them? no, trust is earned not given.

I know of no government on earth that wants its citizens running around with guns in a panic because of terrorism or some other threat. That would be great, instead of people calling the police to report someone they swear is a terrorist because he looks arab or was doing something "weird" they'd just shoot him. We have trained people with guns called police and we have trained people called judges who determine innocence before sentencing.

Nope, no government does want an armed populace, not even the US govt. An armed populace reminds them constantly that the govt is beholden to the people and not vice versa.

And for the rest of it - doesn't happen where civilised people are concerned. I share your concerns to some extent - I will do more when I see it happen in the US.

The police are great at finding out what happened to you. They ain't great at preventing it. Your right to self-defense gives you a chance here.

I guess the answer is obvious, right? A total lack of self-control on the part of gunowners in the USA!!! :(
Only 2% of all gun crimes in the US are committed by legal gun owners.

Israel, with massive firepower, has completely failed to secure itself despite supposedly having all the tools to do so.


This is because Israel is unwilling to fight it's opponents with the overwhelming and unrelenting force I was talking about. Israel simply responds, frankly, like the (EDIT: suicide bombers). You bomb us, we bomb you, rinse, repeat. This is why Israel will never win the conflict. It is unwilling to use the absolute force necessary to secure it's victory. This is probably due to the fact that a solution to the conflict would remove the ability of the current leadership to milk it for political gain, at home and internationally (Bush's "War On Terror" is of a similar vein).

This exploitation of situations for political gain, responding to threats in a tit-for-tat manner, is exactly why governments handle terrorism so poorly. This is why we need citizen populations who are armed and who are going to defend themselves from threats because they are tired of being victims.

Surrender my security and life to a politician? I'd prefer not having to rely on someone who really couldn't care less if I live or die, so long as they get reelected.

Colodia and Viciousdolphins, you have just earned yourselves very strong official warnings for flaming and flamebaiting. You have pretty much led a flame war here, which means, one more transgression, and I get you toasted.

Rahlise, you were not helpful either, in future, please do not feed the trolls.

EDIT: On second thoughts, I will leave this unlocked as other people are being mature about this now.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

St Johns : law abiding responsible people......and who determines who is like that? I could be the nicest person in the world, but maybe one day my kid gets killed in a traffic accident, or I come home to find my wife in bed with someone else, or say I get fired and loose the plot......

I then have the means to go execute people, no gun = no means. and before you say "you could use a knife" a knife doesnt take someones face off at 50m.

Guns should be in the hands of police and military, not citizens.

Someone on here mentioned keeping a .45 in a night stand, I hope to god you don't have children running around.

Do I not trust my compatrits? The ones I do know I trust with my life.....everyone else, in a word. No. Why should I trust people I don't know? I'll be friendly to people, help where I can and be a nice person....but trust them? no, trust is earned not given.

The person with the pistol in the nitestand was me...actually..the pistol is underneath the mattress..the magazine is kept separately..and I had two children in the house til they left..I taught them how to shoot it and respect it as a weapon that could cause grave harm...both sons are now fine upstanding members of the US Marine Corps just like their dad was.

And no..a knife won't kill from 50m's out..but the average murder is up close to within a few meters of a person..and I've seen people armed with just a knife commit horrendous wounds with them..hell..I've done it..course it was military..but I can come behind a man, shove a knife into his kidneys..or into the base of his skull causing instant ragdoll..I've known men to bludgeon a person with a baseball bat, a brick, a piece of plumbing pipe....a gun is a tool..perhaps a more effective tool..but a tool nonetheless.

dp

I could be the nicest person in the world, but maybe one day my kid gets killed in a traffic accident, or I come home to find my wife in bed with someone else, or say I get fired and loose the plot......

It is one of the common anti-gun arguments that guns are a trigger for "passion crime" because they are supposedly extremely easy to use. However, several things are deeply wrong with that concept. Let's start with the whole "passion crime" concept. If your average neigbour is so unstable that, if he had the ability to do so, he would have snapped out and killed you, why do you live next to him? It takes the rare a-hole or the truly rare circumstance to have a person snap out and start killing people.
If you think you might go execute people or kill your wife - no you shouldn't have a gun. You are a dangerous person, but until you prove that I have no right to take your rights away, nor does any government.
But if you ARE such a person, you should receive treatment. I wouldn't want to live next to such a person guns or no guns.
The Western jurisprudence is based on the principles of presumption of innocence and sanity. Under the basic principles of law upon which the West (not just America) is founded, you (or any adult) is presumed a responsible,

law-abiding person until he's proved otherwise. Gun control is based on the reverse notion - that people are not responsible enough to have a gun until they prove otherwise - and for some guns, they are never responsible enough.
To apply such a notion because of the crimes of a selected minority - and people who commit passion crimes are a minority even amongst criminals (despite common myths to the contrary) is not only unjust, but also dangerous to the

very fabric of law.

To quote an american court:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns,

the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

And who’s to say that some of the victims didn’t deserve a little death? If I ever caught a female companion being sneaky in the sack I would rip her head off. If I found out that someone was stealing from me I would rip their heart out. If somebody was being really annoying I would, and have, rip their jaw off and shove one end in their ear. You people are always afraid to fully express yourselves because you’re afraid of what the law may do.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

This is why Israel will never win the conflict. It is unwilling to use the absolute force necessary to secure it's victory.

And if it did, how long would that victory last? I give it five hours before the rest of the Arab world says "Ah, to hell with it" and sends everything they have. Then overwhelming force would be met by even more overwhelming force. Escalation. Someone drops a nuke. Someone replies. We all die.

Just because America is the most powerful nation in the world right now, doesn't mean it is right. If you use absolute force you encourage the same to be used against you, maybe from someone you didn't even expect.

September 11, unless you hadn't noticed, was meant to be overwhelming force against the US. Didn't stop them, did it? Nor should it.

This exploitation of situations for political gain, responding to threats in a tit-for-tat manner, is exactly why governments handle terrorism so poorly. This is why we need citizen populations who are armed and who are going to defend themselves from threats because they are tired of being victims.

So give both Israelies and Palestinians weapons and let them defend themselves from each other?!?

Now tell me how a gun protects you from that? It doesn't......what it does do it place an easily useable object of massive killing potential into the hands of people who can easily lose their temper, lose control and shoot smeone in a moment od madness.

You would have teenagers running round with firearms because they are easily accesible and 'cool', I wouldn't feel very safe knowing that most people carried guns. I'm sure most brits feel the same.

I don't feel the same. Do you not trust your compatriots? Do you not trust yourself?

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean normal people just shoot others. Even in war soldiers have great difficulty killing.

In America, owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot -- usually by a member of your own family, frequently by accident. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. Statistically speaking, of course; there will always be individuals who have been saved because they had a gun, just as there were individuals who were saved by not wearing a seatbelt. Playing the odds, though: if you own a gun you're more likely to be shot.

I see no need for anyone in the UK to be armed. I live in Glasgow, and frankly we have enough trouble here with swords, hatchets, machetes, knives and Buckfast bottles. There is some gun crime, but it's almost all criminal-on-criminal. I agree, if we had a stable and responsible society, we could all safely own guns: but then we wouldn't need them. Since we don't have a stable and responsible society -- and as you pointed out earlier, it's getting worse -- adding guns to that mix would be like pouring petrol on a fire.

here now Clappi, steady on mate, don't go too far!! bringing Buckfast into dis-repute is just not on! tis the drink of the Gods!. ahhh yes, I remember my first bottle of buckie when I lived in Calderbank (outside Airdrie) was an excellent night, the smell of the burning cars, the lasses throwing themselves at you and who can forget those neighbourly lads from over the valley (chapelhall) armed to the nines with bats.

memories. :P

Of course a gun is a tool, I know that I wouldn't be tempted to shoot anyone unless under the most grave of circumstance, it's everyone else I worry about!

I still don't think anything that has been said here has made me think that owning a firearm is safe and ok. I understand completly why you feel you need one (lack of policing etc / gun crime in USA etc) and I am quite sure that you are an exceptionally responsible gun owner.

However, while you and I'm sure many others are responsible, it's the other people who are not that concern me.....and there are ALOT of unstable people on this screwed up little planet of ours.

In America, owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot -- usually by a member of your own family, frequently by accident. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun


This is based by one, statistically rigged, study.

Here's a link.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Moreover, according to different estimates, from 150,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented each year in America by guns, most of them without any shots fired at all. What were you saying?

