NationStates Jolt Archive

You say that I need remedial math lessons?

The murder rate for Illinois in 2000 was 7.1 per 100,000. With a population of 12,419,293 that works out to 881 murders. The number of murders in Chicago for 2004 was 445 (lowest in over 30 years). That leaves 436 murders for the rest of the State of Illinois (approximately 10,000,000), which works out to 4.36 murders per 100,000.

Nice try though. :eek:

Apparently you do need remedial math or your just blatantly skewing the numbers. 2000 /= 2004.

Try again using the same years.

Nice try though.

You still haven't told me how the police would have saved the life of that woman who was beaten to death while talking to the 911 operator.

They wouldn't have, however there are 100's of cases where people get shot without seeing the perosn doing the shooting, answer me something how would carrying a gun protect you from some shotting at you in a drive by shooting?



You also haven't told me how the women I've trained are doing SO WELL compared to women who rely on a protective order alone. Why women who rely on a protective order alone are killed?

I'm sorry if I've missed those stats, could you provide them again please because i can't find them.


What's a more effective weapon - psychologically as well as physically - a woman who shouts, "I know karate!" and affects a stance, or a woman who draws a 357 magnum revolver and cocks the hammer back?

I'm all up for protection of everyone, what concerns me is the scenario you are portraying, generally women and people in genral get raped or mugged because they do stupid things in the first place, like walk down deserted streets and alleys...self defense in England now operates on a level of not letting women get in the situation in the first place.

Prevention rather than cure.

guns prevent crime. if the government took away our guns, only criminals would have them (why can't some people get this simple fact?), and the rest of us would be helpless.

So what the world needs now is guns, sweet guns?

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but what about the arsenals some folks have? Who needs an automatic assault rifle to hunt or protect themselves? Let 'em be happy with shotguns and handguns.

They wouldn't have, however there are 100's of cases where people get shot without seeing the perosn doing the shooting, answer me something how would carrying a gun protect you from some shotting at you in a drive by shooting?


We're not saying that all crimes would be stopped, just reduced. There will always be a scenario that can't be defended, regardless the protection scheme.


I'm all up for protection of everyone, what concerns me is the scenario you are portraying, generally women and people in genral get raped or mugged because they do stupid things in the first place, like walk down deserted streets and alleys...self defense in England now operates on a level of not letting women get in the situation in the first place.

Prevention rather than cure.

More like, "Let the criminals take what they want, we'll just stick to our safer areas like good little children." Why on earth should someone be restricted from going places due to the criminal element? If someone walks down a street, they don't EVER deserved to get raped or assaulted. It is NOT stupid to want to be able to travel anywhere with confidence and security. Why should any human have to be escorted? Why can't people be independent? Your "cure" involves fear, without any kind of solution. "Just ignore them in the glow of our pretty lights and our 'herd'--maybe they won't bother us." Weak. So very weak.

So what the world needs now is guns, sweet guns?

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but what about the arsenals some folks have? Who needs an automatic assault rifle to hunt or protect themselves? Let 'em be happy with shotguns and handguns.

It's been pointed out several times that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from our own government. So, yeah, automatic weapons would come in handy.

Well your impression is incorrect. The population (http://www.aviewoncities.com/toronto/torontofacts.htm) of the city proper is 2,481,494, and the population of the metro area is 4,682,897.

In 2003, the number of murders in Ontario (pop. 12,373,000), which includes the City of Toronto, was only 178 or approximately 1.4 per 100,000 people. Of those 178 murders, only a third were committed with guns or .46 per 100,000.

If you took the Richmond, Virginia murder rate and applied it to Ontario, there would have been 5691 murders, and 4072 of them would have been through the use of a firearm.

You can't do that, remember. That's apples and oranges.

a Province vs a city? Then compare DC & Vermont Canuck.

We're not saying that all crimes would be stopped, just reduced. There will always be a scenario that can't be defended, regardless the protection scheme.

So why don't you aply that logic to the police force?



More like, "Let the criminals take what they want, we'll just stick to our safer areas like good little children." Why on earth should someone be restricted from going places due to the criminal element? If someone walks down a street, they don't EVER deserved to get raped or assaulted. It is NOT stupid to want to be able to travel anywhere with confidence and security. Why should any human have to be escorted? Why can't people be independent? Your "cure" involves fear, without any kind of solution. "Just ignore them in the glow of our pretty lights and our "herd"--maybe they won't bother us."

What i find irritating about that remark, part from the stupid side of it, is that it seems that you've managed to place a belief system and a socio-economic group onto me without knowing a thing about me...that suggest a closed mind.

However, I agree that no person should ever be fearful, that's why I'm pro gun control.

But lets face fact people we don't live in a perfect world walking in some areas of towns in dangerous, and walking down a side alley in those circumstances is just plain stupid.

However, what some elemets of the pro-gun group are advocating is violence (or at the least the preperation to be violent) to protect yourself from violence.

Violence against violence only produces more violence and so the cycle continues and continues.

I'm not anti-guns persai (i think people should have them if they need them for work etc) but examples like hand guns and assault weapons have no other purpose than to kill another human being...buying one sets out and intention, the wrong intention from my perspective.

It's been pointed out several times that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from our own government. So, yeah, automatic weapons would come in handy.

Really i thought the 2nd amendment was to allow a militia to be formed to protect you from Mexico and a small island called Britain as your country was too large and not very organised at the time to keep a huge army everywhere to protect the entire nation.

What i find irritating about that remark, part from the stupid side of it, is that it seems that you've managed to place a belief system and a socio-economic group onto me without knowing a thing about me...that suggest a closed mind.


Hey, you're the one that implied that a woman should be attacked when she walks into a "bad" neighborhood. Because she was "stupid".


However, I agree that no person should ever be fearful, that's why I'm pro gun control.


You're blaming a tool. Go after the behavior that would use the tool as a weapon, as opposed to the tool itself. A hammer can't do anything without a person--same goes for the firearm.


But lets face fact people we don't live in a perfect world walking in some areas of towns in dangerous, and walking down a side alley in those circumstances is just plain stupid.


Your opinion.


