NationStates Jolt Archive

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm
:D Good one! You won't get any argument from me on this one. The right to bear arms is the guarantee of all other liberties.

Oh, because everywhere that has gun control is a fascist dictatorship. UK?

Plus, quoting biblical sources is not really any sort of proof.

Gun control - the next step AFTER mind control. Watch your guns, but that right is still pretty entrenched. Your mind, on the other hand...

:D Good one! You won't get any argument from me on this one. The right to bear arms is the guarantee of all other liberties.


I'm glad to see some other people here have common sense! lol. If it wasnt for the second amendment then how can we protect our first? Choke on that one libs!

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg

I'm not arguing with this one!

Yes, because we all know that gun control leads straight to dictatorship.

Wow! I was expecting some off the wall crazy left-wing BS to TRY and disprove this. But I guess they cant can they?

Yes, because we all know that gun control leads to dictatorship.

Then why on earth would anyone be a member of a party that approves of gun control? hmmmm you democrats? Or even vote for them?

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.

Then why on earth would anyone be a member of a party that approves of gun control? hmmmm you democrats? Or even vote for them?
this isnt an America only forum you know.

look at the address, .co.uk...its not even American hosted.

Its a very international forum.

I live in the UK, where guns are very strictly controlled, and there is a low crime rate

this isnt an America only forum you know.

look at the address, .co.uk...its not even American hosted.

Its a very international forum.

I live in the UK, where guns are very strictly controlled, and there is a low crime rate



True, but correct me if I'm wrong. Doesnt the UK have a big problem with terrorism? Also you say strictly controlled. That is a far cry from outright disarmament. Though I believe guns shouldnt be so strictly controlled either. It is far better then having none at all!

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.


Britain has the right to bare arms. Just look at the post below the one you just made! Its only strictly controlled, which too is very wrong but still...its better then the complete banishment of them.

True, but correct me if I'm wrong. Doesnt the UK have a big problem with terrorism?
er...no, not any more than the US


Also you say strictly controlled. That is a far cry from outright disarmament. Though I believe guns shouldnt be so strictly controlled either. It is far better then having none at all!
Its illegal to buy a gun here (i think....they might allow them for hunting, but im not sure)

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.

Care to explain why the USA which has never had a monarchy or an Empire has the right to bear arms? I can. Without that stubborn insistance on self-defense and self-empowerement and self-reliance, there'd be no USA, but just another part of your decadent Empire. One would think you learned that, ya know, since with our guns we overthrew said Empire's control.

As for why Britain is a safer place to be, do you really think the answer is as simple as gun control? Like if we just outlawed guns, the USA would become "safe?"

Oh, because everywhere that has gun control is a fascist dictatorship. UK?

Plus, quoting biblical sources is not really any sort of proof.
Who the hell quoted "biblical sources???"

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!
wow

you are incredibely misinformed

Britain has the right to bare arms. Just look at the post below the one you just made! Its only strictly controlled, which too is very wrong but still...its better then the complete banishment of them.

No, you dont.

You cannot carry a gun in the UK in the public

You can have one for a "good reason" which does not include self defence. The restrictions are extremely strict.

As for why Britain is a safer place to be, do you really think the answer is as simple as gun control? Like if we just outlawed guns, the USA would become "safe?"

Well the UK has a far lower vilonet crime and gun crime rate?

Well the UK has a far lower vilonet crime and gun crime rate?
the lack of guns isnt the real cause, there was never much violent crime before the gun ban. its a cultural thing

Care to explain why the USA which has never had a monarchy or an Empire has the right to bear arms?

The reason the USA had never had a monarchy is this. When the European powers began the forging of the US as we know it now, democracy was well established in Europe. US history needs serious better teaching.

Care to explain why the USA which has never had a monarchy or an Empire has the right to bear arms? I can. Without that stubborn insistance on self-defense and self-empowerement and self-reliance, there'd be no USA, but just another part of your decadent Empire. One would think you learned that, ya know, since with our guns we overthrew said Empire's control.

As for why Britain is a safer place to be, do you really think the answer is as simple as gun control? Like if we just outlawed guns, the USA would become "safe?"


VERY NICE!

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

Yes, in the 80's!


But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!

You complete misinformed idiot

Do you know anything about the UK?

Do you have any idea about how the British governmental system works?

Wow! I was expecting some off the wall crazy left-wing BS to TRY and disprove this. But I guess they cant can they?


Maybe it's just such a tired and moronic debate that nobody can be bothered anymore.

Libs bitch and moan about how Bush is a fascist who wants to rule with an iron fist.

If he really wanted to do that (and this would be the sign...) he would try hard to repeal the Second Amendment.

It is very hard (probably impossible without nukes) to control a country with 50 million gun owners.

No, I dont live in the UK. But I do know that there is a Queen. Correct? and the royal family correct? and the only people who can inherit the throne are the members of the royal family correct? Umm....what is that? Monarchy! Now there probably is some other things about the UK government that I dont know about, BUT any country that has an established monarchy is going to be naturally left-leaning and therefore usually believe that gun control is the best way to go.

You can rely on getting a good laugh from paranoid US citizens who think that the UN is some big monster coming to take their guns and invade their country. Never min the fact that the US is the most powerful force in the UN, sitting on the security council with a veto and all.

The reason the USA had never had a monarchy is this. When the European powers began the forging of the US as we know it now, democracy was well established in Europe. US history needs serious better teaching.

:headbang: I didn't ask for why the USA never had a monarchy.

Before you start using my statements to make generalizations about how US history is taught in the US, do yourself the favor of reading them.


Well the UK has a far lower vilonet crime and gun crime rate?

True, it does. So does Armenia, India, Romania, Hungary, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Germany and a whole lot of others. They all have equally good gun control laws, is that what you are saying?

No, I dont live in the UK. But I do know that there is a Queen. Correct? and the royal family correct? and the only people who can inherit the throne are the members of the royal family correct? Umm....what is that? Monarchy! Now there probably is some other things about the UK government that I dont know about, BUT any country that has an established monarchy is going to be naturally left-leaning and therefore usually believe that gun control is the best way to go.

As, no doubt many people are just dying to tell you, the UK government is led by the prime minister, an elected member of parliament, not the queen.

It is very hard (probably impossible without nukes) to control a country with 50 million gun owners.
Doesn't the US have nukes? :p

Doesn't the US have nukes? :p
Nuking your own country isn't very useful against an insurgency. Otherwise, we would have nuked Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, it's about 300 million guns and 80 million gun owners.

300 million guns... enough to arm every man, woman and child in the US

True, it does. So does Armenia, India, Romania, Hungary, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Germany and a whole lot of others. They all have equally good gun control laws, is that what you are saying?

I dont know about the gun control laws in those nations but I do know that in the UK with very strict gun laws, the UK is far safer in terms of crime than the US (and several of those nations mentioned)

I dont know about the gun control laws in those nations but I do know that in the UK with very strict gun laws, the UK is far safer in terms of crime than the US (and several of those nations mentioned)

Since the majority of Part I felonies (violent crime - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) are committed with no weapon at all, and 24 percent are committed with any weapon (that's not just firearms), even if you eliminated guns, the majority of violent crime would still be present.

If you figure that there are over 2 million Part I felonies committed each year in the US, and studies show that over 2 million violent crimes were stopped by a civilian with a gun...

then if you remove the guns, those 2 million additional violent crimes will now occur.

Thanks, Neo. You've just doubled the rate of violent crime in the US - just by disarming the victims.

A couple things on both sides of this thread, I'm having trouble with.

My understanding is that the U.K., while it retains a symbolic and culturally meaningful monarchy, is governed by a multi-party parliament system. The House of Commons, which I understand is purely elected, develops and applies policy (I'm not sure what function or status the House of Lords holds, but I'm very confident that they still function as representatives and not autocrats, but I could be wrong). Also, I'm not sure its fair to call the British Empire any more decadent than the U.S. I'm not saying they're not "decadent", just that we Americans may not want to judge that too harshly.

However, I agree with the previous poster that the lower crime rate in England may not be the product of gun control. My understanding is that the U.K. has less of all violent crime, including knives, bludgeoning, piano-wire garrotings, and rental-truck-full-of-fetilizer bombings. The violence in the U.S. has its roots in many things, and those areas of the U.S. with stiffer gun control (Washington D.C., New York, California) do not have less violence.

Anyway, as an American who doesn't presently own a gun but respects the choice of my neighbors to responsibly own one, I think we should still make a greater effort to raise our sons and daughters as able to solve problems first without a weapon, and save our ammo for the day when there is no other choice. May it never come.

Since the majority of Part I felonies (violent crime - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) are committed with no weapon at all, and 24 percent are committed with any weapon (that's not just firearms), even if you eliminated guns, the majority of violent crime would still be present.

If you figure that there are over 2 million Part I felonies committed each year in the US, and studies show that over 2 million violent crimes were stopped by a civilian with a gun...

then if you remove the guns, those 2 million additional violent crimes will now occur.

Thanks, Neo. You've just doubled the rate of violent crime in the US - just by disarming the victims.


w00t! Another person with common sense!

"If guns cause crime then matches cause forest fires! Prevent forest fires! Register matches!"

"If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns"

"America: Armed and FREE!"

Since the majority of Part I felonies (violent crime - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) are committed with no weapon at all, and 24 percent are committed with any weapon (that's not just firearms), even if you eliminated guns, the majority of violent crime would still be present.

If you figure that there are over 2 million Part I felonies committed each year in the US, and studies show that over 2 million violent crimes were stopped by a civilian with a gun...

then if you remove the guns, those 2 million additional violent crimes will now occur.

Thanks, Neo. You've just doubled the rate of violent crime in the US - just by disarming the victims.

That does not explain why British gun laws seem to protect us better. In the UK we dont need armed civilians to stop crime. We have a police service

Wheres your 'studies'? NRA funded?

In my opinion it is not nessissarally the amount of gun owning citizens that
that is the problem, but the whole gun culture that is encouraged by this.
Gun culture leads to a more violent nation. It will continue to spiral
out of control and more people will buy more guns to feel 'safe'.
Look at the nuklear situaltion... 'Oh I need a nuke to feel safe'!

I love the idea of 'every citizen is allowed to have a gun - in case they
want to rise against a government that isnt working' (one of the reasons there is a 2nd amendment) its gonna do you a whole lotta good against a Government with the largest stockpiles of WMD in the workld and itchy Texan trigger fingers at the helm.

That does not explain why British gun laws seem to protect us better. In the UK we dont need armed civilians to stop crime. We have a police service

I think that crime is a social phenomenon. It exists regardless of the presence or absence of police. As may be proven by the fact that the UK has any violent crime at all, we may infer that the mere fact that you have a police service has not eliminated violent crime.

One may ask what the cause of violent crime is. Why people more quickly escalate the level of violence here. Why they offer violence to the police.

Crime is a diffuse problem. There will never, ever be enough police to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, from crime. Women I work with already know this lesson too well - and many women will die in order to learn that lesson. In the end, if you are forbidden to defend yourself with means that make it credible and possible, you are as good as dead.

I'm sure you would love to see more dead abused women here, Neo.

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.

!?!

The US second amendment right to bear arms is directly descended from the same right in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

Daaave']
I love the idea of 'every citizen is allowed to have a gun - in case they
want to rise against a government that isnt working' (one of the reasons there is a 2nd amendment) its gonna do you a whole lotta good against a Government with the largest stockpiles of WMD in the workld and itchy Texan trigger fingers at the helm.

Perhaps you can tell me how a government is going to enforce the disarmament of millions of it's own citizens with WMD. "Disarm or we will nuke ourselves!"? Even Texans aren't that stupid.

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...

Now, if you're going to let people have guns to use for their own protection against other citizens, you should at least teach them the value of responsibility and community, as oppose to the value of greed and finding someone else to blame for your problems...

A couple things on both sides of this thread, I'm having trouble with.

My understanding is that the U.K., while it retains a symbolic and culturally meaningful monarchy, is governed by a multi-party parliament system. The House of Commons, which I understand is purely elected, develops and applies policy (I'm not sure what function or status the House of Lords holds, but I'm very confident that they still function as representatives and not autocrats, but I could be wrong). Also, I'm not sure its fair to call the British Empire any more decadent than the U.S. I'm not saying they're not "decadent", just that we Americans may not want to judge that too harshly.

However, I agree with the previous poster that the lower crime rate in England may not be the product of gun control. My understanding is that the U.K. has less of all violent crime, including knives, bludgeoning, piano-wire garrotings, and rental-truck-full-of-fetilizer bombings. The violence in the U.S. has its roots in many things, and those areas of the U.S. with stiffer gun control (Washington D.C., New York, California) do not have less violence.

Anyway, as an American who doesn't presently own a gun but respects the choice of my neighbors to responsibly own one, I think we should still make a greater effort to raise our sons and daughters as able to solve problems first without a weapon, and save our ammo for the day when there is no other choice. May it never come.

Hear hear.

Daaave']Wheres your 'studies'? NRA funded?

In my opinion it is not nessissarally the amount of gun owning citizens that
that is the problem, but the whole gun culture that is encouraged by this.
Gun culture leads to a more violent nation. It will continue to spiral
out of control and more people will buy more guns to feel 'safe'.
Look at the nuklear situaltion... 'Oh I need a nuke to feel safe'!

I love the idea of 'every citizen is allowed to have a gun - in case they
want to rise against a government that isnt working' (one of the reasons there is a 2nd amendment) its gonna do you a whole lotta good against a Government with the largest stockpiles of WMD in the workld and itchy Texan trigger fingers at the helm.


That "itchy Texan trigger fingers" are the ones UPHOLDING the Second Amendment! If he really wanted to turn America into a dictatorship he would be all for gun control, not against it! Do some research on the politicians man!

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...

I'm sure you can explain why Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton have expressed their fear of American gun owners - not the gang bangers in the street, but "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

No, I don't think they're a realistic defense. But they make a good voting bloc.

Daaave']Wheres your 'studies'? NRA funded?

No. Not NRA funded. And some of the data comes directly from the Department of Justice.

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...



Well if the second amendment was meant only for the colonial days then does that same sense hold true for the first amendment too? that we are only allowed to use quill and ink pens? Lets be realistic now shall we? Your statement goes too far. The second amendment is what protects our first! Need I say more?

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...

Small arms in civilian hands are not really meant for nose-to-nose warfare with a massed mechanized standing army. But as the U.S. is learning in Iraq, an indiginous population with small arms can make it prohibitively expensive and bloody to control a country. Maybe 50 million U.S. gun owners couldn't engage and defeat the combined U.S. military, but forceful overthrow of the goverment isn't the point. Collective resistence should the government ever suspend our rights would be the goal, which could be accomplished with small arms.

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...

Apparently you think that the American military is populated by people who have no interest in the right to own guns? Ask one or two of our military servicemen right here on this board about that.

Or that having a bunch of gadgets means one or two million can violently repress 300 million? Let alone in the US which is more or less founded on the basis of citizen-soldiers defending their homeland against tyrannies?

I'm glad to see some other people here have common sense! lol. If it wasnt for the second amendment then how can we protect our first? Choke on that one libs!

I think that is thier whole point for banning guns.