And who’s to say that some of the victims didn’t deserve a little death? If I ever caught a female companion being sneaky in the sack I would rip her head off. If I found out that someone was stealing from me I would rip their heart out. If somebody was being really annoying I would, and have, rip their jaw off and shove one end in their ear. You people are always afraid to fully express yourselves because you’re afraid of what the law may do.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

You seem to confuse "expressing yourself" with "behaving like an animal". Ever considered how more self-control would benefit everyone? And that over-reacting, like you seem to tend to do, is only making one look like one who is best removed from society and put in a cage with the other animals? Ever considered that expressing yourself via physical violence is often looked upon as the responce of one who is too weak to make their case without having to resort to said violence? I guess not... :roll:

...before the rest of the Arab world says "Ah, to hell with it" and sends everything they have.


Such a war, the Six Day War, has already been fought and won by Israel. Little Israel was at war with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, all of whom were backed by the Soviet Union. Israel was able to defeat all three of its enemies exactly because it employed a policy of overwhelming force which helped ensure it's victory.


Just because America is the most powerful nation in the world right now, doesn't mean it is right.


I believe that the idea that an enemy should be met with absolute and overwhelming force is absolutely correct. If a nation is going to go to war, then it should be serious and fight like it means it. This may seem like bullying, but in reality it can help prevent war as a nation should be absolutely sure that it can win before engaging, and it will shorten the length of time necessary to fight (as above, Israel repelled three enemy nations in six days.)

Don't confuse the idea of absolute and overwhelming force with pre-emptive war. They are not the same. A nation should only go to war as a matter of actual defense. This is another thing about Switzerland that I really like. Switzerland doesn't have a military. Switzerland's dedication to armed neutrality means it has defense forces.

Don't think that I would like to declare war on the world. I simply believe that overwhelming force is an excellent deterrent, as well as an excellent way to absolutely destroy any real threat, but only if absolutely necessary. For the record, I don't believe the war in Iraq was necessary at all.


If you use absolute force you encourage the same to be used against you, maybe from someone you didn't even expect.


Good! That threat will act as a deterrent and will hopefully make future presidents think real hard before starting another war.


So give both Israelies and Palestinians weapons and let them defend themselves from each other?!?

Actually, quit giving (EDIT: foreign nations) weapons, bring all our troops home, quit fighting pre-emptive wars, (EDIT: create a responsible armed citizenry), and be ready to defend ourselves with an unholy fury next time we are attacked by a real enemy.

In America, owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot -- usually by a member of your own family, frequently by accident. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun


This is based by one, statistically rigged, study.

Here's a link.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Moreover, according to different estimates, from 150,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented each year in America by guns, most of them without any shots fired at all. What were you saying?

The question is not so much "how many crimes are prevented each year in America by guns," but "how many crimes are caused by those owning a gun?" The next question is identifying those owners. And no, not all of them are 'criminals' in the narrow sense, hardened criminals who lead a dangerous lifestyle, but family members who are either too stupid to handle a gun correctly or who in an anger tantrum use that firepower in a less than impeccable way.

Nothing to do with gun ownership I'm sure.

Nope, no government does want an armed populace, not even the US govt. An armed populace reminds them constantly that the govt is beholden to the people and not vice versa.

funny I thought that was the vote.

And for the rest of it - doesn't happen where civilised people are concerned. I share your concerns to some extent - I will do more when I see it happen in the US.
It won't happen because no government allows unrestricted handing out of firearms and says "there are terrorists among you. Go get 'em!!!" Except Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion. And that doesn't seem to have gone so badly, now that I think about it. Nonetheless people do stupid things with guns and other weapons constantly. And I'm not sure where you get your definition of civilized. Who is going to make that judegment call?

In America, owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot -- usually by a member of your own family, frequently by accident. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun


This is based by one, statistically rigged, study.

Here's a link.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Moreover, according to different estimates, from 150,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented each year in America by guns, most of them without any shots fired at all. What were you saying?

The question is not so much "how many crimes are prevented each year in America by guns," but "how many crimes are caused by those owning a gun?" The next question is identifying those owners. And no, not all of them are 'criminals' in the narrow sense, hardened criminals who lead a dangerous lifestyle, but family members who are either too stupid to handle a gun correctly or who in an anger tantrum use that firepower in a less than impeccable way.

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

You seem to confuse "expressing yourself" with "behaving like an animal". Ever considered how more self-control would benefit everyone? And that over-reacting, like you seem to tend to do, is only making one look like one who is best removed from society and put in a cage with the other animals? Ever considered that expressing yourself via physical violence is often looked upon as the responce of one who is too weak to make their case without having to resort to said violence? I guess not... :roll:
Humans are the most egotistical animals on the face of the earth. Yet you come up with all of these rules and regulations that make it so you can't harm another human except in cases of defense. Humans just want to live as comfortably as possible for as long as possible. Seldom do you ever want to face what you truly are. It would be far too uncomfortable for you to have to face your own mortality every now and then. So you put aside your feelings in favor of a nice comfortable lazyboy recliner.

Exactly to what extent have humans gone to to live as comfortably as possible? If it causes discomfort it must be gotten rid of. Violence, get rid of it. Animals that may find people appetizing, get rid of them. Don't like living in the crowded cities, cut down some more trees and move to the suburbs. Take away the homes of other animals, just so you have room for more people. See an animal that has a nice coat of fur, kill it and don it's hide. Show it off to all of your friends. Make them envy you. Every animal tends to find its own niche, humans don't seem to fit in anywhere. They consume and waste everything, and build up large mounds of garbage. Does that put you above animals, or below?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Nothing to do with gun ownership I'm sure.

I'm fairly sure it isn't too.

"how many crimes are caused by those owning a gun?"

I believe earlier in the thread someone quoted that 2% of all gun crimes in the US are committed by legal owners of firearms.

Don't let's be blaming an object, guns don't kill people on their own. People don't find it much easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, especially at close range like most gun murders that I know of (excepting Washington sniper)

Look at states in the US with restrictive firearms laws. Crime is no lower, gun deaths are no lower.

funny I thought that was the vote.

How's that working out for us then? We vote some government in and they screw us over until the next election when they cut taxes to compete with the other party who say they are going to cut taxes too. Neither of them do.

It won't happen because no government allows unrestricted handing out of firearms and says "there are terrorists among you. Go get 'em!!!" Except Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion. And that doesn't seem to have gone so badly, now that I think about it. Nonetheless people do stupid things with guns and other weapons constantly. And I'm not sure where you get your definition of civilized. Who is going to make that judegment call?

People do stupid things.

You can never stop legislating for stupid people. There is a law on dumblaws.com from Alaska about not throwing a moose from an aircraft. Needless to say some idiot did this and the legislature found the need for a specific law - WHY? I think that comes under cruelty or just plain stupidity.

Who's going to make the judgement call about who is not civilised. probably civilised wasn't the right word. Responsible is a better word. Govt. seems to be constantly telling us we aren't responsible enough to look after ourselves. 2A clearly states that the Founding Fathers thought Americans were responsible enough.

More responsible people - less firearms deaths.

Look at states in the US with restrictive firearms laws. Crime is no lower, gun deaths are no lower.

Which surely points to an attitude, rather than legislative, problem?

[Anyone else find the site really slow at this time of day? I haven't been able to reply to anything for an hour]

Look at states in the US with restrictive firearms laws. Crime is no lower, gun deaths are no lower.

Which surely points to an attitude, rather than legislative, problem?

[Anyone else find the site really slow at this time of day? I haven't been able to reply to anything for an hour]

It points out that 'guns are bad and cause crime' is not the total answer. It's not the answer at all.

It does have one thing in its favour: It wins votes. And that's all that matters to politicians.

[Anyone else find the site really slow at this time of day? I haven't been able to reply to anything for an hour]

Here's why
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141629
It's near the bottom.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

This question has been kicked around a lot since Moore's last film, and nobody seems to be asking the right questions. Why are there so many gun murders? Too many guns, irresponsible populace? Sounds like two explanations that are skirting the subject. Why not ask the killers themselves? Isn't a motive associated with every murder? Lets see some stats on motive distribution. Killing for money, love, etc. Then once we see the figures, we can address the cultural problem directly.

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

The statistics, at least not the one's I've seen, do not tell me if a crime has been prevented by one who one expects to own a gun, like a cop, or a citizen who just happens to own a gun. Hence my preference.

I believe that the idea that an enemy should be met with absolute and overwhelming force is absolutely correct.

In a lot of circumstances, I agree. The problem comes in a scenario like The War on Terror, which is a whole new type of war where absolute force has little effect against an enemy who are happy to die anyway. Excessive force just makes it worse.

Taking it to a logical conclusion, why not nuke the enemy and be done with it?

Getting back on topic, there are infinite scenarios involving civilians with guns. In what percentage of these actually require guns, and in what percentage is it just nice. I'm not expecting a factual answer to this one, btw...

This is sort of off-topic, but it is my response to the first question of the thread. I haven't bothered to look through all seven pages of the thread responses... my bad.