However, what some elemets of the pro-gun group are advocating is violence (or at the least the preperation to be violent) to protect yourself from violence.
Violence against violence only produces more violence and so the cycle continues and continues.


Not if the assailant goes down and doesn't get up. It ends there. Pacifism just gets you killed easier.


I'm not anti-guns persai (i think people should have them if they need them for work etc) but examples like hand guns and assault weapons have no other purpose than to kill another human being...buying one sets out and intention, the wrong intention from my perspective.

More crimes are stopped with unfired firearms than fired. Everyone assumes that as soon as the gun comes out, it's gonna go off. There is no freaked out warrior code of "must draw blood once it has been unsheathed."

Really i thought the 2nd amendment was to allow a militia to be formed to protect you from Mexico and a small island called Britain as your country was too large and not very organised at the time to keep a huge army everywhere to protect the entire nation.

Hmm...couple of things wrong with that:

We're not supposed to have funding for a standing army (at least not be able to appropriate funds for more than two years in a row), and we were nowhere near Mexico when the 2nd amendment was penned (thousands of miles to the east).

Try the Federalist Papers for your history research...they pretty much explain what was trying to be accomplished in the constitution.

They were worried about a despotic government taking the rights away from the people. The 2nd is there to defend against our own government.

:)
Exactly my point, anyone with slightest sense would realise that it's harder to beat someone to death, why because you come into contract with the person, not only that you may have to hit that person time and time again, kinda hard...not only that but a lot of people can defend themselves (I'm not talking about training I'm talking about the will to survive)

With a gun it is relatively easier...aim pull the trigger, no contact big bang and the person falls down dead.

I think you have to be really angry to kill someone by beating them to death, give that angry person a gun and you will have a lot more dead people.
Women are beaten to death quite a bit. In fact, it's the most popular method that abusive men use to kill women.

Certainly you're not going to say that it's plausible for all women to defend themselves with their bare hands, are you?

Women are beaten to death quite a bit. In fact, it's the most popular method that abusive men use to kill women.

Certainly you're not going to say that it's plausible for all women to defend themselves with their bare hands, are you?

*Sign* your just twisting my words, you know what i was getting at, and you know perfectly well that what was written earlier was true about very few mass beatings in Britain and quite a few mass shootings in America...

*Sign* your just twisting my words, you know what i was getting at, and you know perfectly well that what was written earlier was true about very few mass beatings in Britain and quite a few mass shootings in America...

If I'm twisting words, I'm twisting them to the reality faced by the women I train.

They get beaten to death. Not shot. Beaten to death.

Even if I don't count domestic abuse, only 11 percent of rapists use any weapon at all (and that means more than just firearms - so 89 percent of US rapists are using their bare hands).

It's a hallmark of man on woman violence to use the bare hands and to beat or strangle the woman to death. Part of the profile of a serial abuser or rapist.

Which is why I train women to carry handguns.

Hey, you're the one that implied that a woman should be attacked when she walks into a "bad" neighborhood. Because she was "stupid".

Firstly i didn't say a "bad nieghbour hood" i said a dangerous one, two things are different, now if an aera is dangerous and you walk down a side ally, normally unlit, normally secluded that is a perfect place to carry out a mugging, there for in my opinion to walk down there is "stupid" is exposes you to an abnormal level of risk...as i said this is also taught by the police when the have orination ocurses at university so it's not really just my opinion either.




You're blaming a tool. Go after the behavior that would use the tool as a weapon, as opposed to the tool itself. A hammer can't do anything without a person--same goes for the firearm.


True but your working on the principle that we can regualte (because do you really want to give a psychopath a gun?) the 300 million (rough figure but pretty close) or at least expect every single one of them to make a good decision about how to use that tool.

You analygy with the hammer is flawed, a hammer can be used for a different purpose but it can kill in the wrong hands, a gun's only function is too kill people especially when it is a hand gun or an assault weapon.

Now what i agree with is adressing the problem of violence, why are people violent? The thing is that's a very complicated one and goes through 100's of issue which are interlinked...doesn't mean we shouldn't try but it would mean a bigger government to sort the mess out.


Your opinion.


Nope as i said earlier British police don't recomend it, not opinion just common sense in my book.


Not if the assailant goes down and doesn't get up. It ends there. Pacifism just gets you killed easier.

Great then you are no better than that person...don't get me wrong if someone tried to mug me (they have i broke their arm...Jiu Jitsu) i would fight but that would be my last resort...first i would try and not be in that situation in the first place (see above) but if it gets nasty real quick...however you seem to see the situation in a very myopic way what you do in the street effects only you and that guy...if that we the case why are there revenge killings, people get angry about deaths on the street...we've seen it on before

But please don't think that i just wnat people to lie down and take it...howeve rht esolution as NYC showed is good police and employing people, not everyone going out and buying a gun to defend themselves.



More crimes are stopped with unfired firearms than fired. Everyone assumes that as soon as the gun comes out, it's gonna go off. There is no freaked out warrior code of "must draw blood once it has been unsheathed."

But if you buy a gun you must be prepared to use it...else what's the point and also do you have any stats to back up what you just said please?

you will all kill each oter

But if you buy a gun you must be prepared to use it...else what's the point and also do you have any stats to back up what you just said please?

It's all in the Kleck study (and others that also back it up).

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.


Sorry, just thought I'd pick this up as GI - general ignorance.

Firstly, this simplistic view doesn't fully explain a complicated, nuanced political system that could be argued to be more democratic than the US. And I await the countless ignorant people who haven't studied any proper constitutional law in their lives to write back - I can't be bothered explaining the issues involved, but there's one key phrase that sums it up. Democratic Parliamentary Sovereignty.

As for gun control, I disagree, but I'm not gonna simplify the issue. It depends on the situation you're in. If you're in a proper democracy with a proper police force, a proper army, and proper checks on your executive, the question begs to be asked why people need the guns. No point in checking the state - you should have proper institutions to do that. Foreign invaders? If your army gets wiped out, I'm sure a bunch of civies with guns will make a difference.