I think that crime is a social phenomenon. It exists regardless of the presence or absence of police. As may be proven by the fact that the UK has any violent crime at all, we may infer that the mere fact that you have a police service has not eliminated violent crime.

One may ask what the cause of violent crime is. Why people more quickly escalate the level of violence here. Why they offer violence to the police.

Crime is a diffuse problem. There will never, ever be enough police to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time, from crime. Women I work with already know this lesson too well - and many women will die in order to learn that lesson. In the end, if you are forbidden to defend yourself with means that make it credible and possible, you are as good as dead.

I'm sure you would love to see more dead abused women here, Neo.


I think that although you make your point well, you miss the fact that there always has been crime in all shapes and forms since the year dot. There is no suggestion that this will ever cease. What we do need to address however, is why there is more violent crime now then there ever has been?

Also

Making the point of 'women are being attacked' is flawed to say the least, maybe we should trust the justice system that has Laws agreed by a Govenment elected by a democraticly elected representation of people. And Courts to hand out punishments seen fit by Judges and juries made of our peers?

Not some random dude with a gun - I dont want to put my faith in that.

That "itchy Texan trigger fingers" are the ones UPHOLDING the Second Amendment! If he really wanted to turn America into a dictatorship he would be all for gun control, not against it! Do some research on the politicians man!

I agree with that, but you miss my point that the whole reason the amendment was made is nw obsolete

Small arms in civilian hands are not really meant for nose-to-nose warfare with a massed mechanized standing army. But as the U.S. is learning in Iraq, an indiginous population with small arms can make it prohibitively expensive and bloody to control a country. Maybe 50 million U.S. gun owners couldn't engage and defeat the combined U.S. military, but forceful overthrow of the goverment isn't the point. Collective resistence should the government ever suspend our rights would be the goal, which could be accomplished with small arms.

So, rather than achieving an overthrow of the government, the goal of an armed civilian uprising is to make it "prohibitively expensive and bloody" for the army to control the country? i.e. turn the USA into a third world hell?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If the US government decides to take away the rights of US citizens, and the armed forces support the government, then the US is screwed.

Ah, I'm so sorry I must leave the brilliant discussion I started. Please would all right-wingers here continue to teach the leftists about why gun control doesnt work.

I will leave you all on this note (which I stated earlier but I dont think any of you caught it)

"If guns cause crime then matches cause forest fires. Prevent forest fires! Register matches!"

Yes, because we all know that gun control leads straight to dictatorship.

no, but it's a step in that direction, why would we want to do that? you have no argument for this issue!

Daaave']Making the point of 'women are being attacked' is flawed to say the least, maybe we should trust the justice system that has Laws agreed by a Govenment elected by a democraticly elected representation of people. And Courts to hand out punishments seen fit by Judges and juries made of our peers?

Not some random dude with a gun - I dont want to put my faith in that.

I assist and shelter women who are victims of domestic abuse. We've found that the only way to stop the stalking and beating is to arm the women with a protective order and a pistol.

With just a protective order, she only has a piece of paper that the police will generally not use to protect her - they will do everything they can to try and avoid arresting the stalker.

With a protective order and a pistol, she has a hunting permit, and the stalker knows it. So they stay very far away.

I teach them not to put their faith in some random dude with a gun - the policeman - I teach them to put their faith in themselves.

I will leave you all on this note (which I stated earlier but I dont think any of you caught it)

"If guns cause crime then matches cause forest fires. Prevent forest fires! Register matches!"

Actually, we mostly just ignored it, because it was a lame slogan.

Daaave']I agree with that, but you miss my point that the whole reason the amendment was made is nw obsolete


How is it obsolete? Lets say next election a far left or right winger wins and wants to install a dictatorship. The ONLY way America will fall into a dictatorship is with all of gun rights taken away first! Point proven that guns are NEEDED to ensure and enforce freedom and equality! So if that extremist whackjob gets elected we have the means to overthrow his or her corrupt government or at least make it so it costs him or her millions of dollars and causualities to do it.

Actually, we mostly just ignored it, because it was a lame slogan.


But its the TRUTH. It can work both ways. If all guns do is cause crime then the same sense can be applied to matches. All they do is cause forest fires and arson. It just proves how idiotic gun control would be.

So if that extremist whackjob gets elected we have the means to overthrow his or her corrupt government or at least make it so it costs him or her millions of dollars and causualities to do it.

Hate to break it to you, an extremist whackjob got elected (twice) and you still haven't done anything. Shame on you!

So, rather than achieving an overthrow of the government, the goal of an armed civilian uprising is to make it "prohibitively expensive and bloody" for the army to control the country? i.e. turn the USA into a third world hell?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If the US government decides to take away the rights of US citizens, and the armed forces support the government, then the US is screwed.

Some of us just consider resistence to tyranny to be preferable to submitting to tyranny while saying "we're screwed". Such a situation would certainly be a "hell", as I'm sure was every armed revolution, resistence, or revolt. As to us being "screwed" if the U.S. ever decides to attack the rights of its citizens, some would rather go down fighting.

As to the other poster defending Bush, remember that Bush supports the Patriot Act, which is a serious attack on civil rights. Please don't assume that because he's supported by the NRA that he cares about your freedom.

But its the TRUTH. It can work both ways. If all guns do is cause crime then the same sense can be applied to matches. All they do is cause forest fires and arson. It just proves how idiotic gun control would be.


It's still a lame slogan.

Well the UK has a far lower vilonet crime and gun crime rate?
not trying to bait anyone,but i thought britain was having a problem with street toughs running around,causing alot of crime.i may be misinformed.
i will say we needed the guns to sorta kick the yoke of britain off of us,so you could say it is a bit of our national heritage.if i remember correctly,the brits wern't all warm and fuzzy to us back then.but i digress,it is part of our culture i guess,
i admit we are a tad violent here,which is why i have guns,to protect my family.i have had guns for 30 years and have never fired a shot in anger.i don't have a carry permit,so i don't carry...but i was assaulted by 4 people,beaten half to death with a cinder block,robbed...wish i had a gun that day,no one would have gotten hurt then.

Hate to break it to you, an extremist whackjob got elected (twice) and you still haven't done anything. Shame on you!
That's because, in general, most Democrats don't own guns (well, there are all those illegally owned guns in those blue urban areas). And most Republicans do.

No, I dont live in the UK. But I do know that there is a Queen. Correct? and the royal family correct? and the only people who can inherit the throne are the members of the royal family correct? Umm....what is that? Monarchy! Now there probably is some other things about the UK government that I dont know about, BUT any country that has an established monarchy is going to be naturally left-leaning and therefore usually believe that gun control is the best way to go.

Ok, your history seems a little rusty here (as i'm sure mine will). The Monarchy ruled over Great Britain before Charles I divine right call which said he was appionted by God to rule England or something like that.

Oliver Cromwell took control of the government after Charles I was put on trial and executed, Cromwell turned down the right to be King which Parliament called for, in the end Parliament accepted Charles II who was in France at the time. The government got dissolved through the process and eventually had to be reinstated in which they declared that no King or Queen had any real political power, nor could they dissolve Parliament without the parliaments agreement to it, thus ensuring Parliaments safety. Therefore the Prime Minister who would be elected had the power over the country without the need to have the monarchy's acceptance, they were more or less there for ceremonial purposes, for King and Country etc etc.

Ok, so America got their independance from the Crown....Big deal, I doubt the Empire ever had problems with it, the amount of money Parliament had to pay out would have been huge so not having America would have saved quite a fair bit of cash,enough to re-draw their territories in South Africa and annex the governments there. Despite the Empire being dismantled alot of countries upto and after the Empire had to fall in line with England, take the language, how many countries speak English now adays it's like the global language, take warfare, the English has a history involved with warfare they don't have the policy of shoot first ask questions later (Take Iraq, the toll of American soldiers who died where way higher then the British who were controlling areas), oh and then there's the Spying which in english history dated back to Henry VIII who broke away from the Pope's band of merry men and set up ways of defending England, oh and the early versions of the Tanks, Trench warfare, Concentration Camps etc etc.

What you have to look at is this, how many Presidents were assissinated in the US, and how many Kings or Queens were assissinated in the UK. As for terrorism the British had it's share but nothing on the scale of what America faces.

I'm sure i'll get flamed, this seems a common thing here.

But its the TRUTH. It can work both ways. If all guns do is cause crime then the same sense can be applied to matches. All they do is cause forest fires and arson. It just proves how idiotic gun control would be.

Well, i donit think a match in a forest will start a fire...unless someone is stupid enough to light that match that is!

not trying to bait anyone,but i thought britain was having a problem with street toughs running around,causing alot of crime.i may be misinformed.

Vilonet crime is rising slightly, the media have blowen it out of proportion by quoting "X number of gun deaths this year" when of course the number of gun deaths last year was only 10 or 12 less and the media did not report on it.

Vilonet crime is rising slightly, the media have blowen it out of proportion by quoting "X number of gun deaths this year" when of course the number of gun deaths last year was only 10 or 12 less and the media did not report on it.

You can tell its election time!!

That does not explain why British gun laws seem to protect us better. In the UK we dont need armed civilians to stop crime. We have a police service

then you've apparently been able to disarm your criminals. if we tried to do that here, i doubt we'd be able to. no criminal is just going to give up his gun.

and i'm sorry, but when you're under attack, you can't afford to wait 10 minutes for the cops to get there. and that's if you can get to a phone to call them.

i am glad that i have the right to own a gun and defend myself and my property from perps.

then you've apparently been able to disarm your criminals. if we tried to do that here, i doubt we'd be able to. no criminal is just going to give up his gun.

and i'm sorry, but when you're under attack, you can't afford to wait 10 minutes for the cops to get there. and that's if you can get to a phone to call them.

i am glad that i have the right to own a gun and defend myself and my property from perps.

There are many guns in the UK used by criminals. However due to the strict Laws against the carrage of guns in public, not many criminals have guns in the first place. This means that usually, due to the lack of them, they are used in more seroius organised crimes (drugs ect) not some random thief that will try and rob your house.

But saying that...how many people are shot when breaking and entering/tresspassing on someone elses property in the US?? And how many people are shot in the street?

Daaave']There are many guns in the UK used by criminals. However due to the strict Laws against the carrage of guns in public, not many criminals have guns in the first place. This means that usually, due to the lack of them, they are used in more seroius organised crimes (drugs ect) not some random thief that will try and rob your house.

But saying that...how many people are shot when breaking and entering/tresspassing on someone elses property in the US?? And how many people are shot in the street?

Several studies indicate that there are 2 million defensive uses of firearms per year - the vast majority of which do not involve any shots fired. Some studies place this figure as low as 100,000 per year, but in all cases it is a positive number.

That doesn't break it down to on property/off property, though.

The number of people being shot (as opposed to committing suicide) and killed has been steadily dropping. It's at a relatively low number, especially if you consider that over the same time period, the number of guns in circulation has been going up, and the number of states that allow concealed carry of pistols has also gone up.

then you've apparently been able to disarm your criminals. if we tried to do that here, i doubt we'd be able to. no criminal is just going to give up his gun.



You don't have to disarm all at once. The point ius to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Say that you first of all make it much harder to obtain a gun using personality checks. That would reduce the number of guns in the hands of opportunistic deranged criminals. You then just gradually tighten the laws, combining this with measures to catch people who break these laws.

You don't have to disarm all at once. The point ius to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Say that you first of all make it much harder to obtain a gun using personality checks. That would reduce the number of guns in the hands of opportunistic deranged criminals. You then just gradually tighten the laws, combining this with measures to catch people who break these laws.
Department of Justics statistics show that 76 percent of violent crime is committed without a weapon.

24 percent is committed with a weapon - but that includes knives and other instruments as well as firearms.

So a minority of our violent crime is committed with guns.

How is eliminating guns going to solve the violent crime problem, if the majority are committed without any firearm at all?

Who the hell quoted "biblical sources???"

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them... and they shall not escape.

Department of Justics statistics show that 76 percent of violent crime is committed without a weapon.

24 percent is committed with a weapon - but that includes knives and other instruments as well as firearms.

So a minority of our violent crime is committed with guns.

How is eliminating guns going to solve the violent crime problem, if the majority are committed without any firearm at all?

I never said it would solve it. It would certainly reduce it. Also, your statistic leaves out the fact that violent crime with no weapon is far less likely to be fatal than violent crime with a gun.

I never said it would solve it. It would certainly reduce it. Also, your statistic leaves out the fact that violent crime with no weapon is far less likely to be fatal than violent crime with a gun.

As it stands, most violent crime in the US is not fatal. We would also expect a rough doubling of violent crime, since a number of violent crimes equal to the current number of violent crimes are currently prevented and stopped by civilians using guns without shooting.

So double the number of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

For the first few years, you can assume that while civilians will not have guns, the criminals who already have them will have them for some time to come. It's not likely that they'll turn them in - after all, 84 percent of their guns didn't come from a legal purchase, so you won't even know their names.

As it stands, most violent crime in the US is not fatal. We would also expect a rough doubling of violent crime, since a number of violent crimes equal to the current number of violent crimes are currently prevented and stopped by civilians using guns without shooting.

Link? You've made great reference to a DoJ study showing this. You've yet to link it.


So double the number of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.


Not murders. According to FBI uniform crime reports 9,638 of 14,408 murders are committed with a firearm. By your logic the US would see a massive drop in murders with a gun ban.
Heres the UCR for 2003 (Most recent) :http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-12.xls
For the first few years, you can assume that while civilians will not have guns, the criminals who already have them will have them for some time to come. It's not likely that they'll turn them in - after all, 84 percent of their guns didn't come from a legal purchase, so you won't even know their names.

True, but if they were banned or forced to be registered then a cop would be able to arrest them when the gun they have fails to be registered to them.

Not murders. According to FBI uniform crime reports 9,638 of 14,408 murders are committed with a firearm. By your logic the US would see a massive drop in murders with a gun ban.
Heres the UCR for 2003 (Most recent) :http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-12.xls


False. We'd see similar numbers of murders--just with different weapons.


True, but if they were banned or forced to be registered then a cop would be able to arrest them when the gun they have fails to be registered to them.

Do you know how many of those murders are committed when an officer is not around? 99%--if not ALL of them. If a gun stays hidden, the police officer will not be able to arrest the person. This would imply a LOT of strip searches, or at the very least a great many pat-downs without warrants. Not acceptable.

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!

Yes, what you've read is true: King Arthur and the knights of the round table rule the country with an iron fist. Why isn't the US doing something about this?

As it stands, most violent crime in the US is not fatal. We would also expect a rough doubling of violent crime, since a number of violent crimes equal to the current number of violent crimes are currently prevented and stopped by civilians using guns without shooting.

So double the number of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

For the first few years, you can assume that while civilians will not have guns, the criminals who already have them will have them for some time to come. It's not likely that they'll turn them in - after all, 84 percent of their guns didn't come from a legal purchase, so you won't even know their names.

Admitidelly, there would probably be a rise in violent crime at first, and I wouldn't want it to be a decision that was taken without making sure that it is done in the best possible way. However, seeing as once you have finally got rid of the guns, it is much easier to keep them away, eventually it will be made up for.

Yes, what you've read is true: King Arthur and the knights of the round table rule the country with an iron fist. Why isn't the US doing something about this?