In the movie "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore hypothesizes as to why there are so many more gun murders in the U.S. in comparison to Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. According to him, the media infuses fear into Americans, who become so afraid of that they buy guns. With so many guns and poor gun control laws, anybody can get one and shoot someone else, even for a petty reason.

This is just Moore's opinion, but I just wanted to give A potential answer to a very complex question.

In "Bigger and Blackers", Chris Rock says that if you want lower gun murders in the U.S., make each bullet cost US$5,000. Then, people would only shoot others if they REALLY wanted them dead. It's just another opinion, but an opinion, I wanted to share.

To me it's simply, if you grow up thinking "I have right to own and use my gun" it stuffs you up. When you get into a fight, these people pull out their gun to get the upper hand. When a group of these people, with guns get a little agro at each other well, the result is predictable.

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

The statistics, at least not the one's I've seen, do not tell me if a crime has been prevented by one who one expects to own a gun, like a cop, or a citizen who just happens to own a gun. Hence my preference.

You mean...in other words.you've not ventured out to research those plausible scenarios..there are multiple sites you can peruse..I am one of those scenarios..and I'm not alone..

Michael Moore hypothesizes as to why there are so many more gun murders in the U.S. in comparison to Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. According to him, the media infuses fear into Americans, who become so afraid of that they buy guns.

Sounds a reasonable theory. In Britain, the mass media tries infuse fear into us that continental Europeans (especially the French & Germans) are about to invade through diplomatic and economic means (i.e.: the EU). Doesn't make it any more correct.

There's a solution to this. Curtail free speech in the media!

(No, I'm not serious)

Getting back on topic, there are infinite scenarios involving civilians with guns. In what percentage of these actually require guns, and in what percentage is it just nice. I'm not expecting a factual answer to this one, btw...

There are any number of scenarios where you might prefer to be armed.

My thoughts are more of the deterrent effect. John Stossel (ABC?) does a show called 20/20. He covered whether or not gun control reduces gun crime - in it he interviewed violent convicted criminals who clearly stated the thing they feared was not the police but an armed victim.

In the UK burglaries that take place when the owners are in take up over two thirds of burglaries. In the US it's around 10%. UK burglars have nothing to fear from their victims - they have the power.

In the movie "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore hypothesizes as to why there are so many more gun murders in the U.S. in comparison to Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. According to him, the media infuses fear into Americans, who become so afraid of that they buy guns. With so many guns and poor gun control laws, anybody can get one and shoot someone else, even for a petty reason.

This is just Moore's opinion, but I just wanted to give A potential answer to a very complex question.

Yep it's a complex question and Moore's fear hypothesis isn't a bad one. However law-abiding people don't just go and shoot each other for no reason. If you take their guns away you just leave guns in the hands of people who do shoot each other.

For after all - when did criminals start to obey laws?

In "Bigger and Blackers", Chris Rock says that if you want lower gun murders in the U.S., make each bullet cost US$5,000. Then, people would only shoot others if they REALLY wanted them dead. It's just another opinion, but an opinion, I wanted to share.

I appreciate it is a joke, but it's just another form of gun control. It would end legal hunting and olympic sports.

It would also leave guns in the hands of the elite like Sen. Feinstein who doesn't want us to have guns anyway because we don't need them.

But wait - hang on... hasn't Sen. Feinstein herself got one of California's rare Concealed Carry licenses?

One rule for the rulers and another rule for the rest.

And no, not all of them are 'criminals' in the narrow sense, hardened criminals who lead a dangerous lifestyle, but family members who are either too stupid to handle a gun correctly or who in an anger tantrum use that firepower in a less than impeccable way.

Can you prove that statement by statistics?

We know, that the majority of people who commit murders, in america or otherwise are people with a violent or cirminal past - people who already showed their true nature.

Clearly voting isn't working. Its an excellent point. that's why I plan to threaten the next President with my handgun and my citizen's militia? That seems like a good basis for government not to mention highly sucessful since historically anyone can go up to the President anytime they want, ESPECIALLY armed with a gun.

The Constitution can be changed.

Riots have happened and people have been killed by mass murders with guns. Yes there are other ways to kill people but do you think the situation in Columbine would have been slightly shorter and less dramatic if the kids had been armed with knives or just their bare hands?

Saying that guns aren't the problem, the cause to murder lies elsewhere is a valid point, but it doesn't also mean we shouldn't do something about guns. Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people so why not give everyone a nuclear weapon?

To me it's simply, if you grow up thinking "I have right to own and use my gun" it stuffs you up. When you get into a fight, these people pull out their gun to get the upper hand. When a group of these people, with guns get a little agro at each other well, the result is predictable.

But it doesn't happen amongst law-abiding concealed carry holders.

No shootouts over parking spaces.
No shootouts over Little League Baseball.

People don't deserve to be generalised about and grouped in with those rare persons that do just kill others. But they don't have legal firearms.

No offense but this has been covered. There is eight pages here.

In America, owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot -- usually by a member of your own family, frequently by accident. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun


This is based by one, statistically rigged, study.

Here's a link.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Moreover, according to different estimates, from 150,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented each year in America by guns, most of them without any shots fired at all. What were you saying?

The question is not so much "how many crimes are prevented each year in America by guns," but "how many crimes are caused by those owning a gun?" The next question is identifying those owners. And no, not all of them are 'criminals' in the narrow sense, hardened criminals who lead a dangerous lifestyle, but family members who are either too stupid to handle a gun correctly or who in an anger tantrum use that firepower in a less than impeccable way.

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

And why do you wish to avoid the negative issues concerning gun ownership? You can't just look at the good and ignore the bad! I think it is more prudent to discuss both sides of the argument and not just ignore an aspect because you don't see it as a "positive"

But it doesn't happen amongst law-abiding concealed carry holders.

No shootouts over parking spaces.
No shootouts over Little League Baseball.

People don't deserve to be generalised about and grouped in with those rare persons that do just kill others. But they don't have legal firearms.

No offense but this has been covered. There is eight pages here.

I do agree with your point that in general there is not widespread urban warfare over little league baseball or parking spaces--but it does happen. And I cannot believe your implied assertion that no one who has a gun legally has ever killed anyone. The guy in Lousiana who shot a trick-or-treater was a legal gunholder. These things do happen. with legally held guns

Clearly voting isn't working. Its an excellent point. that's why I plan to threaten the next President with my handgun and my citizen's militia? That seems like a good basis for government not to mention highly sucessful since historically anyone can go up to the President anytime they want, ESPECIALLY armed with a gun.

The Constitution can be changed.

Riots have happened and people have been killed by mass murders with guns. Yes there are other ways to kill people but do you think the situation in Columbine would have been slightly shorter and less dramatic if the kids had been armed with knives or just their bare hands?

Saying that guns aren't the problem, the cause to murder lies elsewhere is a valid point, but it doesn't also mean we shouldn't do something about guns. Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people so why not give everyone a nuclear weapon?

Columbine - those kids broke pretty much every law in the book before they even started shooting. Laws that gun owners support, like no straw purchases.

I'm not advocating threatening the govt. Reductio ad absurdum - a logical fallacy. The govt. can't threaten an armed populace with force though.

And those murderous riots - govts start and support mass uprisings like that. Rwanda was encouraged by the government - machetes were used mainly to kill 800,000 people.

I do agree with your point that in general there is not widespread urban warfare over little league baseball or parking spaces--but it does happen. And I cannot believe your implied assertion that no one who has a gun legally has ever killed anyone. The guy in Lousiana who shot a trick-or-treater was a legal gunholder. These things do happen. with legally held guns

It does happen. Read Allanea's post about the premise of Western jurisprudence. People have to show themselves to be incapable, and when the odd few do they need to be dealt with. You can't take rights from everyone and ask that they prove themselves - of course this in practice is how it works because you have to go on courses to get CCW licenses.

Allanea - how many states with CCW is it now?

In the UK burglaries that take place when the owners are in take up over two thirds of burglaries. In the US it's around 10%. UK burglars have nothing to fear from their victims - they have the power.

There was a case in the UK where a farmer from Norwich shot and killed a burglar in his house. Admittedly he shot him in the back. But it provoked a big debate here on whether it was OK to defend yourself in your own home, and what force you can reasonably use. I think we came down more on the side of "the little shit shouldn't have been in the house in the first place".

From what I hear, Americans were surprised it was even an issue.

Hey Europeons! WHO WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

Let me think... not the English, Welsh, Scottish, French, Belgians, Swiss, Dutch, Norwegians, Polish, Hungarian, Spanish, Portugese, Yugoslavians or Czechs. No, I give up. Was it Coca-Cola, McDonnads, Microsoft or the U.S. Army?