Crime? Well, here's the interesting one. I'm sure as we all know the police can't be everywhere. But then again, giving untrained civilians weapons you're creating major problems. You've firstly flooded the streets with guns. That means that every crack addict, petty thief, carjacker can get guns easily, transport them easily, and use them easily. You've just given the people who care least about life the power to easily take it away with few restrictions. You've also created a situation which is hard to fix - those weapons would take decades to be thinned out on the streets even if you did chose to ban them. You've also given a bunch of the most untrained, stupid people a weapon - the average citizen. Mistakes happen even in the best courts in the world, so what's going to happen in the real world with firearms. Innocent people are going to die, especially if everyone has assault style weapons that tend to rip through walls and people in a fully automatic blood bath.

And finally, I'd like to address the issue of people taking over you're government 'coz we don't have guns to defend it'. Well, oddly enough, there's a certain type of person who likes to keep guns. He's your classic far right wing, paranoid idiot. He tends to form militias with other like minded people. The total IQ of these groups tends to actually be less than their membership. They also would have tended to share political views with those who wear white capes and lynch people of the same colour. And these people tend to have the most, and most powerful weapons. Now, to be honest, these people scare me most.

Not that I'm saying 'ban all weapons for ever completely'. That's restricting people's liberty to target shoot, to hunt and so on. So keep the weapons in the ranges hunting lodges, and don't have assault weapons. But keeping weapons in civilian hands in a civilised country is just stupid.
If you lived in a corrupt country, with a corrupt police force and stupidly high crime rates, then the answer would be different.
Thankfully, you live in America. Read in sarcasm as you see fit.

It's all in the Kleck study (and others that also back it up).

Yeah got that report off the net, kinda interesting, but because i like to see the full academic debate, it would seem from a little search on Google that for everyone that sides with Kleck there is a report which disagrees with him...therefore it's fair to presume that although this report is the holy Grail for some i still can't take it as such...especially considering that straight off the study over weighted it's survay towards the South and West and then "corected those results" makes me very supecious from the start.

I'm not dismissing his report but I'm certainly not going to take his report as gospel.

Yeah got that report off the net, kinda interesting, but because i like to see the full academic debate, it would seem from a little search on Google that for everyone that sides with Kleck there is a report which disagrees with him...therefore it's fair to presume that although this report is the holy Grail for some i still can't take it as such...especially considering that straight off the study over weighted it's survay towards the South and West and then "corected those results" makes me very supecious from the start.

I'm not dismissing his report but I'm certainly not going to take his report as gospel.

Aside from the fact that some other studies agree with his, while none agree with Kellerman (which is the only one that doesn't agree with Kleck), I've seen and personally experienced self-defense situations with firearms. And no shots were fired. And the situation was instantly resolved.

If I'm twisting words, I'm twisting them to the reality faced by the women I train.

They get beaten to death. Not shot. Beaten to death.

[quote]
It's a hallmark of man on woman violence to use the bare hands and to beat or strangle the woman to death. Part of the profile of a serial abuser or rapist.


Esentially someone with psychopathic tendencies, someone removed from normal sersory perception or emphay some would suggest...so as apoint of fact your actually backing up what i was saying about when you beat someone you have to come into contact with them, you actually feel them as you hurt them...if you have psychoatric problems (as these people invariably always do) you don't have to worry about empathy and so on and so forth.

However althougth that's all well and good instead of twisting my words you've evading the question.

The questions are:- "are there lots of mass beatings in Britain?

or "are there are quite a few mass shootings in teh USA"?

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]However althougth that's all well and good instead of twisting my words you've evading the question.

The questions are:- "are there lots of mass beatings in Britain?

or "are there are quite a few mass shootings in teh USA"?

76 percent of all violent crime in the US is perpetrated with NO WEAPON OF ANY KIND. This includes rape and aggravated assault.

When raped, a woman's attacker has an 89 percent chance of having NO WEAPON OF ANY KIND.

While firearms are involved in 67 percent of homicides, they still are not the majority weapon in aggravated assaults.

Bare hands seems to be the weapon of choice in the US. With the exception of actual murder, a violent crime is likely to be perpetrated by beating the other person with bare hands.

Bare hands is the preferred method of murder in domestic abuse cases.

I can't say about the UK. Perhaps you could.

Aside from the fact that some other studies agree with his, while none agree with Kellerman (which is the only one that doesn't agree with Kleck)

Appart from David Hemenway of course........ ;)

Or "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms"

Or Tom W. Smith who also Citisises Kleck.. It think you might want to do a little more reading...

[QUOTE=Ianarabia]

76 percent of all violent crime in the US is perpetrated with NO WEAPON OF ANY KIND. This includes rape and aggravated assault.

When raped, a woman's attacker has an 89 percent chance of having NO WEAPON OF ANY KIND.

While firearms are involved in 67 percent of homicides, they still are not the majority weapon in aggravated assaults.

Bare hands seems to be the weapon of choice in the US. With the exception of actual murder, a violent crime is likely to be perpetrated by beating the other person with bare hands.

Bare hands is the preferred method of murder in domestic abuse cases.

I can't say about the UK. Perhaps you could.


Why is it so difficult for to answer two (one before) simple questions?

[The questions are:- "are there lots of mass beatings in Britain?

or "are there are quite a few mass shootings in teh USA"?

The first question, I can't answer, because it's the UK. But I would bet more beatings than shootings.

I know for a fact there are more beatings than shootings in the US, for reasons I've already told you.

As for your Kleck critics, they are all in the same credibility category as Belesiles.

The first question, I can't answer, because it's the UK. But I would bet more beatings than shootings..

Still not answering my question...what another go?

Also how do you know they are in the smae category when you said that only Kellerman disagreed, as you seemed to be only aware of this one person how could you have an opinion on anyone of these others?

This is why:

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.

The numerous surveys yielding contrary estimates strongly support the view that the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate is grossly erroneous.

There has probably been more outright dishonesty in addressing the issue of the frequency of defensive gun use than any other issue in the gun control debate. Faced with a huge body of evidence contradicting their low defensive-gun-use position, hard- core gun-control supporters have had little choice but to simply promote the unsuitable National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate and ignore or discount everything else. Authors writing in medical and public health journals are typically the most crudely dishonest--they simply withhold from their readers the very existence of a mountain of contradictory evidence.