IT! IT! IT! IT! IT! IT! IT!

I will keep saying, "IT!" until the knights flee!!!!!!

Khabul is heaven because everyone owns an AK rifle.

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.
just a little FYI for you NEO CANNEN
actually britain did have a right to bear arms and currently the overal crime rate in britain is HIGHER than the US in EVERY catagory except murder.
of the 18 industrialized nations in the world the UN found that britain and whales has the highest violent crime rates, infact you are 6 times more likely to be mugged in london than in new york. it isn't a matter of gun culture persay. the swiss have a bigger gun culture than the USA but far less gun related crime(even though the US gun crime rate comes in around a measly 1%).
now for a lesson on british history for you
professor Malcolm, and Harvard University Press, are back with a book entitled Guns and Violence: The English Experience, which addresses another English connection to American gun rights.


It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.


This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)


Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?


In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.


Despite these rates, which Malcolm is right to call astonishingly low, the British government decided at the turn of the 20th century to begin a program of gun control that would ensure "that nobody except a soldier, sailor, or policeman, should have a pistol at all." The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.


This effort was initially frustrated by popular resistance, but the first regulatory law in this campaign was passed in 1903, requiring a license for the purchase of a pistol. Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.


After World War I, the English government got serious. Though fear of crime was (again) claimed as a justification for much more intrusive gun controls despite no increases of any significance, the real motivation -- as historical records make very clear -- was the fear of armed labor unionists, and perhaps even Bolshevik revolution. Though Parliament in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had seen an armed citizenry as a valuable check on tyranny, by the 20th century the government was determined to disarm the citizenry so as to eliminate any threats to its power.


Because the 1903 act requiring firearm licensing had not resulted in strict limits on gun ownership, the populace was not much threatened by the 1920 Firearms Act. The act met with much less resistance than the early popular resistance to the 1903 law. But the 1920 Firearms Act began the trend toward the near-complete disarmament of the formerly well-armed English citizenry. This disarmament continued by gradual sub silentio changes in administrative policy. For example, in 1938 the government made the unannounced decision that pistol licenses would no longer be issued to individuals who wanted a gun to defend their homes. Additional legislation followed. As Malcolm puts it:


Parliament passed a comprehensive firearms statute that eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. It was the culmination of fifty years of effort by British governments of every political stripe. The announced rationale by the ruling coalition government was, as usual, an increase in armed crime, yet statistics in London show no such increase. . . . Private Cabinet papers make clear that the government was afraid not of crime but of disorder and even revolution, the same fears that had fuelled government control measures in the past.


By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed - and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.


In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well. As Malcolm notes:


The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. By opting to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep guns or to carry any article for defence, English government policy may actually be contributing to the lawlessness and violence afflicting its people.


Malcolm is commendably cautious when discussing the connection between stricter English gun laws and higher rates of crime. But at the very least, she has demonstrated that the history of English gun control does not support the commonly made claim that English crime rates were (formerly) lower in England because of stricter gun controls. The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. The history is entirely consistent with the findings of Lott and Kleck: that disarming honest citizens produces more crime, not less.

That does not explain why British gun laws seem to protect us better. In the UK we dont need armed civilians to stop crime. We have a police service

What it explains is that gun laws are irrelevant towards the differential in violent crime between the UK and the US. If anything, the difference would be increassed with harsh gun control in the states.

currently the overal crime rate in britain is HIGHER than the US in EVERY catagory except murder.

No it isn't. The US is higher in rapes and assaults too.

I never said it would solve it. It would certainly reduce it. Also, your statistic leaves out the fact that violent crime with no weapon is far less likely to be fatal than violent crime with a gun.

If it would reduce it, why do the areas w/ the strictest gun control (ie Chicago, Wash. DC) have the highest crime rates. New York is low because Guliani kicked out most of the transients. It's going back up now because the new mayor is letting them back in.

Two things that would reduce crime:

1. Repeal "sanctuary" laws and tighten immigration.

2. Legalize drugs.

Admitidelly, there would probably be a rise in violent crime at first, and I wouldn't want it to be a decision that was taken without making sure that it is done in the best possible way. However, seeing as once you have finally got rid of the guns, it is much easier to keep them away, eventually it will be made up for.

How would they be gotten rid of? Ever hear of smuggling? How many Law Abiding Citizens would die before "eventually" happened?

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm
First one, I see your point and see owning a gun as a right to property.
What sort of disarment are you talking about, specifically?

First one, I see your point and see owning a gun as a right to property.
What sort of disarment are you talking about, specifically?

In the US, there is only one kind of disarmament acceptable to groups like the MMM, HCI, or the VPC, and politicians like Fienstein and Shumer, that is complete and total of all Law Abiding Citizens.

Hate to break it to you, an extremist whackjob got elected (twice) and you still haven't done anything. Shame on you!

But Clinton was so much fun to laugh at.

But Clinton was so much fun to laugh at.

No, no, that was an extreme BLOWjob.

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!

i want to scat in ur mouth
constitutional monarchy
royal family members are just figureheads, no real power


.......dipshit

just a little FYI for you NEO CANNEN
actually britain did have a right to bear arms and currently the overal crime rate in britain is HIGHER than the US in EVERY catagory except murder.
of the 18 industrialized nations in the world the UN found that britain and whales has the highest violent crime rates, infact you are 6 times more likely to be mugged in london than in new york. it isn't a matter of gun culture persay. the swiss have a bigger gun culture than the USA but far less gun related crime(even though the US gun crime rate comes in around a measly 1%).
now for a lesson on british history for you

wales, you fuck

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

HAW HAW HEE HAW I TELL YOU WHAT


YOU WANT SOME FREEDOM FRIES WITH THAT HOOOEEEEEE

Where did originality go>

Gun control - the next step AFTER mind control. Watch your guns, but that right is still pretty entrenched. Your mind, on the other hand...

Of course, once they have your mind it doesn't mater if you keep your guns or not. They can make you believe and do whatever they want. It's a bit harder to change someone's mind if they are armed and jingoists. They tend to feel more self-righteous and tend to agree that whatever the state does is good, as long as its 'their guys' in control, doing all the nationalist trumpetting.

Unless that's what's you meant.

I'm tired. Need sleep.

True, but if they were banned or forced to be registered then a cop would be able to arrest them when the gun they have fails to be registered to them.

The whole problem with this aurguement is that they will NOT be charged with failure to register, our supreme court has ruled that requiring a criminal to register his gun is a violation of the criminals 5th admendment rights against self incrimination, so a criminal can not be charged with that, only a law abiding citizen can

Also th US has a strict law against the use of the standing military as police units or against US citizens, any leader ordering such a move would find that the majority of the military would refuse, citing that it is an illegal order and as such, the are lawfully required to refuse the order

The whole problem with this aurguement is that they will NOT be charged with failure to register, our supreme court has ruled that requiring a criminal to register his gun is a violation of the criminals 5th admendment rights against self incrimination, so a criminal can not be charged with that, only a law abiding citizen can

Also th US has a strict law against the use of the standing military as police units or against US citizens, any leader ordering such a move would find that the majority of the military would refuse, citing that it is an illegal order and as such, the are lawfully required to refuse the order

Plus the fact that it is illegal in most states for felons to own firearms anyway, the ones they have are already illegal. Do gun banners honestly think they would register them in the first place?

wales, you fuck
sorry was typing fast, didn't notice the typo

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

This is the most stupid post I've ever seen. It's called the Europe. Read up on it.

The BNP (that's the facist party in the UK for our American friends) wants everyone to have assault rifles. What does that say about Americans who also want assault rifles?

The BNP (that's the facist party in the UK for our American friends) wants everyone to have assault rifles. What does that say about Americans who also want assault rifles?

That's a decidedly un-facist idea. Facists wouldn't want the populace to be armed--how else are you going to control them if they can fight back?

They're just trying to bolster their numbers with non-facists who would like the right to defend themselves back. Devious and underhanded process....

I'm glad to see some other people here have common sense! lol. If it wasnt for the second amendment then how can we protect our first? Choke on that one libs!

yes it is true, only the right to bear arms stops all the countries of the EU from becoming fascist dictatorships, er, ?

That's a decidedly un-facist idea. Facists wouldn't want the populace to be armed--how else are you going to control them if they can fight back?

They're just trying to bolster their numbers with non-facists who would like the right to defend themselves back. Devious and underhanded process....


fascists want power at any price, and are willing to promise anything to get it.
like the Republicans.

fascists want power at any price, and are willing to promise anything to get it.
like the Republicans.
I guess that's why Republicans don't want to ban guns, and Democrats want to ban guns completely if they get the chance.

Ah, I'm so sorry I must leave the brilliant discussion I started. Please would all right-wingers here continue to teach the leftists about why gun control doesnt work.

I will leave you all on this note (which I stated earlier but I dont think any of you caught it)

"If guns cause crime then matches cause forest fires. Prevent forest fires! Register matches!"

if there were as many forest fires in the us as there are murders with firearms, I'm sure there would be some kind of registration instituted. just like drivers and vehicles are registered, because there are so many of them with so much potential for destruction.

fascists want power at any price, and are willing to promise anything to get it.
like the Republicans.

I agree with you on that. But I'd include the Democrats as well as the Republicans. That's the only way to get the following that they have--create an illusion of a two-party system, and maintain that system through fear of what the other side will do.

Either side will do whatever it takes to get votes--the Republicans have been spending through the ass to maintain their vote counts (goes completely what the Republicans are supposed to stand for--fiscal responsibility), and the Democrats seem to get homeless/those-down-on-their-luck people to vote for food or crack.

Both "sides" are equally as guilty at promising things they have no intention of following through on.

if there were as many forest fires in the us as there are murders with firearms, I'm sure there would be some kind of registration instituted. just like drivers and vehicles are registered, because there are so many of them with so much potential for destruction.

67 percent of murders in the US are done with firearms.
84 percent of those firearms are not legally purchased - they are stolen, smuggled, etc. That is, even if you registered them, the vast majority of firearm murders would still occur.

Still think that a gang that sells illegal drugs and carries 9mm pistols in their baggy shorts is going to go down and register their firearms? Think again.

The police could no more control forearms in the US than they can drugs. No insults to officers out there but the war on drugs is lost and has been for a long time so what the heck makes gun control people think the police can also control firearms. There are more firearms in teh US than there are people. Hell my father has about sixty rifles and pistols, I have six (the runt of the family).
These are the same people who complain that our freedoms are being trampled on by Republicans. It seems they only want certain freedoms, freedoms they don't like so much to be trampled on.

The police could no more control forearms in the US than they can drugs. No insults to officers out there but the war on drugs is lost and has been for a long time so what the heck makes gun control people think the police can also control firearms. There are more firearms in teh US than there are people. Hell my father has about sixty rifles and pistols, I have six (the runt of the family).
These are the same people who complain that our freedoms are being trampled on by Republicans. It seems they only want certain freedoms, freedoms they don't like so much to be trampled on.
Dianne Feinstein, a Senator who has one of the few concealed weapons permits in California, and regularly carries a pistol, is in favor of having every other American turn ALL the guns in.

Makes you wonder why. She obviously feels a strong need for a pistol at all times - but she wants to disarm everyone else.

Dianne Feinstein, a Senator who has one of the few concealed weapons permits in California, and regularly carries a pistol, is in favor of having every other American turn ALL the guns in.

Makes you wonder why. She obviously feels a strong need for a pistol at all times - but she wants to disarm everyone else.

Yes, she, one of the elightened among us can be trusted ;) while the rest of us "normals" cannot be trusted. We must be controled like the children we are. Protected from ourselves and assumed guilty of a crime. . .we have a firearm so at some point in the future we might commit a crime so our firearm must be taken from us.
seems to me that violates the constitution a bit. . .

For all of you thinking the UK is some wonderful crime free Utopia I respectfully submit the following...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/london04.pdf

I'd rather walk the streets in Washington DC's Ward 8 than London.

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

No argument here - damn! This just isn't my day... ;)

For all of you thinking the UK is some wonderful crime free Utopia I respectfully submit the following...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/london04.pdf

I'd rather walk the streets in Washington DC's Ward 8 than London.


Wow. According to http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/pdf/2003_crime_stats/Page6_04.pdf

we have a violent crime rate per 1,000 people of
1.058 (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault).

The London statistic, which excludes robbery from violence against the person, is 25 per 1,000.

That's 25 times the violent crime that I have. I live in a heavily populated suburb of Washington, D.C., where we are allowed to carry pistols in the open without a license, and carry concealed with a license.

In fact, according to your link, it's much more dangerous in terms of violent crime to be anywhere in England or Wales than it is to be where I'm sitting now.

:D Good one! You won't get any argument from me on this one. The right to bear arms is the guarantee of all other liberties.

I second that motion.

Nearly every household in Saddam controlled Iraq had an AK or some other sort of automatic weapon in it. Didn't work for them.

Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

Dream on dead beat!

Nearly every household in Saddam controlled Iraq had an AK or some other sort of automatic weapon in it. Didn't work for them.

There's a difference between owning a gun, and knowing how to use it. Just because you own a gun doesn't make you competent in its use.

If I own a piano, it doesn't make me a pianist.

Many people who have never owned a gun think of it as some sort of magical wand. It isn't.

I've done MANY demonstrations with the M-16 - give an untrained person an M-16 with a 30-round magazine, put it on full auto, and have them shoot at a target 100 yards away. In all the times I've done this, NO ONE has ever hit the target - not even once.

Nearly every household in Saddam controlled Iraq had an AK or some other sort of automatic weapon in it. Didn't work for them.

Yes. I remember the CNN news article about Saddam giving those out - several months before the war. Most of them didn't have any training whatsoever.

Besides, is the war over?

Finally, a large proportion of Iraqis is opposed to the insurgency.

Ugh. Gun control in the UK - good. Gun control in the US - bad, maybe. Do what you like, we're content with the controls. Horses for courses, to coin a phrase.

The fact you're "content" with the controls doesn't mean they are good or a good idea.

The fact you're "content" with the controls doesn't mean they are good or a good idea.
You know what? I think it does. The UK has never had a gun ownership mentality, it's just not part of our culture. Farmers, yes - and fair enough - but for most of us, meh. It's a non-issue.

Once a gun is sold once, a legitimate registration is non-existant and any tracing of it would be deemed unreliable by any reasonable person that knew anything of the subject. Criminals niether register nor legitimately acquire their guns as a general rule.

The only reliable registration is obtained from honest people acquiring their guns at a legitimate retailer.

Given that the only reason given by the gov for registration is to trace a weapon back to a perp in the event of a crime and to trace its origin, registration is clearly a fallacy and a hoax.

The real reason that the gov wants guns registered is so they know where to go when they want to take them. And as I explained above, they will only be getting them from the honest folks that use them in honest pursuits.

The second amendment was well thought out. It can be argued that the founding fathers in the U.S. had indeed forcast huge technological advances in arms because (believe it or not) there had been quite a few by the time the constitution was written. They weren't using catapults and slingshots in the revolutionary war, were they? The idea that they had never intended that people be armed with and enjoy the benefits of these advances is ridiculous and that argument should be rejected with just a chuckle.