To me it's simply, if you grow up thinking "I have right to own and use my gun" it stuffs you up. When you get into a fight, these people pull out their gun to get the upper hand. When a group of these people, with guns get a little agro at each other well, the result is predictable.

But it doesn't happen amongst law-abiding concealed carry holders.

No shootouts over parking spaces.
No shootouts over Little League Baseball.

People don't deserve to be generalised about and grouped in with those rare persons that do just kill others. But they don't have legal firearms.

No offense but this has been covered. There is eight pages here.

Most people have a self-control like responsible firearms owners. The disturbed few don't have this control and run about with guns at school when young (and then become much worse later ... do drugs, join gangs). However a culture where guns are everpresent does induce this problem where some will exercise their rights using the gun as their bargaining tool in life. I don't want to see schools where children get checked for guns at school. It's sad.

Let me think... not the English, Welsh, Scottish, French, Belgians, Swiss, Dutch, Norwegians, Polish, Hungarian, Spanish, Portugese, Yugoslavians or Czechs. No, I give up. Was it Coca-Cola, McDonnads, Microsoft or the U.S. Army?

Don't - this thread was nearly locked due to that earlier nonsense.

Welcome to NS General by the way.

Klerkistan, let me dissect this argument down up.

The nuclear weapon parralel is clearly wrong. As Saharov proved, EVERY nuclear weapon detonation harms innocent people, even when blown up in the desert. A conventional weapon (even a 155mm cannon) can be used extensively without killing one innocent.

In Columbine, the kids used not only guns, but also homemade bombs. In Oklahoma, the terrorist used fertilizer to kill 156 people. In Waco, people were massacred using CS gas which ignited. The worst serial killers - Chicatillo, Ted Bundy, and so forth - used knives.

Rioters, if you wish to bring up riots, are easily stopped with a threat of force. Note that during the Rodney King riots the people who defended their shops and businesses with guns - most famously the Korean merchants who got filmed by CNN doing so - were the ones who didn't get their houses robbed, burned down, etc.

As per the President: Yeah, no citizens can ever stop an oppresive goverment. Just don't tell the Tutsi who effectively stopped their own genocide. And don't tell that the GI's in Athens, Tennessee, 1945.


[quote]Saying that guns aren't the problem, the cause to murder lies elsewhere is a valid point, but it doesn't also mean we shouldn't do something about guns[/qupte]

But if guns aren't the problem, why do anything about them.


P.S. Re: Columbine. Carrying a gun at school grounds is prohibited by Colorado law. In Israel, armed school guards are obligatory. Anybody ever wonder if Harris and Klebold would have ever thought of the idea if they even thought local employees carried guns?

[Most people have a self-control like responsible firearms owners. The disturbed few don't have this control and run about with guns at school when young (and then become much worse later ... do drugs, join gangs). However a culture where guns are everpresent does induce this problem where some will exercise their rights using the gun as their bargaining tool in life. I don't want to see schools where children get checked for guns at school. It's sad.

Like I've said, you can't ever stop legislating for those that will break the law. If we did we'd have no free speech, no alcohol (and no pubs), a curfew etc.

Curtailing the rights of all does not deal with the problem minority.

You seem to confuse "expressing yourself" with "behaving like an animal". Ever considered how more self-control would benefit everyone? And that over-reacting, like you seem to tend to do, is only making one look like one who is best removed from society and put in a cage with the other animals? Ever considered that expressing yourself via physical violence is often looked upon as the responce of one who is too weak to make their case without having to resort to said violence? I guess not... :roll:
Humans are the most egotistical animals on the face of the earth. Yet you come up with all of these rules and regulations that make it so you can't harm another human except in cases of defense. Humans just want to live as comfortably as possible for as long as possible. Seldom do you ever want to face what you truly are. It would be far too uncomfortable for you to have to face your own mortality every now and then. So you put aside your feelings in favor of a nice comfortable lazyboy recliner.

Exactly to what extent have humans gone to to live as comfortably as possible? If it causes discomfort it must be gotten rid of. Violence, get rid of it. Animals that may find people appetizing, get rid of them. Don't like living in the crowded cities, cut down some more trees and move to the suburbs. Take away the homes of other animals, just so you have room for more people. See an animal that has a nice coat of fur, kill it and don it's hide. Show it off to all of your friends. Make them envy you. Every animal tends to find its own niche, humans don't seem to fit in anywhere. They consume and waste everything, and build up large mounds of garbage. Does that put you above animals, or below?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Firstly, we humans are, of course, animals. What else could we be? We are, to be more precise, mammals.

If with "Humans are the most egotistical animals on the face of the earth." you mean that humans are inherently egocentrical than I can only disagree. It is true that due to our overall lack of self-control we behave like big ego-maniacs who destroy everything wherever we go, but that doesn't mean that that is our inherent nature. It is all a matter of what we emphasize. Either we emphasize our ability to control our by lack of a better word "darker urges" or we indulge in them. The later is clearly what we as a species have been and are doing. In the long run this will naturally be our undoing, and a rightly deserved undoing that would be. But we have a choice, at least that is my opinion, in what we emphasize and as such there is the hope that we can change course by emphasizing our ability to exersize self-control.

As for the violence that man is guilty of in the name of aquiring more comfort. Personally I think that violence directed at other humans, or any other species for that matter, is only justifiable if it is done in order to preserve your own ass or of your beloved one's. Other than that and you are indulging in violence that can only be seen as degrading and as offering a justifiable excuse for punishment by society. As such it can rightfully be said that mankind is indeed indulging in a violence that cannot be justified. Meaning? Meaning that as far as I am concerned mankind should be severely punished for the many crimes it has commited against itself and other species in the name of aquiring more means of comfort.

To come back to your question: "Does that put you above animals, or below?" Neither. It just betrays us as the indulgent animals that we are. Not inherently weak, far from it, but weak as a consequence of our own indulging. Which brings me back to self-control. :) Self-control would keep us all from indulging in pursueing a lifestyle that comes at the expense of other humans and other species- putting us in a far better light.

Columbine - those kids broke pretty much every law in the book before they even started shooting. Laws that gun owners support, like no straw purchases. [cut]
And those murderous riots - govts start and support mass uprisings like that. Rwanda was encouraged by the government - machetes were used mainly to kill 800,000 people.

granted those kids did more than breka murder laws but my point was it would have been a different story with 2 kids running around with knives. Or arguably if every kid in that school had had a gun there could have been panic and a lot of innocent people killed in crossfire or by accident.

granted non-gun weapons can also be lethal.

Let me think... not the English, Welsh, Scottish, French, Belgians, Swiss, Dutch, Norwegians, Polish, Hungarian, Spanish, Portugese, Yugoslavians or Czechs.

Well, the English, French, Germans, and Spanish have certainly tried. :lol:

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

The statistics, at least not the one's I've seen, do not tell me if a crime has been prevented by one who one expects to own a gun, like a cop, or a citizen who just happens to own a gun. Hence my preference.

You mean...in other words.you've not ventured out to research those plausible scenarios..there are multiple sites you can peruse..I am one of those scenarios..and I'm not alone..

Oh, I've been there. And I didn't like what I saw one bit. Biased from A to Z! Not where I'd like to get my data from.

But maybe you got a link to a more impartial site? Not one of those pro-gun ownership sites.

Columbine - those kids broke pretty much every law in the book before they even started shooting. Laws that gun owners support, like no straw purchases.

granted those kids did more than breka murder laws but my point was it would have been a different story with 2 kids running around with knives. Or arguably if every kid in that school had had a gun there could have been panic and a lot of innocent people killed in crossfire or by accident.

I understand the sentiment - it is how I felt. Unfortunately events in the UK since the gun bans have proved that it really makes no difference how easy it is to get legal weapons. It's the availability of illegal weapons to those who would buy them and use them that is the problem.

Here's a thought:

Alcohol has been around for thousands of years in various forms. Many cultures accept it as part of their way of life. Most of the population can handle it well enough, occasionally being irresponsible. A few simply can't, and cause enormous headaches (not hangover related) for the rest and themselves.

Prohibition in 1920s America proved that trying to withdraw an accepted thing like alcohol is almost impossible, an argument used against the legalisation of cannbis and other drugs.

Is it (and as a Brit I'm asking Americans in particular here) unreasonable to expect that, even if an overwhelming argument was made against widespread gun ownership, the priviledge would be given up with any less resistance? It has become accepted, could that attitude be reversed?

It's not like shutting Napster down had much effect on on-line music piracy. Will THAT ever be stopped?

granted those kids did more than breka murder laws but my point was it would have been a different story with 2 kids running around with knives.

Or pipe bombs.
Or home-made guns.
Or stolen guns. (Round those parts, I knew some 8th-graders dealing in stolen grenades.