Adherents of the rare-defensive-gun-use thesis also use another tactic, in addition to simply pretending that the contrary evidence does not exist. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

Even if some of these speculations had been correct and consequential, it is not productive or legitimate to speculate only in one direction, in this case speculating only about flaws that supposedly pushed defensive-gun-use estimates up. If one is not willing to seriously consider errors in both directions, one is simply engaging in "adversary scholarship" or "sagecraft," an enterprise aimed not at discovering the truth, but rather at buttressing predetermined positions.

The peer reviewer couldn't find a flaw in Kleck's study, either.

This is why:

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.

The numerous surveys yielding contrary estimates strongly support the view that the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate is grossly erroneous.

There has probably been more outright dishonesty in addressing the issue of the frequency of defensive gun use than any other issue in the gun control debate. Faced with a huge body of evidence contradicting their low defensive-gun-use position, hard- core gun-control supporters have had little choice but to simply promote the unsuitable National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate and ignore or discount everything else. Authors writing in medical and public health journals are typically the most crudely dishonest--they simply withhold from their readers the very existence of a mountain of contradictory evidence.

Adherents of the rare-defensive-gun-use thesis also use another tactic, in addition to simply pretending that the contrary evidence does not exist. On those rare occasions when they briefly and very partially address some of the contrary evidence, they counter evidence with one-sided speculation rather than better empirical information.

Even if some of these speculations had been correct and consequential, it is not productive or legitimate to speculate only in one direction, in this case speculating only about flaws that supposedly pushed defensive-gun-use estimates up. If one is not willing to seriously consider errors in both directions, one is simply engaging in "adversary scholarship" or "sagecraft," an enterprise aimed not at discovering the truth, but rather at buttressing predetermined positions.

The peer reviewer couldn't find a flaw in Kleck's study, either.


That's great but who was doing the review and do you have alink to that article...also are you going to answer my questions? :)

So in essence all your doing is saying, i agree with Keck and because this journal does some how that makes this gospel...again i think it has a lot more ot do with the fact that Kleck backs up what you think and this article bakcs up what you think...you've already prooven that you have not read too much of the debate so i would suggest that perhaps your not willing to, as long as you agree with what you read.

Apparently you do need remedial math or your just blatantly skewing the numbers. 2000 /= 2004.

Try again using the same years.

Nice try though.
Okay, I went back and fixed the data. I was using only the numbers that I had available (Chicago murder rate for 2004). However, your numbers are way off the mark. You didn't really believe that Illinois's murder rate outside of Chicago was only .238 per 100,000 did you?

BTW, although Chicago's murder rate was 641 in 2000, it is now down to 445 for 2004, which represents a 30% drop.

That's great but who was doing the review and do you have alink to that article...also are you going to answer my questions? :)

I already answered. There are more beatings in the US than shootings. By far. My claims are clearly backed up by Department of Justice statistics.

We have more shootings per unit population in the US. But if I am to believe the link I posted the other day (to a UK government pdf file), the UK has far more beatings per unit population than the US. In fact, depending on where you are in the UK, you have between 16 and 25 times the violent crime that I have here in Virginia. I assume that most of that is assault, and most of that is a beating of some sort - since the UK stats exclude robbery for those counts, and your guns are relatively rare.

Having no guns doesn't mean the violent crime stops. Murder may go down, but people can still commit every other crime without a gun. In the US, most non-murder violent crime is committed with bare hands. Going to outlaw bare hands?


Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

I already answered. There are more beatings in the US than shootings. By far. My claims are clearly backed up by Department of Justice statistics.

We have more shootings per unit population in the US. But if I am to believe the link I posted the other day (to a UK government pdf file), the UK has far more beatings per unit population than the US. In fact, depending on where you are in the UK, you have between 16 and 25 times the violent crime that I have here in Virginia. I assume that most of that is assault, and most of that is a beating of some sort - since the UK stats exclude robbery for those counts, and your guns are relatively rare.

Having no guns doesn't mean the violent crime stops. Murder may go down, but people can still commit every other crime without a gun. In the US, most non-murder violent crime is committed with bare hands. Going to outlaw bare hands?


Nope actually you just naswered the question you wanted the two things are very different but it's what i have come to accept as part of this thread.

And as you point out Britain does have a lot of beating but in the US, as I've already pointed out they are measured in two very very different ways...but we are just treading old ground.

My honest opinion about the whole subject is that in the Pro-gun lobby there are just too many vested interests, arms manufactuers, people teaching self defense only from guns, gun shop, owners the NRA. Theres is a culture of guns in the USA and if it goes there are too many people who are going to loose their livelyhoods for the debate to be about the real issues...that's public safety.

I believe that issue has been lost, the debate has gone around in circles people arming themsleves again and again...this happened in the cold war, it was described as mutial assuerd destruction M.A.D....eventually the good people of the USA have got to realise what they are doing is mad, and maybe, just maybe if one high school shooting is just big enough they will get the point...but some how i doubt it.

Nope actually you just naswered the question you wanted the two things are very different but it's what i have come to accept as part of this thread.

What do you think of the peer review?

I see the women in the UK get killed by their abusers as well:

http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/domesticabuse/

Fat lot of good calling the police does there. By the time the police show up, you're already dead.

I see the women in the UK get killed by their abusers as well:

http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/domesticabuse/

Fat lot of good calling the police does there. By the time the police show up, you're already dead.

Where does it say about people being dead in that URL?

What do you think of the peer review?

I would sya that i looked into who sits on it and i would think that kinda negates the whole article...I'll let you work that one out for yourself...google is a great thing....

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

They agree on what?? Once a government disarms the population, they are in complete control of that population. Sound like freedom to you? Or to anybody else?

Where does it say about people being dead in that URL?
You need to look at the whole page. Women are being killed in the UK by their husbands.

I would sya that i looked into who sits on it and i would think that kinda negates the whole article...I'll let you work that one out for yourself...google is a great thing....
DR. MARVIN E. WOLFGANG.

Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang was considered to be a pioneer and world leader in quantitative and theoretical criminology. He was one of the world’s most-cited authors in criminology, and his research and critical commentaries appear in more than 30 books and 150 articles.

Wolfgang’s research interests included homicide, penology, criminal statistics, and delinquency criminology. At the time of his death, he was involved in a longitudinal cohort birth research of juvenile delinquency project in Wuhan, the People's Republic of China (The Wharton School, 1998).

Wolfgang was born November 14, 1924, in Millersburg, PA. During World War II, he served in the Army in Italy. After the war, he received his B.A. from Dickinson College in 1948, and taught for a while at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania. From 1952 until his death of pancreatic cancer on April 12, 1998, he was a Professor of Criminology, Legal Studies and Law at the Wharton School, at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, at the age of 73, he had been at the University for nearly a half a century, beginning with his enrollment there as a graduate student. He received his M.A. in 1950, and his Ph.D. in 1955, both from the University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School, 1998).

He was a true leader in his field, and held numerous positions, including: Director of the Sellin Criminology Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law, from 1962 until his death; President of the American Society of Criminology; President of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; Elected Member of the American Philosophical Society; Associate Secretary General of the International Society of Criminology; Consultant to the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice; Member of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Panel on Social Indicators; Director of Research for the Presidential Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence; Member of the Advisory Committee on Reform of the Federal Criminal Law; and Member of the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (The Wharton School, 1998).

He was the recipient of many awards, including: two Guggenheim Fellowships; a Fulbright Scholarship; honorary doctor of law degrees of the City University of New York and the Academia Mexicana de Derecho Inter-nationacional; the Dennis Carrol Prize from the International Society of Criminology; the Roscoe Pound Award of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for distinguished contribution to the field of criminal justice; the Hans von Hentig Award of the World Society of Criminology; the Edwin Sutherland Award of the American Society of Criminology for Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Criminology; the Beccaria Gold Medal for outstanding contribution to criminology from the German, Austrian and Swiss Society of Criminology; the August Vollmer Award (ASC) for Distinguished Research in Criminology entitled Patterns of Criminal Behavior; and was the first recipient of the Guardsmark Marvin E. Wolfgang Award, for Distinguished Achievement in Criminology (The Wharton School).

You need to look at the whole page. Women are being killed in the UK by their husbands.

You gotta love the husbands!

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

Proof?

Firstly i didn't say a "bad nieghbour hood" i said a dangerous one, two things are different, now if an aera is dangerous and you walk down a side ally, normally unlit, normally secluded that is a perfect place to carry out a mugging, there for in my opinion to walk down there is "stupid" is exposes you to an abnormal level of risk...as i said this is also taught by the police when the have orination ocurses at university so it's not really just my opinion either.


:rolleyes: No, having a government organization say "it is so" doesn't impress me.


True but your working on the principle that we can regualte (because do you really want to give a psychopath a gun?) the 300 million (rough figure but pretty close) or at least expect every single one of them to make a good decision about how to use that tool.

You analygy with the hammer is flawed, a hammer can be used for a different purpose but it can kill in the wrong hands, a gun's only function is too kill people especially when it is a hand gun or an assault weapon.


Actually, the fully automatice assault RIFLES (no such thing as an assault weapon) were designed to WOUND, not kill, since it took more men out of the fight, to take care of a wounded soldier. Guns don't kill on a daily basis, and actually stop more crime than cause.


Now what i agree with is adressing the problem of violence, why are people violent? The thing is that's a very complicated one and goes through 100's of issue which are interlinked...doesn't mean we shouldn't try but it would mean a bigger government to sort the mess out.


Or stop letting people excuse their violent behavior, and start actually punishing.


Nope as i said earlier British police don't recomend it, not opinion just common sense in my book.


Common sense is not necessarily universal. Just because the British police don't recommend it doesn't mean I'm just going to believe them. The British government advocates rolling up into a ball when you're being attacked--that RANKLES.


Great then you are no better than that person...don't get me wrong if someone tried to mug me (they have i broke their arm...Jiu Jitsu) i would fight but that would be my last resort...first i would try and not be in that situation in the first place (see above) but if it gets nasty real quick...however you seem to see the situation in a very myopic way what you do in the street effects only you and that guy...if that we the case why are there revenge killings, people get angry about deaths on the street...we've seen it on before


And shooting is not our first recourse, either.


But please don't think that i just wnat people to lie down and take it...howeve rht esolution as NYC showed is good police and employing people, not everyone going out and buying a gun to defend themselves.


Like I said before, police aren't around when you need them. There is not teleporting yet.


But if you buy a gun you must be prepared to use it...else what's the point and also do you have any stats to back up what you just said please?

Why know a martial art? There's only one purpose for that, too. They're called martial for a reason.

Okay, I went back and fixed the data. I was using only the numbers that I had available (Chicago murder rate for 2004). However, your numbers are way off the mark. You didn't really believe that Illinois's murder rate outside of Chicago was only .238 per 100,000 did you?

BTW, although Chicago's murder rate was 641 in 2000, it is now down to 445 for 2004, which represents a 30% drop.

Good that you fixed your numbers. It's interesting to note that you found it acceptable to compare different years and areas like that.

2.5 is still way below the 20's that Chicago had and is well below the nat'l average. It still doesn't dispute mine though. Mine were from 2002 w/ only 28 murders in Illinois not of Chicago. That's about a tenth of the difference in 2000 = about .288. All from the FBI. Once again: 2000 /= 2002.

I'm going to take a line from you. The FACT remains that Chicago still has higher murder rates than the rest of the state even w/ it's ban. Can you explain that?

Why do you still ignore DC & VT while continously comparing other "unlike areas?

Why did FL's rape level drop while NY increased?

Why does the UK still have almost 900 murders even after disarming the public?

Canuck still can't explain why the women I've trained have been left completely alone by their abusers.

Quite unlike the women who are relying on the police and a protective order alone.

Good that you fixed your numbers. It's interesting to note that you found it acceptable to compare different years and areas like that.