I find the arguments by pro-gun control people that the constitution be changed a much more credible one (Changed outright - Not by judicial decree). That argument may be wrong, misguided and a misinformed one, but it is at least an honest one. And honesty by the anti-gun crowd would be as welcome as it is rare.

You know what? I think it does. The UK has never had a gun ownership mentality, it's just not part of our culture. Farmers, yes - and fair enough - but for most of us, meh. It's a non-issue.

The later one is untrue. I recommend you read "Guns and Violence: an English Experience", by Joyce Lee Malcolm from Harvard. Right until the 1900's, the British would have PWNED the Americans in that regard, and in fact that's where the Americans brought their mentality from.

The later one is untrue. I recommend you read "Guns and Violence: an English Experience", by Joyce Lee Malcolm from Harvard. Right until the 1900's, the British would have PWNED the Americans in that regard, and in fact that's where the Americans brought their mentality from.
OK, I'm not going to dispute this as I've not got info on me at the mo (and I can't be arsed to Google). Point is, it is a non-issue now.

Regarding the BNP, they wish to enforce gun ownership by withdrawing the right to vote for those who refuse to be armed. Military service would also be compulsory.

OK, I'm not going to dispute this as I've not got info on me at the mo (and I can't be arsed to Google). Point is, it is a non-issue now.

Regarding the BNP, they wish to enforce gun ownership by withdrawing the right to vote for those who refuse to be armed. Military service would also be compulsory.


Who said anything about the BNP?

OK, I'm not going to dispute this as I've not got info on me at the mo (and I can't be arsed to Google). Point is, it is a non-issue now.

Regarding the BNP, they wish to enforce gun ownership by withdrawing the right to vote for those who refuse to be armed. Military service would also be compulsory.

There was a link to some UK crime statistics that showed violence against the person varying from 16 to 25 per 1,000. It excluded robbery (why that's not considered violence against the person is beyond me).

I live in a heavily populated US suburb where we carry guns legally.

Our violent crime rate (including robbery) is 1.05 per 1000.

What's up?

Point is, it is a non-issue now.


How is a non-issue?

True, but correct me if I'm wrong. Doesnt the UK have a big problem with terrorism? Also you say strictly controlled. That is a far cry from outright disarmament. Though I believe guns shouldnt be so strictly controlled either. It is far better then having none at all!

Eh, no.

They *did* have, but that was primarily their own fault [they followed many of the policies now espoused by the Bush administration, such as detention without trial and so forth - which quite definitely made things worse].

The terrorists, however, were British citizens [natural born, not immigrants or second generation immigrants].

In Ireland we have even stricter gun controls [unless I'm mistaken, in the UK each *shooter* is licensed whereas in Ireland each *gun* is licensed individually].

The terrorists didn't use weapons available to the public - it wasn't a case of picking up an armalite at your local shotgun dealer, they imported them illegally.

In Ireland we founght *wars* on our own soil within living memory. Our nation is, in official terms, younger than many of its residents. Our constitution was only adopted formally in 1937.

And yet we have no need for any variant of the 2nd amendment [guns are sporting/hunting only].

The notion that one needs to be armed in order to protect one's civil liberties is simply absurd.

The BNP were mentioned a while back. I was responding to earlier commentary.

How is it a non-issue? Um, because very few people in the UK give a damn. It's that simple.

As for the crime stats... I'm not denying the violence (I live in one of the worst areas in London, I know what it's like), but there's no proven link between said violence and the gun laws. Put it this way, you can't say that gun control has led to the increase in violence because hardly anyone had guns before the ban anyway. This is especially true in urban areas.

The BNP were mentioned a while back. I was responding to earlier commentary.

How is it a non-issue? Um, because very few people in the UK give a damn. It's that simple.

As for the crime stats... I'm not denying the violence (I live in one of the worst areas in London, I know what it's like), but there's no proven link between said violence and the gun laws. Put it this way, you can't say that gun control has led to the increase in violence because hardly anyone had guns before the ban anyway. This is especially true in urban areas.

I'm not saying your gun ban made a difference. I'm just tired of people saying it's so much safer in the UK.

OK, less chance of being murdered. But way, way, way more chance of being dealt personal violence - even the UK countryside by those stats has 16 times the violent crime I experience here.

Yes, because we all know that gun control leads straight to dictatorship.

It doesn't always lead to dictatorship, but it makes establishing a dictatorship a hell of a lot easier for would-be dictators. Hitler, Qaddafi, Castro, Lenin, et. al., agree...gun control works!

Certainly few people had guns before Blair's ban on .22 hanguns - mostly because the practice was eliminated by a long string of earlier bans.

The fact few people care of it doesn't mean it's not important.

And Rus024, ever heard of the Anti-Social Behavior Act? CCTV's on the streeets of London? :)

On the other hand, while certainly arms are a rarely used too, they are another tool in one's shed, and I wouldn't want to lose it if I had it. Which I don't.

I'm not saying your gun ban made a difference. I'm just tired of people saying it's so much safer in the UK.

OK, less chance of being murdered. But way, way, way more chance of being dealt personal violence - even the UK countryside by those stats has 16 times the violent crime I experience here.
Sorry, I was generalising. And I sympathise with your frustration - I'm tired of people claiming the UK's crime rate as evidence that gun control doesn't work.

The strongest correlation with increasing crime rates that I've seen is with increasing inequality (of outcomes, not opportunities). Of course, how one addresses this problem is highly contentious.

For the record, just so it's absolutely clear: the UK is no crime-free utopia. You've got less chance of being killed, but that's small comfort for the victims of the violent crime that is prevalent.

As for the crime stats... I'm not denying the violence (I live in one of the worst areas in London, I know what it's like), but there's no proven link between said violence and the gun laws. Put it this way, you can't say that gun control has led to the increase in violence because hardly anyone had guns before the ban anyway. This is especially true in urban areas.

Precisely - guns in the UK were and are sporting/hunting equipment, not weapons.

The citizenry were *not* armed. Gun ownership in the UK had and has no relationship with crime as the gun-as-weapon culture of the US simply doesn't exist.

Certainly few people had guns before Blair's ban on .22 hanguns - mostly because the practice was eliminated by a long string of earlier bans.

The fact few people care of it doesn't mean it's not important.

And Rus024, ever heard of the Anti-Social Behavior Act? CCTV's on the streeets of London? :)

On the other hand, while certainly arms are a rarely used too, they are another tool in one's shed, and I wouldn't want to lose it if I had it. Which I don't.
ASBOs and CCTV - grr, don't get me started!

I have no desire to deny you your 'right' to arms. I just find it irritating when pro-gun types insist that what works for them must work for us. We don't care AND it's not important. But we're not you.

Sorry, I was generalising. And I sympathise with your frustration - I'm tired of people claiming the UK's crime rate as evidence that gun control doesn't work.

The strongest correlation with increasing crime rates that I've seen is with increasing inequality (of outcomes, not opportunities). Of course, how one addresses this problem is highly contentious.

For the record, just so it's absolutely clear: the UK is no crime-free utopia. You've got less chance of being killed, but that's small comfort for the victims of the violent crime that is prevalent.

I've always thought that the major drivers of violent crime were:

a. poverty - things can be unequal - it just can't suck to be poor.
b. the illegality of drugs - if they were legal, violence would subside

And Rus024, ever heard of the Anti-Social Behavior Act? CCTV's on the streeets of London? :)



While walking down a public street, it is quite nice to know that a CCTV monitor can help reduce the response time to an incident. Don't get many round me, and I don't know if there are any cameras either - but then I'm within shouting distance of the local nick :-)

While walking down a public street, it is quite nice to know that a CCTV monitor can help reduce the response time to an incident. Don't get many round me, and I don't know if there are any cameras either - but then I'm within shouting distance of the local nick :-)

It is questionable whether that really makes much of a difference in the response time. It does, however, provide evidence at trial.

Which means that you get beat up, robbed, the thief runs, and if someone recognizes him on camera, they find him and convict him. If no one can figure out who he was, it's ok, because you're in hospital in either case.

I've always thought that the major drivers of violent crime were:

a. poverty - things can be unequal - it just can't suck to be poor.
b. the illegality of drugs - if they were legal, violence would subside
a - Inequality in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but increasing and 'excessive' inequality is. What constitutes 'excessive', however... your guess is as good as mine.

b - I completely agree.

I have no desire to deny you your 'right' to arms. I just find it irritating when pro-gun types insist that what works for them must work for us. We don't care AND it's not important. But we're not you.

I am not an American.

The notion that one needs to be armed in order to protect one's civil liberties is simply absurd.

To you, perhaps. You are entitled to your opinion. Telling someone they're absurd surely won't win them over to your side of things. If you're here just to insult, then fine--if you're trying to sway anyone, you're going to fail admirably.

With the way things are going in the US, with abominations like the Patriot Act taking away our freedoms, I'd like to hang on to my firearms just a bit longer.

I am not an American.
Ah, shite. My bad, sorry for the assumption.

no, but it's a step in that direction, why would we want to do that? you have no argument for this issue!

Erm yes we do, see the UK. A fully functioning democracy with strict gun control.

Erm yes we do, see the UK. A fully functioning democracy with strict gun control.
If you look back in the thread to the link to UK crime statistics per 1,000, it varies across England and Wales from 16 to 25 per 1,000 for "violence against the person", which appears to be violent crime with the exception of robbery, which for some reason is not considered violent crime.

Here where I'm sitting, even if you include robbery (and we do) as violent crime, we have 1 per 1,000.

The UK is a democracy, with strict gun control, and although the murder rate is lower, it has 16 to 25 times the violent crime that I experience in a major suburb of the nation's capital here in the US.

The UK is a democracy, with strict gun control, and although the murder rate is lower, it has 16 to 25 times the violent crime that I experience in a major suburb of the nation's capital here in the US.
Obviously there is a mistake in the figures?

Obviously there is a mistake in the figures?
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/london04.pdf

That's the UK figures, per 1,000 population. Take a look at the column for Violence against the person. Leave out the robbery.

Now, look at where I live.

http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/pdf/2003_crime_stats/Page6_04.pdf

That's Fairfax County, Virginia, about a million people in a suburb of DC.

Those figures are per 100,000, so divide by 100 to match them up.

Looks like the guns aren't the problem in the UK. Looks like your police are obviously not stopping violent crime.

I'd like in the future for UK gun control proponents to stop shouting to the heavens that their police are so much better at stopping crime, or that the violent crime in the UK is so much lower - because it's not.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/london04.pdf

That's the UK figures, per 1,000 population. Take a look at the column for Violence against the person. Leave out the robbery.

Now, look at where I live.

http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/pdf/2003_crime_stats/Page6_04.pdf

That's Fairfax County, Virginia, about a million people in a suburb of DC.

Those figures are per 100,000, so divide by 100 to match them up.

Looks like the guns aren't the problem in the UK. Looks like your police are obviously not stopping violent crime.

I'd like in the future for UK gun control proponents to stop shouting to the heavens that their police are so much better at stopping crime, or that the violent crime in the UK is so much lower - because it's not.
Try working the UK figure backwards?

Total violent crime 32 per 1,000 is equal to 3.2 per 10,000, is equal to .32 per 100,000 which is far less than Fairfax County's rate of 105.4 per 100,000?

Quit playing with the numbers....the facts are against you?

Rapes:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap&int=-1&id=OECD

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass&int=-1&id=OECD

Murders:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur&int=-1&id=OECD

Murders with Firearms:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=-1&id=OECD

32 per 1000 is 3.2 percent. Which is 3200 per 100,000.

You need to go back to remedial math. I'm not playing with the numbers.

Looks like others on this forum do the math the same way I do.

32 per 1000 is 3.2 percent. Which is 3200 per 100,000.

You need to go back to remedial math. I'm not playing with the numbers.
I played with the numbers on purpose because the numbers do not add up, in the crime stats.

The US has more violent crime than the UK (check the per capita stats):

USA:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Crime

You are playing with numbers because in reality there was 850 murders in the UK in 2000 versus 12,658 in the US in 1999. For every UK murder, there are 15 US murders.

For every UK murder by firearms (62), there are 133 US murders by firearms (8,259).

More guns = more murders.

32 per 1000 is 3.2 percent. Which is 3200 per 100,000.

You need to go back to remedial math. I'm not playing with the numbers.
I played with the numbers on purpose because the numbers do not add up, in the crime stats.

The US has more violent crime than the UK (check the per capita stats):

USA:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Crime

You are playing with numbers because in reality there was 850 murders in the UK in 2000 versus 12,658 in the US in 1999. For every UK murder, there are 15 US murders.

For every UK murder by firearms (62), there are 133 US murders by firearms (8,259).

Perhaps you want to check my math again?

More guns = more murders.

More guns = more murders.

I'm not talking about murder.

I'm talking about violent crime. Using the UK government's published statistics, unadorned.

Violent crime includes murder, but is not solely murder. It appears that, guns or not, you're 16 to 25 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime anywhere in the UK than you are where I'm sitting right now - a heavily populated suburb of Washington, D.C.

The numbers DO add up. For violent crime. If I do the right thing, and add in the robbery (which the US figures include), it looks even worse for the UK. I'm far, far more likely to be beaten, robbed, raped, or otherwise assaulted in the UK than I am here.

Yes, because we all know that gun control leads straight to dictatorship.

Are you trying to say that's a bad thing!

I played with the numbers on purpose because the numbers do not add up, in the crime stats.

The US has more violent crime than the UK (check the per capita stats):

USA:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Crime

You are playing with numbers because in reality there was 850 murders in the UK in 2000 versus 12,658 in the US in 1999. For every UK murder, there are 15 US murders.

For every UK murder by firearms (62), there are 133 US murders by firearms (8,259).

Perhaps you want to check my math again?

More guns = more murders.

I'm still waiting to find out exactly how you're going to take them away from criminals... and if you can't, how gun control could POSSIBLY be a good thing.

Notwithstanding the constraints on freedom for 99% of gun owners (those who use them to hunt, sport-shoot, etc... not to hurt people or commit crime).

Also undeniable is the fact that with a gun, I am 100% (at least) more able to defend myself, my family and my home against would-be assailants, armed or not. A gun will likely scare the crap out of any non-armed burglar and give you a chance to kill or incapacitate an armed burglar so that he'll never be able to steal from (or otherwise terrorize...) anyone again.

Of course if you think the police can do something about, I guess we should ask people if they think they could pacify a criminal with tea and crumpets for 10 or 15 minutes while the cops are on their way to stop the crime...

I'm not talking about murder.

I'm talking about violent crime. Using the UK government's published statistics, unadorned.

Violent crime includes murder, but is not solely murder. It appears that, guns or not, you're 16 to 25 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime anywhere in the UK than you are where I'm sitting right now - a heavily populated suburb of Washington, D.C.

The numbers DO add up. For violent crime. If I do the right thing, and add in the robbery (which the US figures include), it looks even worse for the UK. I'm far, far more likely to be beaten, robbed, raped, or otherwise assaulted in the UK than I am here.
Washington, D.C. has extremely strict gun control laws...like all other major U.S. cities.

Washington, D.C. has extremely strict gun control laws...like all other major U.S. cities.

Do D.C. gangs use guns? (rhetorical question)

Washington, D.C. has extremely strict gun control laws...like all other major U.S. cities.
Read my post.