Or arguably if every kid in that school had had a gun there could have been panic and a lot of innocent people killed in crossfire or by accident.



Did I advocate kids carrying guns?
No. But a single armed guard or teacher would have ended that with two quick headshots. No crossfire.

granted those kids did more than breka murder laws but my point was it would have been a different story with 2 kids running around with knives.

Or pipe bombs.
Or home-made guns.
Or stolen guns. (Round those parts, I knew some 8th-graders dealing in stolen grenades.



Or arguably if every kid in that school had had a gun there could have been panic and a lot of innocent people killed in crossfire or by accident.



Did I advocate kids carrying guns?
No. But a single armed guard or teacher would have ended that with two quick headshots. No crossfire.

Why do you prefer to gauge the negative rather then the positive?..Since we were discussing the validity and purposefulness of weapon ownership, wouldn't it be more prudent to discuss those whose lives were saved or property held secure by gun ownership?

The statistics, at least not the one's I've seen, do not tell me if a crime has been prevented by one who one expects to own a gun, like a cop, or a citizen who just happens to own a gun. Hence my preference.

You mean...in other words.you've not ventured out to research those plausible scenarios..there are multiple sites you can peruse..I am one of those scenarios..and I'm not alone..

Oh, I've been there. And I didn't like what I saw one bit. Biased from A to Z! Not where I'd like to get my data from.

But maybe you got a link to a more impartial site? Not one of those pro-gun ownership sites.

LOL..c'monnn...impartial site?..Is there such a thing?..Either the facts are correct or fabricated..and in which case even if the site was biased then any bias would be made moot.

And finally..even if just one robbery, murder, rape, or assault was prevented by the use of a gun then I believe the right should be retained as long as the current laws (and there are hundreds) are observed.

Nothing to do with gun ownership I'm sure.

I'm fairly sure it isn't too.

"how many crimes are caused by those owning a gun?"

I believe earlier in the thread someone quoted that 2% of all gun crimes in the US are committed by legal owners of firearms.

Don't let's be blaming an object, guns don't kill people on their own. People don't find it much easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, especially at close range like most gun murders that I know of (excepting Washington sniper)

Look at states in the US with restrictive firearms laws. Crime is no lower, gun deaths are no lower.

Then the real question is, "why is America's gun crime so high compared to other nations with similar (or higher) levels of gun ownership?" In short, what is wrong with American society? What are the key differences between the high-gun-crime USA and the low-gun-crime Switzerland or Canada?

Assuming the guard was indeed well trained. Assuming the prescence of an armed guard didnt make the kids feel more threatened and plan a larger massacre, assuming the armed guard wasnt corruptible and not the source of the stolen guns.

I see your point about pipe bombs or stolen guns or...but that still isn't an argument against banning guns.

ANd I will read about the UK gun ban--the UK has always had fairly strict gun laws yes? police in general don't or didn't carry guns? or was that a myth?

And finally..even if just one robbery, murder, rape, or assault was prevented by the use of a gun then I believe the right should be retained as long as the current laws (and there are hundreds) are observed.

Yes, I would agree that it is not so much a gun ownership as a gun control issue. Keeping them out of the hands of criminals. But the NRA fights any and all attempts to do things like mandatory waits to allow time for background checks etc. They feel that any control at all is in contravention of the Constitution. As such, they have done more to perpetuate the access to weapons by criminals that anyone else, and so have become the architects of the constant pressure against them.


And Salishe, one could ask this question:

If one woman avoided a rape by having a gun and getting to it in time, but 100 women submitted to rape at gunpoint in fear of their lives, why do you look at the one as significant but not the 100?


I personally have no problem with gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. However that is hardly where the problem is that leads to the crime rates is it?

-Z-

ANd I will read about the UK gun ban--the UK has always had fairly strict gun laws yes? police in general don't or didn't carry guns? or was that a myth?

They don't, with the exception of specialist armed response units. The average policeman does not carry one.

The argument has been raised a few times, but the police THEMSELVES are against carrying them because it would encourage the criminals to 'raise their game'.

Which brings us back to the argument about overwhelming force.

Also, handguns are now banned entirely after a school shooting some years back. Rifles and shotguns are allowed, with a licence, when it can be proven necessary (that's off the top of my head, I'm sure someone can provide more specific info).

Anyway, I think the discussion about American attitudes towards guns (compared especially to the Swiss) is the real insight here, which is where the topic is going.

LOL..c'monnn...impartial site?..Is there such a thing?..Either the facts are correct or fabricated..and in which case even if the site was biased then any bias would be made moot.

Exactly and "correct" translates to "impartial". All I have seen left me with the clear impression of the facts having been tampered with. Again, you are free to post a link or two to a site that at least sounds convincing, as oppossed to corrupt.

And finally..even if just one robbery, murder, rape, or assault was prevented by the use of a gun then I believe the right should be retained as long as the current laws (and there are hundreds) are observed.

Mmmh, you know something? If you really believe that it is crime that the citizen has to protect him/herself from than it sounds like your police force is not doing its job. :( So, Salishe, what do you think one should do with an incompetend police force? Seeing how you are so concerned with the safety of the citizen you must have given this question quite some thought. Feel free to share. :)

Assuming the guard was indeed well trained. Assuming the prescence of an armed guard didnt make the kids feel more threatened and plan a larger massacre, assuming the armed guard wasnt corruptible and not the source of the stolen guns.

I see your point about pipe bombs or stolen guns or...but that still isn't an argument against banning guns.

ANd I will read about the UK gun ban--the UK has always had fairly strict gun laws yes? police in general don't or didn't carry guns? or was that a myth?

The UK has always had fairly strict gun laws. After one guy went nuts in Dunblane and shot up a primary school, our gun laws became even stricter. This is because the overwhelming majority didn't like the idea of a minority owning guns -- even though most of that gun-owning minority were responsible and law-abiding. However, it also has to be recognised that in every instance where someone has gone crazy with a gun and shot members of the public (Hungerford and Dunblane being the two prime examples), the rampaging individual was a gun enthusiast using his own weapons and ammunition. So, in a classic example of democracy, the majority decided that its peace of mind over-rode the minority's desire to own guns.

The UK police do not routinely carry guns. In repeated opinion polls, neither the public nor the police want this to change.

But the NRA fights any and all attempts to do things like mandatory waits to allow time for background checks etc.

And what is the point of mandatory waits?
The majority of criminals don't even buy at gun shops.


If one woman avoided a rape by having a gun and getting to it in time, but 100 women submitted to rape at gunpoint in fear of their lives, why do you look at the one as significant but not the 100?

Uhm, rape at gun point is extremely uncommon as it's extremely uncomfortable for the rapist.

In actualy fact, the amount of rapes in places where guns are available reduces sharply.

ANd I will read about the UK gun ban--the UK has always had fairly strict gun laws yes?

Ever since the 1920's, before that they had laxer gun laws than the US.
Crime rate was lower then. :D

Klerkistan, let me dissect this argument down up.

The nuclear weapon parralel is clearly wrong. As Saharov proved, EVERY nuclear weapon detonation harms innocent people, even when blown up in the desert. A conventional weapon (even a 155mm cannon) can be used extensively without killing one innocent.

In Columbine, the kids used not only guns, but also homemade bombs. In Oklahoma, the terrorist used fertilizer to kill 156 people. In Waco, people were massacred using CS gas which ignited. The worst serial killers - Chicatillo, Ted Bundy, and so forth - used knives.

Rioters, if you wish to bring up riots, are easily stopped with a threat of force. Note that during the Rodney King riots the people who defended their shops and businesses with guns - most famously the Korean merchants who got filmed by CNN doing so - were the ones who didn't get their houses robbed, burned down, etc.

As per the President: Yeah, no citizens can ever stop an oppresive goverment. Just don't tell the Tutsi who effectively stopped their own genocide. And don't tell that the GI's in Athens, Tennessee, 1945.


[quote]Saying that guns aren't the problem, the cause to murder lies elsewhere is a valid point, but it doesn't also mean we shouldn't do something about guns[/qupte]

But if guns aren't the problem, why do anything about them.


P.S. Re: Columbine. Carrying a gun at school grounds is prohibited by Colorado law. In Israel, armed school guards are obligatory. Anybody ever wonder if Harris and Klebold would have ever thought of the idea if they even thought local employees carried guns?

What about the Krays...the used combinations of knives (fear) and guns (death). To say guns are not the problem or an ingredient in the problem is wrong.

If I drive my mothers Jeep I tend to stay within speed limits on the country roads near my house (about 6 miles of windy kick ass roads) however as soon as I step into my Nissan 200sx I drive a lot faster.