2.5 is still way below the 20's that Chicago had and is well below the nat'l average.
Believe it or not, I actually do a fair amount of research, and I was having a difficult time finding numbers for Chicago City. Even the 2003 FBI stats are listed only as Illinois2, with no real breakdown.

It still doesn't dispute mine though. Mine were from 2002 w/ only 28 murders in Illinois not of Chicago. That's about a tenth of the difference in 2000 = about .288. All from the FBI. Once again: 2000 /= 2002.
Please supply a link for the 2002 figures.

I'm going to take a line from you. The FACT remains that Chicago still has higher murder rates than the rest of the state even w/ it's ban. Can you explain that?
Too many guns coming into Chicago from local towns, cities, and States?

Can you explain why Richmond, Virgiinia, even though it has RTC laws has a murder ratio of 46 to 100,000 people.

Why do you still ignore DC & VT while continously comparing other "unlike areas?
I didn't ignore DC & VT...I quite clearly stated that it is difficult to compare apples and oranges and gave you my reasons why. I am still waiting for you to try and refute those reasons.

For the most part, I try to compare city to city and State to State.

Why did FL's rape level drop while NY increased?
I answered that.

Why does the UK still have almost 900 murders even after disarming the public?
The better question would be why does the US have a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK?

BTW, in the US, 67% of murders are committed with firearms, in the UK it is only 7%.

Believe it or not, I actually do a fair amount of research, and I was having a difficult time finding numbers for Chicago City. Even the 2003 FBI stats are listed only as Illinois2, with no real breakdown.


1.Please supply a link for the 2002 figures.


2.Too many guns coming into Chicago from local towns, cities, and States?

3.Can you explain why Richmond, Virgiinia, even though it has RTC laws has a murder ratio of 46 to 100,000 people.


4.I didn't ignore DC & VT...I quite clearly stated that it is difficult to compare apples and oranges and gave you my reasons why. I am still waiting for you to try and refute those reasons.

5.For the most part, I try to compare city to city and State to State.


6. I answered that.


7.The better question would be why does the US have a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK?

BTW, in the US, 67% of murders are committed with firearms, in the UK it is only 7%.


1. http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm & the FBI/Disastercenter reports.

2. Proof? or is that just your opinion.

3. Sure, gangs & drugs.

4. You refuse to compare it because it makes you look bad. You just tried to compare Ontario to Richmond. You also still try and refute the Fairfax etc even though they are effectively identical.

5. For the most part, you cherry pick whatever numbers you like and refuse to acknowledge any others. You tried to combine numbers from separate years and hold them as legitimate until called on it.

6. No you didn't. If you did, I missed it.

7. Cop out. Translation: you can't answer it. The US is dropping while the UK is rising. Even before the gun grabs in the UK, it was lower. How many of those murders are committed w/ legally owned firearms?

You still haven't answered the UK/Switzerland conflict. Whys is Switzerland lower overall that non-gun UK?

Canuck still can't explain why the women I've trained have been left completely alone by their abusers.

Quite unlike the women who are relying on the police and a protective order alone.

It's one of those things he'll ignore, change the subject, and then say he answered it at an earlier time.

1. http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm & the FBI/Disastercenter reports.
It still doesn't dispute mine though. Mine were from 2002 w/ only 28 murders in Illinois not of Chicago. That's about a tenth of the difference in 2000 = about .288. All from the FBI. Once again: 2000 /= 2002.

Okay, thanks for supplying the 2002 rates. Number of murders in Chicago in 2002 was 648. Population of Chicago in 2002 was 2,896,016 (from web site you supplied). Total murders in Illinois in 2002 was 949. That means that there were 301 murders outside of Chicago (not 28 as you claimed). Total population of Illinois in 2002 was 12,600,620, minus the population of Chicago = 9,704,604. Therefore the murder rate in Illinois outside of Chicago in 2002 was 3.1 per 100,000 people, not .288 as you claimed. Somewhere along the line, you misplaced 273 murders.

Just wanted to clear this one up first and will get back to you later on the others.

Canuck still can't explain why the women I've trained have been left completely alone by their abusers.
How would I know what their truths are? You didn't address my earlier questions regarding these guns falling into wrong hands.

Quite unlike the women who are relying on the police and a protective order alone.
Perhaps the police should be doing more "to serve, and protect"?

Okay, thanks for supplying the 2002 rates. Number of murders in Chicago in 2002 was 648. Population of Chicago in 2002 was 2,896,016 (from web site you supplied). Total murders in Illinois in 2002 was 949. That means that there were 301 murders outside of Chicago (not 28 as you claimed). Total population of Illinois in 2002 was 12,600,620, minus the population of Chicago = 9,704,604. Therefore the murder rate in Illinois outside of Chicago in 2002 was 3.1 per 100,000 people, not .288 as you claimed. Somewhere along the line, you misplaced 273 murders.

Just wanted to clear this one up first and will get back to you later on the others.

Ok, I see what I did. I fucked up and looked at the Violent Crime # instead. I admit that mistake.

Now I'm going to play your game and say" But the Fact remains that it is still 7x less that Chicago w/ it's gun bans."

Here's a question: What anti-gun laws were enacted in NY and Chicago that preceeded the drops in crime?

Perhaps the police should be doing more "to serve, and protect"?

They should be but the courts, in all thier alledged wisdom, have decreed that the police have no duty to protect individuals.

So in areas (like Chicago & DC) citizens cannot rely on the police and cannot adequately defend themselves.

1. http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm & the FBI/Disastercenter reports.
You already corrected your error on this one.

2. Proof? or is that just your opinion.

Perhaps this (http://w3.agsfoundation.com/enf2Illinoisenfpr.html) helps to explain a big part of the problem, and helps back my assertion.

3. Sure, gangs & drugs.
Perhaps crushing poverty has something to do with it as well? So the solution is to arm everyone and let the criminals go about their business?

4. You refuse to compare it because it makes you look bad.
On the contrary, how do you compare a State that is basically rural with a city?

You just tried to compare Ontario to Richmond.
Why wouldn't I compare Ontario with Richmond, Virginia, or if you prefer, I could compare Toronto which has almost 13 times the population of Richmond and approximately 1/2 the murder rate.