I live in a SUBURB of Washington, D.C.

Fairfax County, Virginia.

Where I can carry a gun openly and legally.
Where I can have a concealed weapons permit easily.

And I do carry a gun - all the time.

True, but correct me if I'm wrong. Doesnt the UK have a big problem with terrorism?

no

Do D.C. gangs use guns? (rhetorical question)
Yes, heavily. And although some guns come from nearby states (by theft and smuggling), the majority of crime guns used in murders in DC are from the police.

I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!

I agree!

That's why I'd prefer living in UK instead of US ;-)

More guns = more murders.
oh how wronbg you are CanuckHeaven
lets just look at the example of your one european neighbor that actually likes gun possibly more than the USA

The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook
In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)
Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.
Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.
Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.
But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.
While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.
Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.
By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.
In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.
Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.
Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."
The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.
John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.
The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.
However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the
Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.
For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.
European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.
From The Wall Street Journal Europe

sekimra
Washington, D.C. has extremely strict gun control laws...like all other major U.S. cities.
actually the only consistant gun regulation in the USA is federal. each state and each city has thier own set of laws, thats why there are over 22,000 (laws) of them in the USA. certain more liberal cities such as new york and los angeles (and all of california for that matter) have far more repressive gun laws and incidently higher incidents of crime including gun crime. washington DC is a city legislated and run by the US congress and in thier previously overwheliming liberal bent they virtually outlawed the civilian ownership of functioning firearms(that law was recently repealed though). the end result was making washington DC the murder capitol of the USA, meanwhile one of thier "suburbs" located in virginia allowed the right to carry firearms concealed and saw a signifigant drop in the crime rate.

understand this IN AMERICA due to american social attitudes and views GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. it only makes law abiding citizens victims and increases crime.
I.E.
an example from one of our local law enforcement officers who deals with crime on a daily basis
the comments of lewis county sheriff john mccroskey (2003)
quote:

i don't believe restricting law-abiding citizen's ownership of firearms does anything but make them easier victims. if it was as easy as passing laws, then there would be no crime. but it isn't. law-abiding people are law-abiding because they follow the law. lawbreakers don't care what the law is, and will find a way to get guns.

now it may work differently in your country(like it does in japan), but you cannot try to force that position on a society that is different than your own

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.

I need an ambulance!!! Why you ask, well to reinflate the lung I collapsed from laughing too hard after reading this. In the UK crimes as a whole are much higher per capita than anywhere in the US of A. In America, where we have guns there are much lower crime rates.

As for tyrants liking gun control, Hitler anyone? He managed to disarm everyone but his soldiers and he used that power to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Except in warsaw, where the jews, armed only with a few pistols and rifles, as well as three hand grenades, managed to destroy the first troops come to take them away, and then stood off a whole panzer division until the city was burned around them, killing most of them, a few people survived the ghetto and the camps, thats the only way we know.

I'm not talking about murder.

I'm talking about violent crime. Using the UK government's published statistics, unadorned.

Violent crime includes murder, but is not solely murder. It appears that, guns or not, you're 16 to 25 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime anywhere in the UK than you are where I'm sitting right now - a heavily populated suburb of Washington, D.C.

The numbers DO add up. For violent crime. If I do the right thing, and add in the robbery (which the US figures include), it looks even worse for the UK. I'm far, far more likely to be beaten, robbed, raped, or otherwise assaulted in the UK than I am here.
Again, you are twisting numbers. Do you honestly believe your statement? You say I need remedial math, then perhaps you need remedial reading, with a side order of math?

Are these not clear enough?

You are playing with numbers because in reality there was 850 murders in the UK in 2000 versus 12,658 in the US in 1999. For every UK murder, there are 15 US murders.

For every UK murder by firearms (62), there are 133 US murders by firearms (8,259).

Let's do the rape numbers:

UK: Rapes: 8,593 (2000) (per capita): 0.14 per 1000 people per 1000 people

US: Rapes: 89,110 (1999) (per capita): 0.30 per 1000 people per 1000 people

This means that a person is twice as likely to get raped in the US compared with the UK.

Let's try assault:

UK: Assaults: 450,865 (2000) (per capita): 7.50 per 1000 people per 1000 people

US: Assaults: 2,238,480 (1999) (per capita): 7.70 per 1000 people per 1000 people

Even though the US has over 220 Million guns, you are still more likely to be assaulted in the US.

All of this and the US has the highest prison population in the world (2,078,570 prisoners). This 500,000 more than China (2nd on list), more than double Russia (3rd on list), and 7 times more than India (4th on list).

With all those people in jail, you would think that there would be no criminals left in the US?

I think that covers most of the violent crime, and the US is a more violent society than the UK, and the firearms make it even more violent.

I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!That's a very 8 year old thing to say. Limited Monarchy is not living under the rule of one family. That family has no real political power. They're for show only. The real government is the Prime Minister, Parliment, and the various ministries.

As for the rest of this thread --- just another empty head pouring out it's contents.

Being from the UK, i can tell just about everyone who is trying to link *gun restriction* and *violent crime* that they are plain wrong. Our problems come from the fact we have stupid liberal crime laws, that favour the criminals and disadvantage the innocent.

*If* you defend yourself in the uk against an attacker who has a knife and he ends up getting injured in anyway, you will most likely goto jail and he will most likely get compensation for his troubles.

Crime rates aren't just about *Gun control*, many things effect crime rates. Unemployment, Crime laws, Average wage, Inflation and Population density can all factor. On a side note, do you americans really think you have any *power* against your government? the government doesnt care if you have guns or not, with a propaganda campeign you can all be brainwashed anyway.

If englands government ever became a dicatatorship, we'd be able to cause just as much damage to it, as americans could cause to theirs even though we have stricter gun laws. It doesn't take a genius to make enough explosive material to bring a countries infrastructure to it's knees.

CanuckHeaven
care to share where your getting your numbers?
the US department of justice doesn't seem to agree with you, nor does the UN.

Daaave']Wheres your 'studies'? NRA funded?

In my opinion it is not nessissarally the amount of gun owning citizens that
that is the problem, but the whole gun culture that is encouraged by this.
Gun culture leads to a more violent nation. It will continue to spiral
out of control and more people will buy more guns to feel 'safe'.
Look at the nuklear situaltion... 'Oh I need a nuke to feel safe'!

I love the idea of 'every citizen is allowed to have a gun - in case they
want to rise against a government that isnt working' (one of the reasons there is a 2nd amendment) its gonna do you a whole lotta good against a Government with the largest stockpiles of WMD in the workld and itchy Texan trigger fingers at the helm.

Ha Ha Ha, and also, just for the hell of it Ha-grunt-snork-wheeze-hacking cough. WMD, against your country? Real good idea, cause everybody wants to rule over a radioactive, chemically hazardous, biologically unviable wasteland. Hell, half the army would desert, another civil war and the "south"(wether or not its the south this time) will win, the government wouldn't have a leg to stand on, it'd be warsaw and the french resistance all over again, except this time the americans, those "paranoid gun nuts" that everyone is so afraid of, would be heavily armed and able to fight off any possible attack from the government, they'd have captured tanks and the ability to wage a vicious and effective geurilla war against the remaining forces arrayed against them.

Being from the UK, i can tell just about everyone who is trying to link *gun restriction* and *violent crime* that they are plain wrong. Our problems come from the fact we have stupid liberal crime laws, that favour the criminals and disadvantage the innocent.

*If* you defend yourself in the uk against an attacker who has a knife and he ends up getting injured in anyway, you will most likely goto jail and he will most likely get compensation for his troubles.
AT LAST! Someone willing to admit just how f-ed up British law is when it comes to Self Defense!
Crime rates aren't just about *Gun control*, many things effect crime rates. Unemployment, Crime laws, Average wage, Inflation and Population density can all factor. On a side note, do you americans really think you have any *power* against your government? the government doesnt care if you have guns or not, with a propaganda campeign you can all be brainwashed anyway.

If englands government ever became a dicatatorship, we'd be able to cause just as much damage to it, as americans could cause to theirs even though we have stricter gun laws. It doesn't take a genius to make enough explosive material to bring a countries infrastructure to it's knees.
Well, it aparantly DOES require a genius, because the "Palestenian" splodydopes haven't been able to shut down Israel yet... nor did the bombings by the IRA do much good. There is a vast difference between the threat of armed insurrection and the relatively minimal damage that can be done by the typical uncoordinated (non-genius) bombing campagin.

To make a bombing campaign effective, you have to have an in-depth knowledge of the infrastructure, its interconnected links and its defense systems - plus the organizational wherewithall to pull it together and implement both tactical and strategic goals.

On the flip side, I can personally manufacture (by hand) in the vicinity of 1-2 9mm submachine gun(s) every 24 hours. Of course, if the popultion is armed and willing to resist, I wouldn't have to, because the "government" would find themselves in a situation not unlike that of the Nazi's in Warsaw - only worse.

oh how wronbg you are CanuckHeaven
lets just look at the example of your one european neighbor that actually likes gun possibly more than the USA
Okay, let's look at Switzerland:

From your article:


The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Now consider some raw data:

The UK has 8.2 times the population of Switzerland.

58% of murders in Switzerland are by firearms (40).

7% of murders in UK are by firearms (62).

If Switzerland had the same population as the UK, then by extrapolation, 40 x 8.2 = 328 murders by firearms in Switzerland versus 62 in the UK.

Fairly straightforward math?

understand this IN AMERICA due to american social attitudes and views GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. it only makes law abiding citizens victims and increases crime.
Over 220 million guns in America and yet there are more murders per capita than in the UK, Canada, and Australia, which all practice gun control. Approximately 70 to 75% of murders in the US, involves the use of firearms.

CanuckHeaven
care to share where your getting your numbers?
the US department of justice doesn't seem to agree with you, nor does the UN.
I did post my links earlier.

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Perhaps you could share your US and UN links, so that I can compare?

The whole problem with this aurguement is that they will NOT be charged with failure to register, our supreme court has ruled that requiring a criminal to register his gun is a violation of the criminals 5th admendment rights against self incrimination, so a criminal can not be charged with that, only a law abiding citizen can

Also th US has a strict law against the use of the standing military as police units or against US citizens, any leader ordering such a move would find that the majority of the military would refuse, citing that it is an illegal order and as such, the are lawfully required to refuse the order

My God!!! I just realized that all gun registration laws are illegal, since by failing to register your gun you become a felon, your fifth ammendment rights would be violated if you were forced to register it, I love democracy inaction, since I didn't register my gun you can't charge me with not registering it, yes, go convoluted logic.

The minute I see the Bowling for Columbine link I heave a sigh of relief knowing that this was satire :)

I love the way Americans feel they need to own guns to protect them from a possible dictatorship. Like they run up the dictator flag and you all pull out your shooters.
Dictators don't sneek into power but are clever enough to gain acceptance from a majority (as in a majority of gun owners) and then turn their face outward whilst removing rights from their populous to support the cause against the nations enemies.
Nazi germany and 1930's Italy both are good examples.
Bush is presently removing your rights while fighting overseas wars and you can't see the wood for the trees let alone a target to shoot at.
By all means shoot criminals, each other, school children and whatever. We don't care really 'cos we don't live where you do but please do look a little closer at what your govt. does at home while your men fight for the rights of arabs. That affects the whole world in the long run.

I love the way Americans feel they need to own guns to protect them from a possible dictatorship. Like they run up the dictator flag and you all pull out your shooters.
Dictators don't sneek into power but are clever enough to gain acceptance from a majority (as in a majority of gun owners) and then turn their face outward whilst removing rights from their populous to support the cause against the nations enemies.
Nazi germany and 1930's Italy both are good examples.
Bush is presently removing your rights while fighting overseas wars and you can't see the wood for the trees let alone a target to shoot at.
By all means shoot criminals, each other, school children and whatever. We don't care really 'cos we don't live where you do but please do look a little closer at what your govt. does at home while your men fight for the rights of arabs. That affects the whole world in the long run.

Anyone who tries to remove our rights, any of them will not recieve popular support, if the person told us he was pro-gun and the he took away guns from even a minority of the country there would an almost immwediate rebellion with predictable results, including a rebel victory. Bush is popular because people are stupid, not because we all trust him, I trust him about as far as I can throw my computer after its been superglued to my house.

Okay, let's look at Switzerland:

From your article:



Now consider some raw data:

The UK has 8.2 times the population of Switzerland.

58% of murders in Switzerland are by firearms (40).

7% of murders in UK are by fire
arms

If Switzerland had the same population as the UK, then by extrapolation, 40 x 8.2 = 328 murders by firearms in Switzerland versus 62 in the UK.

Fairly straightforward math?


Over 220 million guns in America and yet there are more murders per capita than in the UK, Canada, and Australia, which all practice gun control. Approximately 70 to 75% of murders in the US, involves the use of firearms.

Ahh, Canuck, nice to see you can still tweak the numbers to say whatever you want them to.

So 93% of murders in the UK are committed w/o firearms? That's 886 murders total in the UK.

Switzerland has 69 total by those numbers.

So reducing the UK's population by 8.2x, that's 108 murders in the UK compared to heavily armed Switzerlands 69.

Fairly straightforward math?

Anyone who tries to remove our rights, any of them will not recieve popular support, if the person told us he was pro-gun and the he took away guns from even a minority of the country there would an almost immwediate rebellion with predictable results, including a rebel victory. Bush is popular because people are stupid, not because we all trust him, I trust him about as far as I can throw my computer after its been superglued to my house.

Take a look at Tom Daschle. He touted that he was pro-gun then sabotaged every major bill that came through. His ass got handed to him on a plate.

Approximately 70 to 75% of murders in the US, involves the use of firearms.

CanuckHeaven
actually thats incorrect, according to the justice department gun crime stats Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.
thats 67% since you like to add




here is my links
the US department of justice stats
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
the british home office stats
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/
notice US violent crime is currently at 22.3 per 1,000
and the british rate is at 29.0 per 1,000
so yes indeed britain and wales have a higher overall violent crime rate than the USA

Now consider some raw data:

The UK has 8.2 times the population of Switzerland.

58% of murders in Switzerland are by firearms (40).

7% of murders in UK are by firearms (62).

If Switzerland had the same population as the UK, then by extrapolation, 40 x 8.2 = 328 murders by firearms in Switzerland versus 62 in the UK.

Fairly straightforward math?
i have no problem with your math, i have a problem with your strawman argument.
you claim.
more guns=more murders
in all actuallity the swiss have far more guns per 1,000 citizens than the UK and far less murders. percentage wise they have less total homicides per 1,000 persons than england/wales
the england/wales homicide rate is 4.4 per 1,000
the swiss rate is .012 per 1,000
even if they had a larger population equal to the UK it does not dictate they would have anywhere near the jump in murder you speculative math says.

CanuckHeaven
actually thats incorrect, according to the justice department gun crime stats
thats 67% since you like to add




here is my links
the US department of justice stats
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
the british home office stats
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/
notice US violent crime is currently at 22.3 per 1,000
and the british rate is at 29.0 per 1,000
so yes indeed britain and wales have a higher overall violent crime rate than the USA


i have no problem with your math, i have a problem with your strawman argument.
you claim.
more guns=more murders
in all actuallity the swiss have far more guns per 1,000 citizens than the UK and far less murders. percentage wise they have less total homicides per 1,000 persons than england/wales
the england/wales homicide rate is 4.4 per 1,000
the swiss rate is .012 per 1,000
even if they had a larger population equal to the UK it does not dictate they would have anywhere near the jump in murder you speculative math says.