So to allow someone access to a weapon, something that gives pleasure when fired (eithier an enjoyment of the kick, or accuracy or whatever) and then not to expect them to 'enjoy' it's use, and sometimes be irresponsible (some more than others) is naive. And while your probably going to say that a car is as dangerous as a gun....cars weren't designed to kill, guns are.

And are you saying that provided that the weapon doesn't have the ability to harm every time it is fired it is ok? Guns are designed to kill, that is their purpose, perhaps I could arm myself with a flame thrower and torch someone? after all a flame thrower won't neccesarily harm any innocents if used correctly.

What about these Iraq's who see coalition forces coming into there village, raiding their homes......are they wrong for shooting british and american troops and then burning their bodies? after all they are only defending there homes from an 'invader'

However, it also has to be recognised that in every instance where someone has gone crazy with a gun and shot members of the public (Hungerford and Dunblane being the two prime examples), the rampaging individual was a gun enthusiast using his own weapons and ammunition.

Even one of your own examples is wrong. According to the Dunblane inquiry, Thomas Hamilton was a suspected pedophile and should have had his license revoked under law, however, that law was violated because of corruption.

And are you saying that provided that the weapon doesn't have the ability to harm every time it is fired it is ok?

If a weapon can be used without harming people, than yes, it's OK.

Guns are designed to kill, that is their purpose, perhaps I could arm myself with a flame thrower and torch someone?
Under current US laws, flamethrowers aren't designated as firearms. You could order one by mail. How many people do you see torched.

And while your probably going to say that a car is as dangerous as a gun....cars weren't designed to kill, guns are.


No. Cars are MORE dangerous than guns.
Fact is, there's less cars than guns in the US, more people are killed in an accident.

The entire "designed to kill" thing is idiotic, excuse me here.

If I kill somebody, I am the only one responsible for the murder, regardless of what I used, right?

If I participate in a sport like Practical Handgun, why should I be considered a murderer? Because I use a gun and not a baseball bat?

LOL..c'monnn...impartial site?..Is there such a thing?..Either the facts are correct or fabricated..and in which case even if the site was biased then any bias would be made moot.

Exactly and "correct" translates to "impartial". All I have seen left me with the clear impression of the facts having been tampered with. Again, you are free to post a link or two to a site that at least sounds convincing, as oppossed to corrupt.

And finally..even if just one robbery, murder, rape, or assault was prevented by the use of a gun then I believe the right should be retained as long as the current laws (and there are hundreds) are observed.

Mmmh, you know something? If you really believe that it is crime that the citizen has to protect him/herself from than it sounds like your police force is not doing its job. :( So, Salishe, what do you think one should do with an incompetend police force? Seeing how you are so concerned with the safety of the citizen you must have given this question quite some thought. Feel free to share. :)

I posted somewhere in that the police have an overwhelming task..Camden, New Jersey used be considered murder capital of the country..at least 1 murder per day..75,000, mostly African-American or Hispanic living either at or barely above poverty level..with a police force of 500 or so...with at any time a 1/3 of them actually on duty.

Camden is a cesspool..the Polish, Italian, and Jewish upper and middle class left years ago..when those tax ratables left..so did most of the industry for the city...an entire street was once dubbed The Alley..totally controlled by a hispanic gang that sold drugs openly..with an accounting system better then any bank I know..that was put down..but you get the gist...the city is basically run by the State of New Jersey for all intents and purposes....So if the police are outnumbered..and the area openly hostile then I have no alternative but to protect my own life and property. In some parts of the city it can take upwards to an hour to get a unit there, that is if a unit can be spared..

Now bearing all that in mind..do you really expect me to put up my guns?

LOL..c'monnn...impartial site?..Is there such a thing?..Either the facts are correct or fabricated..and in which case even if the site was biased then any bias would be made moot.

Exactly and "correct" translates to "impartial". All I have seen left me with the clear impression of the facts having been tampered with. Again, you are free to post a link or two to a site that at least sounds convincing, as oppossed to corrupt.

And finally..even if just one robbery, murder, rape, or assault was prevented by the use of a gun then I believe the right should be retained as long as the current laws (and there are hundreds) are observed.

Mmmh, you know something? If you really believe that it is crime that the citizen has to protect him/herself from than it sounds like your police force is not doing its job. :( So, Salishe, what do you think one should do with an incompetend police force? Seeing how you are so concerned with the safety of the citizen you must have given this question quite some thought. Feel free to share. :)

I posted somewhere in that the police have an overwhelming task..Camden, New Jersey used be considered murder capital of the country..at least 1 murder per day..75,000, mostly African-American or Hispanic living either at or barely above poverty level..with a police force of 500 or so...with at any time a 1/3 of them actually on duty.

Camden is a cesspool..the Polish, Italian, and Jewish upper and middle class left years ago..when those tax ratables left..so did most of the industry for the city...an entire street was once dubbed The Alley..totally controlled by a hispanic gang that sold drugs openly..with an accounting system better then any bank I know..that was put down..but you get the gist...the city is basically run by the State of New Jersey for all intents and purposes....So if the police are outnumbered..and the area openly hostile then I have no alternative but to protect my own life and property. In some parts of the city it can take upwards to an hour to get a unit there, that is if a unit can be spared..

Now bearing all that in mind..do you really expect me to put up my guns?

Sorry to jump in here, but in light of that, I would encourage you to spend time practicing with your weapons.

However, it also has to be recognised that in every instance where someone has gone crazy with a gun and shot members of the public (Hungerford and Dunblane being the two prime examples), the rampaging individual was a gun enthusiast using his own weapons and ammunition.

Even one of your own examples is wrong. According to the Dunblane inquiry, Thomas Hamilton was a suspected pedophile and should have had his license revoked under law, however, that law was violated because of corruption.

In what way does that make the example wrong? Can you not be a suspected paedophile AND a gun enthusiast? The fact that he should have had his license revoked isn't much use to the children of Dunblane.
You say "even one of my examples" is wrong: what other errors do you wish to correct?

I am sure that the large majority of gun enthusiasts are sane, healthy people. However, it has to be admitted that disfunctional loners do seem to be drawn to the glamour and power provided by owning a gun. I have to confess I've always wondered why some people are enthusiastic about guns: they are, in my opinion, ugly, noisy little mechanisms with only one real, and unpleasant, function.

Firstly, we humans are, of course, animals. What else could we be? We are, to be more precise, mammals.

If with "Humans are the most egotistical animals on the face of the earth." you mean that humans are inherently egocentrical than I can only disagree. It is true that due to our overall lack of self-control we behave like big ego-maniacs who destroy everything wherever we go, but that doesn't mean that that is our inherent nature. It is all a matter of what we emphasize. Either we emphasize our ability to control our by lack of a better word "darker urges" or we indulge in them. The later is clearly what we as a species have been and are doing. In the long run this will naturally be our undoing, and a rightly deserved undoing that would be. But we have a choice, at least that is my opinion, in what we emphasize and as such there is the hope that we can change course by emphasizing our ability to exersize self-control.

As for the violence that man is guilty of in the name of aquiring more comfort. Personally I think that violence directed at other humans, or any other species for that matter, is only justifiable if it is done in order to preserve your own ass or of your beloved one's. Other than that and you are indulging in violence that can only be seen as degrading and as offering a justifiable excuse for punishment by society. As such it can rightfully be said that mankind is indeed indulging in a violence that cannot be justified. Meaning? Meaning that as far as I am concerned mankind should be severely punished for the many crimes it has commited against itself and other species in the name of aquiring more means of comfort.

To come back to your question: "Does that put you above animals, or below?" Neither. It just betrays us as the indulgent animals that we are. Not inherently weak, far from it, but weak as a consequence of our own indulging. Which brings me back to self-control. :) Self-control would keep us all from indulging in pursueing a lifestyle that comes at the expense of other humans and other species- putting us in a far better light.
I’m not arguing about self control, but the source of why people should have self control. Most people can do things that can aggravated others without much fear of retribution, because if someone did retaliate the person who threw the first physical blow would be the one who the law would go after. Even though it was the other person that instigated the violence. Where as if people were allowed to be more violent, there would be more violence, but there would also be more self control, because like I said, people want to live as comfortably as possible. If they thought that certain actions would be likely to get their ass stomped, then they might not be as inclined to perform those actions. Of course there would be some of the stronger ones that would be more inclined to push people around. But as they say “survival of the fittest.”
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

In what way does that make the example wrong? Can you not be a suspected paedophile AND a gun enthusiast?

When one has several witnesses accusing him of paedophilia and he is never charged, let alone tried, something is BADLY wrong. When a system is corrupt and it lets paedophiles run around because they 'know the right people', something is wrong.


However, it has to be admitted that disfunctional loners do seem to be drawn to the glamour and power provided by owning a gun.