You also still try and refute the Fairfax etc even though they are effectively identical.
I already addressed this in an earlier post.

5. For the most part, you cherry pick whatever numbers you like and refuse to acknowledge any others. You tried to combine numbers from separate years and hold them as legitimate until called on it.
For the most part, your RTC laws have not caused the dramatic downturn in crime as you keep proclaiming. You cannot refute the fact that Florida which has had RTC laws since 1987, still leads the US as the State with the Most Violent Crime Rate.

Nor can you refute the fact that the Violent Crime Rate in Texas is going up, not down, and has a higher murder rate than New York State, and almost twice the rapes. Why is that?

6. No you didn't. If you did, I missed it.
Well I did answer it.

7. Cop out. Translation: you can't answer it. The US is dropping while the UK is rising. Even before the gun grabs in the UK, it was lower. How many of those murders are committed w/ legally owned firearms?
Certainly not a cop out, and if the UK rate is rising, it has a long way to go to catch up with the US. Hint: don't hold your breath. Also if you go to the official UK web site for crime statistics, it details a change in the methodology of reporting crimes and that accounts for some of the anomalies.

You still haven't answered the UK/Switzerland conflict. Whys is Switzerland lower overall that non-gun UK?
Again, you accuse me of cherry picking, yet you do so yourself. Switzerland has a population of 7,000,000, whereas the UK has a population of 60,000,000.

The largest city in Switzerland is Zurich with a population of 333,000 people, while London, England has a population equal to the entire population of Switzerland. Even though the UK has about 8 and 1/2 times the population of Switzerland, it only recorded 22 more murders than Switzerland involving firearms.

Noteworthy: Switzerland also has anywhere from 2 to 4 times the suicide rate than the UK, depending on age group. I guess it is easier to commit suicide in a nation full of firearms?

They wouldn't have, however there are 100's of cases where people get shot without seeing the perosn doing the shooting, answer me something how would carrying a gun protect you from some shotting at you in a drive by shooting?What percentage of violent crime victims didn't see it comming? Do you think it's high? As long as it's not 100%, the gun remains potentially useful for defense.

So what the world needs now is guns, sweet guns?

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but what about the arsenals some folks have? Who needs an automatic assault rifle to hunt or protect themselves? Let 'em be happy with shotguns and handguns.
What about them? One person can't shoot more than two guns at once. Automatic weapons are illegal for hunting in every state. I don't know of anyone wishes to hunt with them. But anything that makes a gun more useful as an offensive weapon is also useful for defensive purposes.

It's been pointed out several times that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from our own government. So, yeah, automatic weapons would come in handy.So people don't get the wrong idea here. I'd like to give an example:

It seems rather likely to me that the draft will soon be reinstated in the US. This may cause a level of resistance not seen since the Civil War draft riots in New York City. It's not out of the question that armed soldiers would be used to 'collect' draftees or quell violent (or even non-violent) protests. From there, there are many scenarios that could be played out, but whatever the case and whatever your position on the draft, you might feel a bit safer with a gun around. And if large groups get together to actively resist, as in keeping themselves and their loved ones from being taken, it might be helpful to have a little firepower around. You never know what might happen (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/breaking-news-photography/works/elian2.gif).

If that doesn't do it for you, maybe this will help: When the government tells me to do something, I tend to comply because utimately, the government will use violence against me if I don't. If I do something that the legislature has determined is a crime, men with clubs and guns will be sent to force me into handcuffs and utimately into a concrete cell. Ultimately, governments do what I want for the same reasons. When the people in charge go to far, they risk losing their heads, or at least losing their power. This is most clearly illustrated by a dictatorship, but it still applies in a democratic nanny state. If the people are ill-equiped to deal with the force of the state, the state (in particular those in charge of the state's implements of force) gets to have too much say in what goes on, whether or not you have elections. If you belive that self-governance is the ideal, you must believe that ordinary citizens not only can, but must be trusted with the lethal devices possessed by their alleged public servants.

EDIT:
By the way, for all the Europeans, it may seem like I'm talking about a uniquely American problem and in some ways I am. The governments of Europe don't currently seem as dangerous and blatantly hostile as that of the US, but I doubt you can really take that for granted. Nazi Germany wasn't that long ago. The reason things are now politically worse here in the US is because, as useful idiots, Americans are currently more useful and more idiotic. It won't be that way forever.

What's hilarious, Canuck, is that the majority of violent crime in the US (76 percent) involves no firearms at all.

You obviously believe that victims should be victims of such crimes, rather than use firearms to successfully STOP 2.5 million crimes per year.

You would rather that those crimes occur.

That would double the violent crime rate.

Nice going. BTW, the I've told some of the women I've trained about you. They put you in the same category as the men who beat them. You want to deprive them of their right to live.

Does anyone have the figures for the victims of the crime that own a gun?
76% were attacked without a firearm, How many victims owned (& were carrying a firearm) I cant find any figures, but I am willing to guess it's not 0

Since the UK banned law abiding citizens and members of registered gun clubs from owning hand guns there has been no decrease in gun crime. In fact there has been a large increase.

Banning people from owning guns, as they were held previously in the UK, does not prevent gun crime. The ban was a knee jerk reaction by a jerk. I don't want to own a gun, but a knew a 60 year old man whose one hobby was target shooting, who never commited a crime in his life, who was stopped from doing the thing he loved. The law was not properly applied in the cases where there were mass killings, the law was not at fault but it's application.

Killing people with guns is a symptom not the disease. The disease is society failing to value life.

snip..The ban was a knee jerk reaction by a jerk..snip..The law was not properly applied in the cases where there were mass killings, the law was not at fault but it's application.
Killing people with guns is a symptom not the disease. The disease is society failing to value life.

Good point, weapons are not the issue. The real problem is how to prevent and remove the firearms held by criminal/irresponsible people.
The problem, how to select the criminal/irresponsible people and then ensure they don't get them.

The arguements are 1) if no one has a gun the criminal/irresponsible people cant get them or 2) if everyone has a gun it doesn't matter if the criminal/irresponsible people have them as well.