If you drop gun banning Chicago out, Illinois' homicide rate is 3.8/1000. Guess where most of the crime/murder is committed?

CanuckHeaven
actually thats incorrect, according to the justice department gun crime stats
thats 67% since you like to add
I was off by 3% so shoot me.......no wait, I take that back!! :eek:


here is my links
the US department of justice stats
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
the british home office stats
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/
notice US violent crime is currently at 22.3 per 1,000
and the british rate is at 29.0 per 1,000
so yes indeed britain and wales have a higher overall violent crime rate than the USA
I concur with the 22.3 per 1,000 US Violent Crime Rate, but you have erred in the UK Violent Crime Rate, which you state as 29 per 1,000. The 29 per 1,000 is the total for ALL UK crime.


i have no problem with your math, i have a problem with your strawman argument.
you claim.
more guns=more murders
in all actuallity the swiss have far more guns per 1,000 citizens than the UK and far less murders. percentage wise they have less total homicides per 1,000 persons than england/wales
the england/wales homicide rate is 4.4 per 1,000
the swiss rate is .012 per 1,000
even if they had a larger population equal to the UK it does not dictate they would have anywhere near the jump in murder you speculative math says.
The fact remains that 58% of murders in Switzerland are committed with firearms, while only 7% of UK murders are by firearms.

The fact remains that 58% of murders in Switzerland are committed with firearms, while only 7% of UK murders are by firearms.

58% of less than 70 and 7% of almost 900.

So you're saying it's better to have over 800 people killed w/o firearms?

58% of less than 70 and 7% of almost 900.

So you're saying it's better to have over 800 people killed w/o firearms?

There's the problem. Canuck keeps trying to keep it on the firearms stats only, while those in favor of fewer restrictions on guns keep looking at the GLOBAL problem: All violent crime.

The pro-gun crowd wants to stop all types of crime, not just crime committed with firearms. We're a big picture crowd. We realize that the tool doesn't matter--it's the violent intent behind the crime that is the issue. Murder, rape, robberty, etc. occur both with and without firearms. Concentrate on the actual problem--the violent intent--not the tool used.

Again, you are twisting numbers. Do you honestly believe your statement? You say I need remedial math, then perhaps you need remedial reading, with a side order of math?


I'm using the violent crime numbers from your own government, as posted in the link. Maybe you should call them and tell them their numbers are off, if that's what you believe. I didn't fudge their numbers.

There's the problem. Canuck keeps trying to keep it on the firearms stats only, while those in favor of fewer restrictions on guns keep looking at the GLOBAL problem: All violent crime.

The pro-gun crowd wants to stop all types of crime, not just crime committed with firearms. We're a big picture crowd. We realize that the tool doesn't matter--it's the violent intent behind the crime that is the issue. Murder, rape, robberty, etc. occur both with and without firearms. Concentrate on the actual problem--the violent intent--not the tool used.

So in the U.S., a country with a high rate of violent crimes [not just gun related ones] there must be a problem besides wether people have guns or not. How do we fix the fact that there is so much violent intent amongst the population?

So in the U.S., a country with a high rate of violent crimes [not just gun related ones] there must be a problem besides wether people have guns or not. How do we fix the fact that there is so much violent intent amongst the population?

The war on drugs is the main driver behind street violence. A personal involvement with illegal drugs (whether you're the buyer or seller) is a far greater indicator that you'll be killed than owning a gun.

The war on drugs is the main driver behind street violence. A personal involvement with illegal drugs (whether you're the buyer or seller) is a far greater indicator that you'll be killed than owning a gun.

What else? It's not all drugs, what are other major factors in violent crimes over there?

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm


Ok, the first one was kind of funny. But you do have a point. Anywhere there is gun control, there is anarchy. Like the UK. Anarchy in the UK. Wait, that's just the name of a Sex Pistols ablum.

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.

Yes, we did have the right to bear arms, all the way through the middle ages right up until 1920 with the Firearms Act.

What else? It's not all drugs, what are other major factors in violent crimes over there?

There are social factors. It used to be the case that you stood a better chance of not being injured or killed if you cooperated with your attacker.

Now the police here generally tell you to resist immediately, and with all the force at your disposal. The stats have wavered back and forth through the 1990s, but in general, even if you don't resist, the criminal will beat, rape, and possibly kill you in any case.

That phenomenon is not explained by drugs (unless the person is high on meth), but it is an indicator of a deeply held rage.

The appearance of this phenomenon in the US is also why so many states have passed concealed carry laws - the police acknowledge that they will almost never get there in time to stop the criminal from abusing or killing the victim - and it is no consolation for them to arrive after the fact.

The experts agree! Gun control works!

http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/images/expertsonguncontrol.jpg


Disarmament is an invitation to tyranny and genocide!

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue12/disarmament_and_destruction.htm

Interesting, we have gun control here and the government is a democracy, also that artical with the verse of scripture, if you have a bible read the scriptures around it and that should bring it in to context.

Britain has the right to bare arms. Just look at the post below the one you just made! Its only strictly controlled, which too is very wrong but still...its better then the complete banishment of them.


Let me ask you this: Why does Singapore, a nation that DOES NOT allow its people to carry guns, have one of the highest safety records on gun violence, and is one of the best countries security wise?

Let me ask you this: Why does Singapore, a nation that DOES NOT allow its people to carry guns, have one of the highest safety records on gun violence, and is one of the best countries security wise?

They also cane teenagers for minor offenses. That's a plus in my book.

If you see the breakdown for firearm safety in the US (including overt acts like murder), and you do the breakdown either by economic class, or by involvement in drug use, or even by race, you find that being a middle to upper class white person who doesn't use drugs but owns guns is just as safe as any other country with or without drugs.

The violence is there - even without the firearms, 76 percent of our violent crime is committed without any weapon at all - not even a knife.

There are social factors. It used to be the case that you stood a better chance of not being injured or killed if you cooperated with your attacker.

Now the police here generally tell you to resist immediately, and with all the force at your disposal. The stats have wavered back and forth through the 1990s, but in general, even if you don't resist, the criminal will beat, rape, and possibly kill you in any case.

That phenomenon is not explained by drugs (unless the person is high on meth), but it is an indicator of a deeply held rage.

The appearance of this phenomenon in the US is also why so many states have passed concealed carry laws - the police acknowledge that they will almost never get there in time to stop the criminal from abusing or killing the victim - and it is no consolation for them to arrive after the fact.

It's just so hard for me to understand as things sound like they must be so different over here. Sure there is still crime but it doesn't seem as frequesnt or more to the point, so severe in what actually goes down.

I'm just sick of gun debates popping up everyday on NS. It's like arguing about which shape band-aid to use on a close-range shotgun wound. People need to look at the causes of violent crime and work on them, which is why I was asking about them. Thanks for the info.

So in the U.S., a country with a high rate of violent crimes [not just gun related ones] there must be a problem besides wether people have guns or not. How do we fix the fact that there is so much violent intent amongst the population?

Good question. How about letting all those non-violent criminals out, and actually manage to keep the violent ones in prisions, instead of giving them parole, letting them get out on technicalities, increasing punishments, etc.

Good question. How about letting all those non-violent criminals out, and actually manage to keep the violent ones in prisions, instead of giving them parole, letting them get out on technicalities, increasing punishments, etc.

What non-violent criminals? Why not just keep them all inside? Better yet, imrove crime education and prevention programs and research better rehabilitation methods.

What non-violent criminals? Why not just keep them all inside? Better yet, imrove crime education and prevention programs and research better rehabilitation methods.

Tax evaders, drug users, etc. Fine them, and get them the hell out--if they even need to be fined. I'm against the war on drugs. I don't take any, but who am I to tell someone they can't do whatever they want to their bodies? They own their bodies. Taxes are just extortion with a different name.

I was also going to suggest speeding up the death row process....as opposed to rehabilitation methods. Murder, rape, child molestation--in my book you get one chance to screw any one of those up, and then you're done.

Tax evaders, drug users, etc. Fine them, and get them the hell out--if they even need to be fined. I'm against the war on drugs. I don't take any, but who am I to tell someone they can't do whatever they want to their bodies? They own their bodies. Taxes are just extortion with a different name.

I was also going to suggest speeding up the death row process....as opposed to rehabilitation methods. Murder, rape, child molestation--in my book you get one chance to screw any one of those up, and then you're done.

Oh yeah, capital crime commiters can get fucked. I mean for those who get out at some point, we should at least make sure they are OK people and not even angrier than when they went in if we want them to stop commiting crimes.

For all of you thinking the UK is some wonderful crime free Utopia I respectfully submit the following...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/london04.pdf

I'd rather walk the streets in Washington DC's Ward 8 than London.


I'm 36 years old, always lived in London and Never been in a fight or more than verbally abused (sticks and stones...).

I would rather be in a position where fewer people were armed, because while I trust me, I don't trust them.
Now how do you identify "them"

If criminals have illegal guns then why not lock em up/kill them as a standing order to Police. It would massively reduce the number of criminals with guns.

Seriously, In the UK we have a culture of not making empty threats.
If I was carring a knife, I would be prepared to use it, Likewise with a gun. If we all had guns we would have treble the death by gun rate of the US.

I'm 36 years old, always lived in London and Never been in a fight or more than verbally abused (sticks and stones...).

I would rather be in a position where fewer people were armed, because while I trust me, I don't trust them.
Now how do you identify "them"

If criminals have illegal guns then why not lock em up/kill them as a standing order to Police. It would massively reduce the number of criminals with guns.

Seriously, In the UK we have a culture of not making empty threats.
If I was carring a knife, I would be prepared to use it, Likewise with a gun. If we all had guns we would have treble the death by gun rate of the US.

So what you're saying is that people in the UK would be unable to control themselves w/ a weapon? :)

Reducing the number of criminals w/ guns is one of the primary purposes of the "gun lobby" in the US. The problem w/ that is the gun banners only seem to push for measures that disarm the Law Abiding Public and increase their chances of getting hurt or robbed. The whole "don't resist" concept from HCI. These groups also tend to be associated w/ the same type that push for laws restricting police from doing their job and "criminal's right's" groups.

Oh yeah, capital crime commiters can get fucked. I mean for those who get out at some point, we should at least make sure they are OK people and not even angrier than when they went in if we want them to stop commiting crimes.

I've of two minds on that one.

I think people need to learn from their mistakes--IE, they go to prison, and when they get out, they should have learned not to do it again, and that's it.

However, what if they didn't learn? What if they do it again, or something worse?

I have to fall back on my choosing freedom over control. So this means, if they do it again, or something worse, we send them back to prison, or perhaps something more harsh. But with my philosophy, they have to be given a chance to prove it again, without the controls placed on them. They have to be free to screw up again.

So what you're saying is that people in the UK would be unable to control themselves w/ a weapon? :)

Reducing the number of criminals w/ guns is one of the primary purposes of the "gun lobby" in the US. The problem w/ that is the gun banners only seem to push for measures that disarm the Law Abiding Public and increase their chances of getting hurt or robbed. The whole "don't resist" concept from HCI. These groups also tend to be associated w/ the same type that push for laws restricting police from doing their job and "criminal's right's" groups.

For the figures stated, the UK has fewer guns but we use them, it would seem so.

if guns are illegal for criminals to own, put the penalty up to something meaningfull, 10 years should do. they will either stop carring or start using, then when they are more likely to use you can kill them all, under self protection. no more criminals end of problem.
If you think this will not work, please say why and not just post about people being killed until the law changes, people are being killed now but it seems to be acceptable.

Seriously, In the UK we have a culture of not making empty threats.
If I was carring a knife, I would be prepared to use it, Likewise with a gun. If we all had guns we would have treble the death by gun rate of the US.

I carry a knife and pepper spray (within the legal confines of Wisconsin law). I am prepared to use them. I hope to whatever deity you choose that I never have to use them in a defensive situation (I like opening boxes, and seasoning my salsa more :)). However, when I'm in a state that my concealed carry permit covers, I am carrying my pistol, in addition to the previously listed items. I have never had to use it in a defensive situation, and like above, I constantly hope I never have to. But I refuse to wait for the police (who, in the US aren't responsible for individual citizens' safety) in a ball on the ground, hoping my assailant gets bored with me and leaves. Or worse yet, just kills me with their illegal firearm.

There are 80 million gun owners in the US (legal owners) of over 300 million firearms. We have something close to 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms annually (around 12,000 are homicides--the rest are accidents and suicides). There are countries that have a higher per-capita gun ownership rate and those that have a lower. It's not the guns causing the death. It is the people in the society doing it.

If you had a gun, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd immediately walk out the door, barrel 'a blazin', nor would I expect you to start planning the untimely demise of your arch-nemesis in the copy room at work.

The gun is not the cause or the problem. Stop blaming the hammer for the bad roof job.

I carry a knife and pepper spray (within the legal confines of Wisconsin law). I am prepared to use them. I hope to whatever deity you choose that I never have to use them in a defensive situation (I like opening boxes, and seasoning my salsa more :)). However, when I'm in a state that my concealed carry permit covers, I am carrying my pistol, in addition to the previously listed items. I have never had to use it in a defensive situation, and like above, I constantly hope I never have to. But I refuse to wait for the police (who, in the US aren't responsible for individual citizens' safety) in a ball on the ground, hoping my assailant gets bored with me and leaves. Or worse yet, just kills me with their illegal firearm.

There are 80 million gun owners in the US (legal owners) of over 300 million firearms. We have something close to 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms annually (around 12,000 are homicides--the rest are accidents and suicides). There are countries that have a higher per-capita gun ownership rate and those that have a lower. It's not the guns causing the death. It is the people in the society doing it.

If you had a gun, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd immediately walk out the door, barrel 'a blazin', nor would I expect you to start planning the untimely demise of your arch-nemesis in the copy room at work.

The gun is not the cause or the problem. Stop blaming the hammer for the bad roof job.

This seems a little disjointed for my post, best I can make out you think i'm suggesting that I ould shoot people that annoyed me.

Please let me clarify, the has been lots of posts saying guns have been drawn 2 million times in the USA but only used 30,000 times. (I proberbly have the figures wrong but I can't be as*ed to check). pro gunners have also posted that there are only 1000 guns in the UK but we use them all the time (again with the numbers not being checked).
These figures would suggest that if we have a gun we would use it. I agree, If I was carrying a gun and was threated with another gun I would use it, so in the UK criminals are more likely to use the gun they carry.
(Whispering Legs, i think has quoted all the figures, including that in the US criminals will draw but not shoot)

This is a simple extraction of theory from figures supplied.
a US citizen wants to carry but wont shoot, (I think the dictionary put this as threaten) a UK citizen if carring will be statisticly more likely to shoot.

Take a look at Tom Daschle. He touted that he was pro-gun then sabotaged every major bill that came through. His ass got handed to him on a plate.

You are correct sir!!!