Dysfunctional loner? What's that?

its kind of pointless considering that America is 250 million and some of these countries are 20 or even 10 million. If you acount that ratio it is 800 to 200, or even 400 to 200 which really isnt that much.

its kind of pointless considering that America is 250 million and some of these countries are 20 or even 10 million. If you acount that ratio it is 800 to 200, or even 400 to 200 which really isnt that much.

china and japan have shit loads of people but the gun murder rate is a lot lower

its kind of pointless considering that America is 250 million and some of these countries are 20 or even 10 million. If you acount that ratio it is 800 to 200, or even 400 to 200 which really isnt that much.

china and japan have shit loads of people but the gun murder rate is a lot lower

That's because the Chinese and Japanese have more self-control.

its kind of pointless considering that America is 250 million and some of these countries are 20 or even 10 million. If you acount that ratio it is 800 to 200, or even 400 to 200 which really isnt that much.

china and japan have shit loads of people but the gun murder rate is a lot lower

I don't know about Japan, but I doubt that the Chinese gov't would be interested in having an armed populace ;)

China and japan have shit loads of people but the gun murder rate is a lot lower

Gun murder rate = stupid number.
Total murder rate = good numberl.

Besides, neither Japan nor china have any civil rights to speak of.

Maybe a Brit can explain to us what you do without guns to protect yourself.

Maybe a Brit can explain to us what you do without guns to protect yourself.


http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_foam.jpg

China and japan have shit loads of people but the gun murder rate is a lot lower

Gun murder rate = stupid number.
Total murder rate = good numberl.

Besides, neither Japan nor china have any civil rights to speak of.

You're nuts. Japan happens to be THE most freest nation in the whole of the combined continents of Asia and Africa.

Gun murder rate is appallingly low in China, because they use brains to commit serious crimes, not violence.

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.

You're nuts. Japan happens to be THE most freest nation in the whole of the combined continents of Asia and Africa.



To quote Amnesty International:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/jpn-summary-eng



There was continued reliance by the courts on a confession-based system known as Daiyo Kangoku, which involves incommunicado detention for up to 23 days before charge. In some cases the confessions themselves were extracted through the use of interrogation techniques such as early morning to midnight interrogations and harsh physical and psychological conditions amounting to torture. There was concern at the lack of an independent complaints procedure in prisons. There were several reports that prisoners who complained of torture or ill-treatment were subjected to beatings and harassment to force them to withdraw their complaints.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.
That is true in some provincial and local governments. The central government is much, much more free and honest now. This will hopefully seep into the cities and provinces soon.

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.
That is true in some provincial and local governments. The central government is much, much more free and honest now. This will hopefully seep into the cities and provinces soon.

I don't know about that. Its not as bad as say, the USSR, but most economists still think that while China is most likely going through a very large growth phase, its also cooking the books a bit.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.
That is true in some provincial and local governments. The central government is much, much more free and honest now. This will hopefully seep into the cities and provinces soon.

I don't know about that. Its not as bad as say, the USSR, but most economists still think that while China is most likely going through a very large growth phase, its also cooking the books a bit.

Well, I do. Cooking the books is definitely still rife in some of the provinces and private merchants, but definitely not in the central government. if it existed in the central government, those officials would get fired right away by the highest authorities.

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.
That is true in some provincial and local governments. The central government is much, much more free and honest now. This will hopefully seep into the cities and provinces soon.

I don't know about that. Its not as bad as say, the USSR, but most economists still think that while China is most likely going through a very large growth phase, its also cooking the books a bit.

Cooking the books? Like Emron, World.com(and other such political contributors), the U.S government etc.
Like Enron and World.com, not like the US government. When we were losing lots of jobs, we said it clearly on the reports. When our GDP went down (slightly), we reported it. Of course, there's always ways to say that we're cooking the books - The way we (and most countries) take people off unemployment numbers after 6 months is a good example. For the most part, however, the US government is accountable if it outright lies and, if we said that we had gained 3 million jobs and had GDP growth of 9.4% overall in one quarter, it would be brought to attention.

And because Communist governments like to lie about almost every statistic they put out to make themselves look better.
That is true in some provincial and local governments. The central government is much, much more free and honest now. This will hopefully seep into the cities and provinces soon.

I don't know about that. Its not as bad as say, the USSR, but most economists still think that while China is most likely going through a very large growth phase, its also cooking the books a bit.

Well, I do. Cooking the books is definitely still rife in some of the provinces and private merchants, but definitely not in the central government. if it existed in the central government, those officials would get fired right away by the highest authorities.

Its probably a mix between our two posts. The local governments would obviously affect a central government's statistics, as the central government is a sum of the whole.

Its probably a mix between our two posts. The local governments would obviously affect a central government's statistics, as the central government is a sum of the whole.
Fair enough. But the governments of some the provinces are really really getting on my nerves. nothing like the central government up there.

I am an American gun owner who feels no need to explain to the increasingly effeminate Europeans. I don't need to apologize for my Ak-47
that I keep under my bed. Its there if I need it .
I ask this....Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone? They don't even fight for their heritage or homelands while thousands of muslum immigrants invade Europe every year. Europeans no longer have a soul and that is a fatal condition. At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:

I am an American gun owner who feels no need to explain to the increasingly effeminate Eurupeans. I don't need to apologize for my Ak-47
that I keep under my bed. Its there if I need it .
I ask this....Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone? They don't even fight for their heritage or homelands while thousands of muslum immigrants invade Europe every year. Europeans no longer have a soul and that is a fatal condition. At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:
ya, keep the gun under your pillow - and still suffer from the highest gun death rates in the world PLUS at the receiving end of major terrorist attacks. apparently keeping a gun under pillow hasn't made you safer.

I am an American gun owner who feels no need to explain to the increasingly effeminate Eurupeans. I don't need to apologize for my Ak-47
that I keep under my bed. Its there if I need it .
I ask this....Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone? They don't even fight for their heritage or homelands while thousands of muslum immigrants invade Europe every year. Europeans no longer have a soul and that is a fatal condition. At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:
ya, keep the gun under your pillow - and still suffer from the highest gun death rates in the world PLUS at the receiving end of major terrorist attacks. apparently keeping a gun under pillow hasn't made you safer.

It was either a joke or a raving lunatic, but last time I checked, assault weapons were illegal in the states.

While I am for gun control, the statistics presented at the beginning of this thread sicken me. Of course Gun murders are going to be more prevalent here than in Britain, We have more people, thus we are going to have more people die by any given means, ergo, more gun murders.

Unless I'm mistaken, firearms are illegal in the UK, which would make them that much harder to come by, less firearms, ergo, less gun murders. Before you go around calling us immature, why don't you give real statistics, like number of people murdered per year per thousand people? Just because the UK has less gun murders doesn't mean they have less knife murders, or blunt trauma murders.

Get your facts straight and quit manipulating data

It was either a joke or a raving lunatic, but last time I checked, assault weapons were illegal in the states.

While I am for gun control, the statistics presented at the beginning of this thread sicken me. Of course Gun murders are going to be more prevalent here than in Britain, We have more people, thus we are going to have more people die by any given means, ergo, more gun murders.

Unless I'm mistaken, firearms are illegal in the UK, which would make them that much harder to come by, less firearms, ergo, less gun murders. Before you go around calling us immature, why don't you give real statistics, like number of people murdered per year per thousand people? Just because the UK has less gun murders doesn't mean they have less knife murders, or blunt trauma murders.

Get your facts straight and quit manipulating data
More people won't make crime rate increase. Heck, China doesn't have that many gun murders. There are about 100 times more corruption scandals than gun murders. Even in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated areas in the world (highest 10,000 per sq. km) has hardly any gun murders.

you're dodging.

you keep speaking of gun murders, try looking at total murder rate.

Shanked and Shot are really different how?

I'd say it has a lot to do with the stress of living in an authoritarian capitalist society.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

you're dodging.

you keep speaking of gun murders, try looking at total murder rate.

Shanked and Shot are really different how?

I'm not dodging; I'm revising for exams...

Plus this is a topic on gun violence...so...

plus total crime rate you start talking about petty thieving and minor offences like not-over-the-top speeding or noise pollution or such. if we're talking about serious crimes like GUN MURDER, America tops it all.

I'd say it has a lot to do with the stress of living in an authoritarian capitalist society.
You'd say that about cancer. You're like one of those toys you pull the string on and it says stuff.

you're dodging.

you keep speaking of gun murders, try looking at total murder rate.

Shanked and Shot are really different how?

I'm not dodging; I'm revising for exams...

Plus this is a topic on gun violence...so...

plus total crime rate you start talking about petty thieving and minor offences like not-over-the-top speeding or noise pollution or such. if we're talking about serious crimes like GUN MURDER, America tops it all.

What you are doing is taking a limited aspect and using it to represent the entire country. Yes, we have lots of Gun Murders, you are indirectly inferring that this means america has a high Murder Rate in general. You're conducting an unbalanced study.


And is a "GUN MURDER" anymore serious than say a knife murder, or a car murder, or a lead pipe murder

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary spent six months at Oxford, studying gun control laws in many countries.

He concluded:

"At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse
to suggest that statutory controls on the private
ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem
of armed crime; yet that is precisely what the
evidence shows.
Armed crime and violent crime generally are products
of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the
availability of a particular type of weapon.

The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime
market is small, and these are supplied no matter
what controls are instituted.
Controls have had serious effects on legitimate
users of firearms, but there is no case, either in
the history of this country or in the experience of
other countries in which controls can be shown to
have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals,
or in any way reduced crime."

While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain
has been declining due to a hostile gun control
bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased
196% between 1981-1992.

"Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992, p.34,65

It was either a joke or a raving lunatic, but last time I checked, assault weapons were illegal in the states.

While I am for gun control, the statistics presented at the beginning of this thread sicken me. Of course Gun murders are going to be more prevalent here than in Britain, We have more people, thus we are going to have more people die by any given means, ergo, more gun murders.

Unless I'm mistaken, firearms are illegal in the UK, which would make them that much harder to come by, less firearms, ergo, less gun murders. Before you go around calling us immature, why don't you give real statistics, like number of people murdered per year per thousand people? Just because the UK has less gun murders doesn't mean they have less knife murders, or blunt trauma murders.

Get your facts straight and quit manipulating data
More people won't make crime rate increase. Heck, China doesn't have that many gun murders. There are about 100 times more corruption scandals than gun murders. Even in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated areas in the world (highest 10,000 per sq. km) has hardly any gun murders.Yes, China does have more people, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of them are CHINESE.

Unlike in America where, in the cities especially, you have a larger mix of multiple racial and ethnic groups.

What happens when you put people with varied beliefs and opinions together?
You get conflict.

Even without guns, the rift between ethnic and racial groups would still exist. The violence and malcontent would be there, same as always.

"GUN MURDER" as you call it is no worse than any other "murder". To focus soley on the means of violence and ignoring the cause is short sighted, ignorant, and quite possibly dangerous.

you're dodging.

you keep speaking of gun murders, try looking at total murder rate.

Shanked and Shot are really different how?

I'm not dodging; I'm revising for exams...

Plus this is a topic on gun violence...so...

plus total crime rate you start talking about petty thieving and minor offences like not-over-the-top speeding or noise pollution or such. if we're talking about serious crimes like GUN MURDER, America tops it all.

What you are doing is taking a limited aspect and using it to represent the entire country. Yes, we have lots of Gun Murders, you are indirectly inferring that this means america has a high Murder Rate in general. You're conducting an unbalanced study.


And is a "GUN MURDER" anymore serious than say a knife murder, or a car murder, or a lead pipe murderWell, you can't just look into "murder" in general and try to solve the "murder" problem. The wider "murder" problem is constituted of many other problems like "gun" and "knife" and "lead-pipe" murder.

The limitation here is definitely needed to solve GUN MURDER. Read: GUN murder.

I am an American gun owner who feels no need to explain to the increasingly effeminate Europeans. I don't need to apologize for my Ak-47
that I keep under my bed. Its there if I need it .
I ask this....Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone? They don't even fight for their heritage or homelands while thousands of muslum immigrants invade Europe every year. Europeans no longer have a soul and that is a fatal condition. At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:

What a fool!! You sleep with an AK47 under your bed? ahhh that must be for when the aliens come to kid knap you from your farm and do experiments huh? or perhaps it for when all them commies finally invade the Good ol US of A.....or perchance could it just be that your a bloody idiot living in a country which has it's head so far up it's own arse it can't see the woods for the trees?

I am an American gun owner who feels no need to explain to the increasingly effeminate Europeans. I don't need to apologize for my Ak-47
that I keep under my bed. Its there if I need it .
I ask this....Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone? They don't even fight for their heritage or homelands while thousands of muslum immigrants invade Europe every year. Europeans no longer have a soul and that is a fatal condition. At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:
You must live in fear if you have to have an assault rifle under your bed?

It is also apparent that you have a dislike for Muslims?

BTW what do you have for protection when you are away from your bedroom?

Will you be taking on "the powers that be" any time soon?

I think the root solution is not to ban people from owning guns, it's the curbing of the desire to own one - ie: increase the security level felt by the common people so their demand of guns will drop. It's like a vicious cycle on the good side: no fear, less guns, so no fear, so less guns etc. I think one of the reasons Hong Kong hasn't turned into gun-ridden society is because we have a very very good police system and the people obey laws by nature (I think it's an Asian thing, to be more obedient than the vibrant West). However, our out-dated social system seems to be chugging rather badly nowadays, and the government is not exactly successful in dealing with them. But of course, you can't just blame the government. There is an emerging crisis in the value of family here, which is throwing the teenagers out of balance. The recent debates over the economy and the politics have also made things worse.

DP

DP

It was either a joke or a raving lunatic, but last time I checked, assault weapons were illegal in the states.

While I am for gun control, the statistics presented at the beginning of this thread sicken me. Of course Gun murders are going to be more prevalent here than in Britain, We have more people, thus we are going to have more people die by any given means, ergo, more gun murders.

Unless I'm mistaken, firearms are illegal in the UK, which would make them that much harder to come by, less firearms, ergo, less gun murders. Before you go around calling us immature, why don't you give real statistics, like number of people murdered per year per thousand people? Just because the UK has less gun murders doesn't mean they have less knife murders, or blunt trauma murders.

Get your facts straight and quit manipulating data
More people won't make crime rate increase. Heck, China doesn't have that many gun murders. There are about 100 times more corruption scandals than gun murders. Even in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated areas in the world (highest 10,000 per sq. km) has hardly any gun murders.Yes, China does have more people, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of them are CHINESE.

Unlike in America where, in the cities especially, you have a larger mix of multiple racial and ethnic groups.

What happens when you put people with varied beliefs and opinions together?
You get conflict.

Even without guns, the rift between ethnic and racial groups would still exist. The violence and malcontent would be there, same as always.

"GUN MURDER" as you call it is no worse than any other "murder". To focus soley on the means of violence and ignoring the cause is short sighted, ignorant, and quite possibly dangerous.
I read your response with extreme interest. While murder is murder, whether it be by gun or by knife, the fact remains that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun. With a gun, you don't need to get up close and personal, and a gun is certainly a more powerful weapon.

Also of interest is your comment suggesting that there are more murders in the US due to racial indifferences?

Here in Canada, our country is perhaps more multicultural than the US yet our murder rate is about 1/3 that of the US. Are you suggesting that there is less racial tolerance in the US?

With a proper gun control program, I would suggest that there would be less murders in the US.

What a fool!! You sleep with an AK47 under your bed? ahhh that must be for when the aliens come to kid knap you from your farm and do experiments huh? or perhaps it for when all them commies finally invade the Good ol US of A.....or perchance could it just be that your a bloody idiot living in a country which has it's head so far up it's own arse it can't see the woods for the trees? "
Alphakion for Brokedik:
Actually I live in a large city....guns are a fun hobby for me. And if you lived in the USA you'd be a little fearful too its a violent place.
Don't forget we are a nation born in blood and revolution. The Black backlash from our slavery legacy continues and has caused us to have a high crime rate. Doubt my words here? Take a look at FBI crime statistics.
We have a Yugoslavia like future I am afraid.
As for the person who said assault weapons are illegal in the U.S.
get your facts straight. The ban was on IMPORTATION of assault rifles !
There are enough cheap Chinese AK47s and SKS rifles to last for ever already here. :twisted: You gotta love that communist destabilization of the U.S. huh?
Well I've "pulled my head out of my "arse" " long enough. I'll go back to my natural state now. Bye.

Micheal Moore adressed this issue in his documentary Bowling For Columbine. What the film came to a conclusion with is that there is a lot of fear tatics in the media so every arms themselves to the teeth and shoots at their shadows...

Where has the warrior spirit of Europe gone?

The warrior spirit that the USA is suppossed to posses? :lol: Which is illustrated by the number of obese americans? :lol: If you really think that having a gun in the house testifies of possessing a warrior's spirit then you better get off whatever drug you are using, kid. :lol:

At least we Americans have a chance to fight the powers that be and with that chance we can change our nation. Such an alien concept to the European. :twisted:

Yeah right, americans do have the chance to fight the powers that be (the goverment) but they can't even be bothered to show up at the voting boot. Let alone stand a chance to fight their own army if they ever would have to. They're in no condition to do so, in case you haven't noticed.