<snip>This is a simple extraction of theory from figures supplied.
a US citizen wants to carry but wont shoot, (I think the dictionary put this as threaten) a UK citizen if carring will be statisticly more likely to shoot.
Not exactly true... A competent, reasonable, armed USian (cops included) will draw (brandish) a firearm in the HOPE they don't have to pull the trigger, but with the full knowledge and intent to pull the trigger if necessary to prevent injury to themselves or others.

That's how I was trained when with the OKC PD anyway, and how I have behaved in all 3 of my armed encounters (attempted carjacking, attempted robbery and attempted assault). The simple visible presence of a firearm made the bad-guys go away, but I was fully prepared to but a bullet into each and every one of them. (If you aren't ready to pull the trigger, you have no business drawing the gun in the first place... either you will flinch - and die, or the situation didn't deserve a gun in the first place.)

This seems a little disjointed for my post, best I can make out you think i'm suggesting that I ould shoot people that annoyed me.

Please let me clarify, the has been lots of posts saying guns have been drawn 2 million times in the USA but only used 30,000 times. (I proberbly have the figures wrong but I can't be as*ed to check). pro gunners have also posted that there are only 1000 guns in the UK but we use them all the time (again with the numbers not being checked).
These figures would suggest that if we have a gun we would use it. I agree, If I was carrying a gun and was threated with another gun I would use it, so in the UK criminals are more likely to use the gun they carry.
(Whispering Legs, i think has quoted all the figures, including that in the US criminals will draw but not shoot)

This is a simple extraction of theory from figures supplied.
a US citizen wants to carry but wont shoot, (I think the dictionary put this as threaten) a UK citizen if carring will be statisticly more likely to shoot.


Ah gotcha. I have a feeling that a law-abiding citizen of the UK, were they allowed legal ownership and the ability to carry firearms, would still be rather reluctant to fire upon another person--the stats be damned. That's how it works here in the US as well. Illegal owners, well, in the US, they've proven that they don't give a damn about other people's lives.

Law-abiding peoples in other countries still have morals and don't generally try to kill anyone.

You have to remember, we shoot to stop, not to kill. Center of mass. Yes, some people will die--but 60% survive gun shot wounds. It's not a one-shot, one-kill reality. There are more one-shot, one-stops, but even those aren't 100%.

The Second Amendment is not the Right to bear Arms, it's the Right to Arm bears!

Interesting, we have gun control here and the government is a democracy, also that artical with the verse of scripture, if you have a bible read the scriptures around it and that should bring it in to context.

Read this my friend and ponder: Luke chapter 22, after the last supper, on the mount: verses 35 to 37

35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Jesus armed his followers, can we do no less?

<snip>
Law-abiding peoples in other countries still have morals and don't generally try to kill anyone. You have to remember, we shoot to stop, not to kill. Center of mass. Yes, some people will die--but 60% survive gun shot wounds. It's not a one-shot, one-kill reality. There are more one-shot, one-stops, but even those aren't 100%.
In support of this I give you US ARMY Training Doctrine!

In Infantry training, they will tell you, quite bluntly, that there is only ONE weapon in the military arsenal that is designed SPECIFICALLY to KILL, and that one weapon is... ready?... THE BAYONET - a KNIFE.

Every other weapon, from rifles to WMDs is designed to incapacitate - to injure people and break things. (WMDs just do it on a larger scale, with more concomittant fatalities).

If you get me into a fight where the weapons are Knives, someone is going to die - it's the only way to stop a serious knife fight. Having a gun in the hands of a non-criminal prevents death - simply because I don't have to kill you to stop the fight.

See how that works?

Ah gotcha. I have a feeling that a law-abiding citizen of the UK, were they allowed legal ownership and the ability to carry firearms, would still be rather reluctant to fire upon another person--the stats be damned. That's how it works here in the US as well. Illegal owners, well, in the US, they've proven that they don't give a damn about other people's lives.

Law-abiding peoples in other countries still have morals and don't generally try to kill anyone.

You have to remember, we shoot to stop, not to kill. Center of mass. Yes, some people will die--but 60% survive gun shot wounds. It's not a one-shot, one-kill reality. There are more one-shot, one-stops, but even those aren't 100%.

Tell it to my .357 desert eagle, I've never had to use it, but it'll knock a man on his ass sure as the sun rises in the east, I hope I never have need of it, but if I do I'm gonna need it bad, I'll use it, and when a man attacks me, I want to see bones flying outta his chest, mostly cause any attack on me would include attacking my family, attack me, fine I'll kick your ass, attack my family and it'll take a forensic analisys to identify you when I'm done.

In support of this I give you US ARMY Training Doctrine!

In Infantry training, they will tell you, quite bluntly, that there is only ONE weapon in the military arsenal that is designed SPECIFICALLY to KILL, and that one weapon is... ready?... THE BAYONET - a KNIFE.

Every other weapon, from rifles to WMDs is designed to incapacitate - to injure people and break things. (WMDs just do it on a larger scale, with more concomittant fatalities).

If you get me into a fight where the weapons are Knives, someone is going to die - it's the only way to stop a serious knife fight. Having a gun in the hands of a non-criminal prevents death - simply because I don't have to kill you to stop the fight.

See how that works?

Damn straight!

I'm 36 years old, always lived in London and Never been in a fight or more than verbally abused (sticks and stones...).

I would rather be in a position where fewer people were armed, because while I trust me, I don't trust them.
Now how do you identify "them"

If criminals have illegal guns then why not lock em up/kill them as a standing order to Police. It would massively reduce the number of criminals with guns.

Seriously, In the UK we have a culture of not making empty threats.
If I was carring a knife, I would be prepared to use it, Likewise with a gun. If we all had guns we would have treble the death by gun rate of the US.

You frighten me, alot, I am not easily frightened, that frightens me even more that I'm frightened.

Tell it to my .357 desert eagle, I've never had to use it, but it'll knock a man on his ass sure as the sun rises in the east, I hope I never have need of it, but if I do I'm gonna need it bad, I'll use it, and when a man attacks me, I want to see bones flying outta his chest, mostly cause any attack on me would include attacking my family, attack me, fine I'll kick your ass, attack my family and it'll take a forensic analisys to identify you when I'm done.
Sigh. While understandable, voicing an attitude like that only gives the hopolophobes talking points. It's bad PR man.

Sigh. While understandable, voicing an attitude like that only gives the hopolophobes talking points. It's bad PR man.

I know, I'm mildly incoherent now from a hurt leg yesterday while playing football, I may have broken it again, the second time in six months, I'm allowed a little indiscretion as a temporarily drugged up cripple(yay for vicodin, what little of it there is left from my last brake at least), so gime a break.

I know, I'm mildly incoherent now from a hurt leg yesterday while playing football, I may have broken it again, the second time in six months, I'm allowed a little indiscretion as a temporarily drugged up cripple(yay for vicodin, what little of it there is left from my last brake at least), so gime a break.
Nope. You seem to be good enough at breaking yourself. :D

It always intersting to see that people for guns just focus on the threat from others as the only threat that exists. Because in Sweden like most countries I think a very large part of crimes (please anybody supporting my point and not as lazy as me fix figures) is maid by people you know. And in who's condition I think guns will have a more negative effect than a positive. Becasue if two drinkingbuddies start to fight one or both will get hurt, but if have easye acess to guns the risk of severer damage or deaths is increased. Also the fact that if you wont to protect your familly aganist "others" with a gun you probably will have the gun easy to get that will increase the risk that the children finds it.

It always intersting to see that people for guns just focus on the threat from others as the only threat that exists. Because in Sweden like most countries I think a very large part of crimes (please anybody supporting my point and not as lazy as me fix figures) is maid by people you know. And in who's condition I think guns will have a more negative effect than a positive. Becasue if two drinkingbuddies start to fight one or both will get hurt, but if have easye acess to guns the risk of severer damage or deaths is increased. Also the fact that if you wont to protect your familly aganist "others" with a gun you probably will have the gun easy to get that will increase the risk that the children finds it.

When dealing with the common statistic that says most guns are used against someone you know, yeah it's true, to a point, most of those statistics are made up of abusive husbands or boyfriends shot in self defense by the people they were intent on abusing.

Reducing the number of criminals w/ guns is one of the primary purposes of the "gun lobby" in the US. The problem w/ that is the gun banners only seem to push for measures that disarm the Law Abiding Public and increase their chances of getting hurt or robbed.

Problem is that not all deaths and serious injuries are caused by criminals...i wonder what it is you mean by that, after all a guy who works 30 years in an office, buys a gun as a law abiding citizen can by the news get pissed off and use that gun to kill his work mates...he then becomes a criminal. Where do the pro-gun lobby stand on that one?

This happens time and again, a person buys a gun then one night decides to go out a kill someone with it, there therefor become a criminal.

Gun control is generally a good thing, the number of guns legal or illegal is directly proportional to the number murders in total that occure in a country.

I would ask people here who seem to believe the 2nd amendment protects them from dictatroship this.

Since the civil war more and more laws have been put on you moving closer and closer to dictatorship (as you see it) you have all owned guns at this peroid, why have none of you used those guns to stop they comming menace?

Why have to not protected yourself already?

I suspect that like mny things America hold dear (like the dream) there are but myths which the foolhardy hold on to.

Problem is that not all deaths and serious injuries are caused by criminals...i wonder what it is you mean by that, after all a guy who works 30 years in an office, buys a gun as a law abiding citizen can by the news get pissed off and use that gun to kill his work mates...he then becomes a criminal. Where do the pro-gun lobby stand on that one?

This happens time and again, a person buys a gun then one night decides to go out a kill someone with it, there therefor become a criminal.

Gun control is generally a good thing, the number of guns legal or illegal is directly proportional to the number murders in total that occure in a country.

I would ask people here who seem to believe the 2nd amendment protects them from dictatroship this.

Since the civil war more and more laws have been put on you moving closer and closer to dictatorship (as you see it) you have all owned guns at this peroid, why have none of you used those guns to stop they comming menace?

Why have to not protected yourself already?

I suspect that like mny things America hold dear (like the dream) there are but myths which the foolhardy hold on to.

A popular rebellion would be necessary, without popular support a rebellion would fail, theres never been anything to give a reason for that kind of support.

Tell it to my .357 desert eagle, I've never had to use it, but it'll knock a man on his ass sure as the sun rises in the east, I hope I never have need of it, but if I do I'm gonna need it bad, I'll use it, and when a man attacks me, I want to see bones flying outta his chest, mostly cause any attack on me would include attacking my family, attack me, fine I'll kick your ass, attack my family and it'll take a forensic analisys to identify you when I'm done.

Even a .357 mag doesn't always kill. If you drop one in the chest, yeah, there's a good chance they'll die. You're probably not going to see bones flying out of the chest, however.

Note, I never said that it wouldn't knock anyone down. I said that 60% of those that receive gun-shot wounds live.

My carry gun is a Glock 30, chambered in .45ACP--it'll do the job. I'm glad you like your DE, but it's a bit clunky for me--certainly not for concealed carry--at least I couldn't pull it off. And for such a big gun, why the heck couldn't they double-stack the mags? :D

I wish they would change the gunlaws in the UK. It would never happen tho becuase of the rapidly developing Labour dictatorship. I agree with this thread whole hartedly, why would a government be scared of giving power to the people?

For the figures stated, the UK has fewer guns but we use them, it would seem so.

if guns are illegal for criminals to own, put the penalty up to something meaningfull, 10 years should do. they will either stop carring or start using, then when they are more likely to use you can kill them all, under self protection. no more criminals end of problem.
If you think this will not work, please say why and not just post about people being killed until the law changes, people are being killed now but it seems to be acceptable.
The reason this won't work is because THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS THAT PREVENT FELONS FROM HAVING GUNS. Yet, THEY STILL HAVE THEM. It doesn't matter what the sentence is, a person commits a crime with the intention of not getting caught, so any sentence does not bother them.

Is it just me, or has no one addressed the issue of how you are going to outlaw guns and convince the outlaws to give up their guns?

I wish they would change the gunlaws in the UK. It would never happen tho becuase of the rapidly developing Labour dictatorship. I agree with this thread whole hartedly, why would a government be scared of giving power to the people?

Especially since in the US, it's not their power to give. They really like taking it from the populace, though.

Even a .357 mag doesn't always kill. If you drop one in the chest, yeah, there's a good chance they'll die. You're probably not going to see bones flying out of the chest, however.

Note, I never said that it wouldn't knock anyone down. I said that 60% of those that receive gun-shot wounds live.

My carry gun is a Glock 30, chambered in .45ACP--it'll do the job. I'm glad you like your DE, but it's a bit clunky for me--certainly not for concealed carry--at least I couldn't pull it off. And for such a big gun, why the heck couldn't they double-stack the mags? :D
I likewise prefer a .40 or better (my fav being a custom Colt XO), but given certain wardrobe restrictions, my "everyday" gun is an NAA Guardian in .32acp+P A well designed mouse-gun with good ammo is better than no gun at all and the bad guys still run away when I point it at them.

Even a .357 mag doesn't always kill. If you drop one in the chest, yeah, there's a good chance they'll die. You're probably not going to see bones flying out of the chest, however.

Note, I never said that it wouldn't knock anyone down. I said that 60% of those that receive gun-shot wounds live.

My carry gun is a Glock 30, chambered in .45ACP--it'll do the job. I'm glad you like your DE, but it's a bit clunky for me--certainly not for concealed carry--at least I couldn't pull it off. And for such a big gun, why the heck couldn't they double-stack the mags? :D

I was jonesin for the fifty, but I shot one once and near broke my wrist, as for concealed carry, why would I want to, I live in VA where open carry is legal. Bones will fly from his chest, these are wildcats I'm usin, not only are they tapped and filled with lead(no one saw that posted on here), they're semi frangible, depending on what they hit, if they hit his sternum or ribs, the lead will break out and shatter whatever it hits, after that the rest of the bullet shatters and carves him up on the inside, I used it on a deer once so I know it works. I thought about hollow points, but decided I like my ghetto frangibles better, mostly to reduce innocent casualties from a penetration. Although I'm not sure if my bullets are legal or not, any body on here know if they are? If not I'm gonna have to get those hollowpoints, at least I know those are still legal.

I was jonesin for the fifty, but I shot one once and near broke my wrist, as for concealed carry, why would I want to, I live in VA where open carry is legal. Bones will fly from his chest, these are wildcats I'm usin, not only are they tapped and filled with lead(no one saw that posted on here), they're semi frangible, depending on what they hit, if they hit his sternum or ribs, the lead will break out and shatter whatever it hits, after that the rest of the bullet shatters and carves him up on the inside, I used it on a deer once so I know it works. I thought about hollow points, but decided I like my ghetto frangibles better, mostly to reduce innocent casualties from a penetration. Although I'm not sure if my bullets are legal or not, any body on here know if they are? If not I'm gonna have to get those hollowpoints, at least I know those are still legal.

Sigh.

No. Modified bullets are generally NOT legal. Even if they were you will get crucified by a jury. IFAIC, there is only ONE .357 round that is appropriate for defense puropses, and that is the 125gr+P JHP. It will not overpenetrate and has a recorded 87% one-shot-stop rating.

What you are using will bankrupt you in civil court.

Edit: Oh, BTW, you must have fragile bones. The .50 DE nearly broke your wrist? Until I sold it to pay for a cross-country move, I used to shoot my .454 Casull off-hand... with 350gr LBTs being pushed to aprox 1700fps by 31gr H110/W296. Something like 2200 ftlbs ME. Could hit an 8" paper plate at 25yds with all 5 rounds, from the draw, in 4.852 sec. (I lived in Alaska. This was an anti-grizzly gun)

Sigh.

No. Modified bullets are generally NOT legal. Even if they were you will get crucified by a jury. IFAIC, there is only ONE .357 round that is appropriate for defense puropses, and that is the 125gr+P JHP. It will not overpenetrate and has a recorded 87% one-shot-stop rating.

What you are using will bankrupt you in civil court.

I was afraid of that, but wildcats are still my favorites, I love the personalisation.

i have no problem with your math, i have a problem with your strawman argument.
you claim.
more guns=more murders
in all actuallity the swiss have far more guns per 1,000 citizens than the UK and far less murders. percentage wise they have less total homicides per 1,000 persons than england/wales
the england/wales homicide rate is 4.4 per 1,000
the swiss rate is .012 per 1,000
even if they had a larger population equal to the UK it does not dictate they would have anywhere near the jump in murder you speculative math says.

what utter rubbish, 7.1 million swiss and 59.8 million Brits i don't just have a problem with your arguement i have aproblem with your math as well.

A popular rebellion would be necessary, without popular support a rebellion would fail, theres never been anything to give a reason for that kind of support.

Therefore it would logical to presume (given the extensive historical presedent) that if peoples rights were threatened they would support such an unprising.

The fact that it hasn't happened (according to your good self) means that it's not popular which therefore suggests that the populous by and large doesn't feel threatened...which would perhaps suggest that peoples rights are not being taken away from them quite so quickly.

what utter rubbish, 7.1 million swiss and 59.8 million Brits i don't just have a problem with your arguement i have aproblem with your math as well.

Allright so, do the math, here it is: 7.1 goes into 59.8 8 times and a really big decimal (8.4225352112676056338028169014085), call it 8.4 times, were the swiss gun murder rate to jump by 8.4, along with the population, that still equals only .1008 per thousand, versus the UK's 4.4 per thousand, the UK still has nearly forty times the murders of the swiss, in fact it's a bit more than that, 43.650793650793650793650793650794 times the swiss murder rate to be precise.

Allright so, do the math, here it is: 7.1 goes into 59.8 8 times and a really big decimal (8.4225352112676056338028169014085), call it 8.4 times, were the swiss gun murder rate to jump by 8.4, along with the population, that still equals only .1008 per thousand, versus the UK's 4.4 per thousand, the UK still has nearly forty times the murders of the swiss, in fact it's a bit more than that, 43.650793650793650793650793650794 times the swiss murder rate to be precise.

Actually the murder rate is either 2.3 per 1000 according to this source

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

Or 2.7 according to this article.

www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

So like i said care to redo that math?

Oh and for people that think Washington is so safe in 1998 it was the number 1 murder capital.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

Oh and few years later it still was the murder capital

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

Therefore it would logical to presume (given the extensive historical presedent) that if peoples rights were threatened they would support such an unprising.

The fact that it hasn't happened (according to your good self) means that it's not popular which therefore suggests that the populous by and large doesn't feel threatened...which would perhaps suggest that peoples rights are not being taken away from them quite so quickly.

My point exactly, their rights are not being removed quickly, but slowly eroded away, the NRA compromises and compromises with the gun-ban groups and they still march on their attack on our rights, attacking us slowly, relentless as the tide and just as deadly, we have compromised and compromised and now it is time to stand firm, for while the sea outlasts the mountains, the mountains last for quite a long time, and while the sea may overrun some points the mountains will grow back up and the dikes shall be rebuilt, but the sea is trapped in a small area, while the mountains stand firm and may eventually move and be rebuilt in another place, the sea remains in place and always will, in the end the mountains will win, so we must stand firm as the mountains and not let the tide pull us under. The NRA has compromised enough and it is time for the gun-ban groups to start compromising, they have attacked the second most powerful lobby in the united states and the bear is waking from his long sleep, were the NRA to put its foot down the sheep who make up the anti-gun lobby would back off and fall silent, but now it may already be too late, for we have payed the danegeld and shall never be rid of the dane. Remember, Rudyard Kipling put it best in the poem Danegeld, or maybe a more appropriate choice would be The Peace of The Bear, for make no peace with Adam-Zad, the bear who walks like a man.

Actually the murder rate is either 2.3 per 1000 according to this source

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

Or 2.7 according to this article.

www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

So like i said care to redo that math?

Oh and for people that think Washington is so safe in 1998 it was the number 1 murder capital.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

Oh and few years later it still was the murder capital

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html


I live in Fairfax County, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C. It is not under the authority of the Washington, D.C. government - it is under Virginia government.

Here we carry guns concealed and openly. We have no restrictions on the legal purchase of firearms.

We also have a much lower crime rate than Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., you are forbidden to own ANY type of firearm. You can't even own a bow and arrow in Washington, D.C.

Interesting how where I live, we have a really low murder and violent crime rate, and in the US, just about any other jurisdiction that restricts guns has a much higher violent crime and murder rate. In fact, for the one county that is demographically identical to Fairfax County (Montgomery County, Maryland) they have a murder and violent crime rate 60 percent higher - and the ONLY factor that's different between those two counties is that in Montgomery County, you have no permission to carry a gun, and gun purchases, especially of handguns, is severely restricted.

That's why felons in the know go to Montgomery County, because they know for a fact that their victims will be unarmed. It's gotten too dangerous to commit violent crime in Fairfax by comparison.

I live in Fairfax County, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C. It is not under the authority of the Washington, D.C. government - it is under Virginia government.

Here we carry guns concealed and openly. We have no restrictions on the legal purchase of firearms.

We also have a much lower crime rate than Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., you are forbidden to own ANY type of firearm. You can't even own a bow and arrow in Washington, D.C.

Interesting how where I live, we have a really low murder and violent crime rate, and in the US, just about any other jurisdiction that restricts guns has a much higher violent crime and murder rate. In fact, for the one county that is demographically identical to Fairfax County (Montgomery County, Maryland) they have a murder and violent crime rate 60 percent higher - and the ONLY factor that's different between those two counties is that in Montgomery County, you have no permission to carry a gun, and gun purchases, especially of handguns, is severely restricted.

That's why felons in the know go to Montgomery County, because they know for a fact that their victims will be unarmed. It's gotten too dangerous to commit violent crime in Fairfax by comparison.


Is it not a sad day when oyu have to protect yourself witha fire arm to make sure you are safe on the streets?

My point exactly, their rights are not being removed quickly, but slowly eroded away, the NRA compromises and compromises with the gun-ban groups and they still march on their attack on our rights, attacking us slowly, relentless as the tide and just as deadly, we have compromised and compromised and now it is time to stand firm, for while the sea outlasts the mountains, the mountains last for quite a long time, and while the sea may overrun some points the mountains will grow back up and the dikes shall be rebuilt, but the sea is trapped in a small area, while the mountains stand firm and may eventually move and be rebuilt in another place, the sea remains in place and always will, in the end the mountains will win, so we must stand firm as the mountains and not let the tide pull us under. The NRA has compromised enough and it is time for the gun-ban groups to start compromising, they have attacked the second most powerful lobby in the united states and the bear is waking from his long sleep, were the NRA to put its foot down the sheep who make up the anti-gun lobby would back off and fall silent, but now it may already be too late, for we have payed the danegeld and shall never be rid of the dane. Remember, Rudyard Kipling put it best in the poem Danegeld, or maybe a more appropriate choice would be The Peace of The Bear, for make no peace with Adam-Zad, the bear who walks like a man.


Just out of interest what rights and feedoms have you lost (other than one refering to guns) ?

Actually the murder rate is either 2.3 per 1000 according to this source

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

Or 2.7 according to this article.

www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

So like i said care to redo that math?

Oh and for people that think Washington is so safe in 1998 it was the number 1 murder capital.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

Oh and few years later it still was the murder capital

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html


Ok, DC isn't safe, with their draconian gun laws they're bound to have more murders than other places, and according to your source, it's 2.3 per million, not thousand, which still comes out to .0023 per thousand, much less than you gave it credit for being. The second one is still only 2.7 per one hundred thousand, or .027 at the maximum, still less when multiplied by 8.4 than the UK's 4.4 per thousand, in fact it is only .2268 per thousand, or approximately one nineteenth of UK's murder rate.

Is it not a sad day when oyu have to protect yourself witha fire arm to make sure you are safe on the streets?

No. 76 percent of violent crime is committed in the US without a weapon of any kind. Of the remaining 24 percent, half are firearms - the rest are other weapons.

Guns are not the cause of violent crime in the US - by the Department of Justice's own statistics.

I even posted a link to UK government statistics that said that violent crime ranged from 16 per 1000 to 25 per 1000, depending on where in the UK you were.

Violent crime where I live is 1 per 1000.

It's 25 times more likely, therefore, that you'll be a victim of violent crime in London (by the UK statistics, without my changing them at all) than you would be here in Fairfax County. Therefore, I may assume that guns are not the problem there, either, and I may also assume that your police are falling down on the job in a major way.

You're still more likely to be murdered here - but beaten, raped, robbed, assaulted - well, I'd rather be here. Not only is it less likely in Fairfax County, but I'm allowed to defend myself with a pistol. In the UK, a raped woman is considered a morally superior outcome to a dead rapist.

Just out of interest what rights and feedoms have you lost (other than one refering to guns) ?

Without the right to guns you cannot secure your other rights, I have lost no other rights... yet. In the south there was a group known as the deacons of justice, look them up and tell me they did not put guns to a worthy use and a good cause as private citizens.

Is it not a sad day when oyu have to protect yourself witha fire arm to make sure you are safe on the streets?

Yes, but life is not always happy and full of sunshine, there are some situations where you had better do unto others before they do unto you, when a person is attacking you or invading your home with a weapon, that is one of them.

The second one is still only 2.7 per one hundred thousand, or .027 at the maximum, still less when multiplied by 8.4 than the UK's 4.4 per thousand, in fact it is only .2268 per thousand, or approximately one nineteenth of UK's murder rate.

Firstly sorry about the first link i've looked at others and it's just plain wrong.

Again your maths are well off the mark.

Are you sure that's 4.4 murders per 1000? How can that be when there were only 853 murders in Britain in 2003?

The figure is for 100,000 like the Swiss ones like i said the murder rates are much closer than you would like to think.

Just out of interest using that figure for 4.4 per 1000 how many murders would that be for a total given that Britains population is (easy maths) 60 million?

Go on just for giggles.

Violent crime where I live is 1 per 1000.


No offense but i could take that down to a daft level and say that where i live there wasn't any violent crime last year.

Also the problem with comparing cros nation stats is that things are measured in a different way. For example in Britain, one punch up on the street involving 10 people counts as 10 violent crimes...how is that measured in the USA for example.

It's 25 times more likely, therefore, that you'll be a victim of violent crime in London (by the UK statistics, without my changing them at all) than you would be here in Fairfax County. Therefore, I may assume that guns are not the problem there, either, and I may also assume that your police are falling down on the job in a major way.

.

In all fairness what you are doing is comparing chalk and cheese, i just checked out your area and comparing it to London is creating a strawman.

Please comapre like for like if you compare somewhere in the US with somewhere in England be comparable.

Also you seem to think that just because gun ownership crime is low, are there no other comtributing factors?

Firstly sorry about the first link i've looked at others and it's just plain wrong.

Again your maths are well off the mark.

Are you sure that's 4.4 murders per 1000? How can that be when there were only 853 murders in Britain in 2003?

The figure is for 100,000 like the Swiss ones like i said the murder rates are much closer than you would like to think.

Just out of interest using that figure for 4.4 per 1000 how many murders would that be for a total given that Britains population is (easy maths) 60 million?

Go on just for giggles.

According to the post I responded too the murder rate was 4.4 per one thousand, that may not be a very recent total, but it is the one I had to work with. The total number of murders ata ratio of 4.4 per one thousand would be 264 thousand, since on thousand goes into 60 million sixty thousand times(60,000,000\1,000=60,000) and then 4.4 is multiplied by the 60 thousand produced by the division, since 60 million is 60 thousand times one thousand 4.4 is multiplied by 60 thousand to come up with total murders, but I believe that the numbers were not right in the post I responded to in the first place, so this wouldn't make any sense, but my numbers for swiss versus UK murders do fit with the original numbers I was given to work with.

No offense but i could take that down to a daft level and say that where i live there wasn't any violent crime last year.

Also the problem with comparing cros nation stats is that things are measured in a different way. For example in Britain, one punch up on the street involving 10 people counts as 10 violent crimes...how is that measured in the USA for example.

As 10 violent crimes, each of the men involved has comitted a violent crime of some sort.

According to the post I responded too the murder rate was 4.4 per one thousand, that may not be a very recent total, but it is the one I had to work with. The total number of murders ata ratio of 4.4 per one thousand would be 264 thousand, since on thousand goes into 60 million sixty thousand times(60,000,000\1,000=60,000) and then 4.4 is multiplied by the 60 thousand produced by the division, since 60 million is 60 thousand times one thousand 4.4 is multiplied by 60 thousand to come up with total murders, but I believe that the numbers were not right in the post I responded to in the first place, so this wouldn't make any sense, but my numbers for swiss versus UK murders do fit with the original numbers I was given to work with.

which following your own maths would mean the number of murders was 264,000

yep thougth your maths was all worng.

In all fairness what you are doing is comparing chalk and cheese, i just checked out your area and comparing it to London is creating a strawman.

Please comapre like for like if you compare somewhere in the US with somewhere in England be comparable.

Also you seem to think that just because gun ownership crime is low, are there no other comtributing factors?
Actually, I think that is the entire point of the post. There are other factors when it comes to gun violence :eek: (I know). It seems that big cities have more violence (no matter how many guns) :eek: (again, I know). Also, it seems that bigger cities (DC, London) tend to restrict gun ownership. This means fewer people have guns. In rural areas, there laws are more relaxed, so there are more gun owners. Rural areas tend to have less violence. Is this because there are more guns? Maybe.

As 10 violent crimes, each of the men involved has comitted a violent crime of some sort.
3
3Not acutally ture for the USA (sorry but that's why i used that one) in Britain it's 10 cries in teh USA it's one...sorry.

which following your own maths would mean the number of murders was 264,000

yep thougth your maths was all worng.

I said the total numbers were 264 thousand with the numbers I was given to work with, not in reality, in reality the total was most likely much lower, but I gave an accurate assesment of the numbers and totals with the original numbers.

3
3Not acutally ture for the USA (sorry but that's why i used that one) in Britain it's 10 cries in teh USA it's one...sorry.

really? I believe that they may record it as one incident of violent crime, but it is still 10 violent crimes.

Actually, I think that is the entire point of the post. There are other factors when it comes to gun violence :eek: (I know)

Or maybe the police do a better job, maybe there is less to steal...I understand that there are other factors in all crime, poverty is the big one

But once you have poverty and guns you have a higher murder rate which tallies with the rise in guns.