As to the knee jerk reaction of the current politicians, that is thier style (which seems to go down well with the majority of the UK electorate) so long as it LOOKS like they have done something the actual benefit is irrelavent.

Good point, weapons are not the issue. The real problem is how to prevent and remove the firearms held by criminal/irresponsible people.
The problem, how to select the criminal/irresponsible people and then ensure they don't get them.

The arguements are 1) if no one has a gun the criminal/irresponsible people cant get them or 2) if everyone has a gun it doesn't matter if the criminal/irresponsible people have them as well.

As to the knee jerk reaction of the current politicians, that is thier style (which seems to go down well with the majority of the UK electorate) so long as it LOOKS like they have done something the actual benefit is irrelavent.
But point 1 does not solve the issue as can be seen, guns flood these shores from the US and other places.

But point 1 does not solve the issue as can be seen, guns flood these shores from the US and other places.

If you can't stop the flow of illegal drugs (which come from very specific places on the planet), how do you expect to stop the flow of illegal guns (which can be made of standard metals using light machine tools - you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a submachinegun)?

If you can't stop the flow of illegal drugs (which come from very specific places on the planet), how do you expect to stop the flow of illegal guns (which can be made of standard metals using light machine tools - you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a submachinegun)?So to ban guns from being held by people who's only intention is to use them at a club to shott targets does not make any sense.
Giving someone 15 years for an illegal gun does. As if you want to shoot it, join a club, if you have one and it is not registered and you do not have a legal place to shoot, I would assume it use was for crime. And as stated a gun is a perfect tool for murder. So hammer those who have them illegaly but give the person who is an upstanding citizen the benefit of doubt.

So to ban guns from being held by people who's only intention is to use them at a club to shott targets does not make any sense.
Giving someone 15 years for an illegal gun does. As if you want to shoot it, join a club, if you have one and it is not registered and you do not have a legal place to shoot, I would assume it use was for crime. And as stated a gun is a perfect tool for murder. So hammer those who have them illegaly but give the person who is an upstanding citizen the benefit of doubt.

I, and the women I train, carry our pistols at all times. Concealed. Their purpose is personal protection (in their case, it's their abusive ex-spouses and ex-boyfriends). And I'm at risk because the ex-guys know what I am doing.

While we have many places to shoot, we NEED to carry.

If you can't stop the flow of illegal drugs (which come from very specific places on the planet), how do you expect to stop the flow of illegal guns (which can be made of standard metals using light machine tools - you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a submachinegun)?

But how does option 2, everyone owning make us safer?
If a criminal without a gun broke in to my house and managed to steal my gun thats another one in circulation. If I don't own then they cannot steal the gun/Bullets.

The argument seems to be the same as the nuclear one. We are OK to have them, we just want everyone else not to. Sooner or later everyone else gets them.
We then get terrorists stealing them/Governments losing them.

Please find a hole in the analogy.

You have freely admited that it is easy for a criminal to get guns, are we to suppose that all criminals are idiots and can't/won't use them, or are bad shots? these are suppositions that are dangerous to rely on as even the worst shot could get lucky.

I, and the women I train, carry our pistols at all times. Concealed. Their purpose is personal protection (in their case, it's their abusive ex-spouses and ex-boyfriends). And I'm at risk because the ex-guys know what I am doing.

While we have many places to shoot, we NEED to carry.
If that is legal where you live then fine. It's a shame that the society is such that you feel that is needed, but I bow to your better knowledge of your situation.
However, if the ex spouses in question are violent, then the law should prevent them from holding a weapon. Difficult to enforce in the US I know but not impossible.
But you rasie another issue. If a gun is to be used for self defence there in no point in it being unloaded and in a draw. If it is for self defence it should be loaded and on your person and you should have the will and skill to use it.
Better a .25 in your hand than a .38 in a draw (well only just). If you want to protect your home then why use anything other than a shot gun? You are less likley to shoot some one in the next house and you need not be as accurate.

You already corrected your error on this one.



1. Perhaps this (http://w3.agsfoundation.com/enf2Illinoisenfpr.html) helps to explain a big part of the problem, and helps back my assertion.


2. Perhaps crushing poverty has something to do with it as well? So the solution is to arm everyone and let the criminals go about their business?


3. On the contrary, how do you compare a State that is basically rural with a city?


4.Why wouldn't I compare Ontario with Richmond, Virginia, or if you prefer, I could compare Toronto which has almost 13 times the population of Richmond and approximately 1/2 the murder rate.


5.I already addressed this in an earlier post.


6. For the most part, your RTC laws have not caused the dramatic downturn in crime as you keep proclaiming. You cannot refute the fact that Florida which has had RTC laws since 1987, still leads the US as the State with the Most Violent Crime Rate.

7.Nor can you refute the fact that the Violent Crime Rate in Texas is going up, not down, and has a higher murder rate than New York State, and almost twice the rapes. Why is that?


8.Well I did answer it.


9.Certainly not a cop out, and if the UK rate is rising, it has a long way to go to catch up with the US. Hint: don't hold your breath. Also if you go to the official UK web site for crime statistics, it details a change in the methodology of reporting crimes and that accounts for some of the anomalies.


10.Again, you accuse me of cherry picking, yet you do so yourself. Switzerland has a population of 7,000,000, whereas the UK has a population of 60,000,000.

The largest city in Switzerland is Zurich with a population of 333,000 people, while London, England has a population equal to the entire population of Switzerland. Even though the UK has about 8 and 1/2 times the population of Switzerland, it only recorded 22 more murders than Switzerland involving firearms.

11.Noteworthy: Switzerland also has anywhere from 2 to 4 times the suicide rate than the UK, depending on age group. I guess it is easier to commit suicide in a nation full of firearms?

1. So the guns are already illegal and the gov't isn't doing it's job in the first place. How does disarming law abiding citizens stop this.

2. I never said not to work on the causes and I am a strong advocate on punishing criminals. That is you trying to put words in my mouth.

3 & 4. You just contradicted yourself right there. You won't compare a state & a city w/ similar populations but you will compare a province w/ a city.

5. You addressed it w/ a little cutnpaste that you can't source and still doesn't change most of the factors involved.

6. On the contrary:

RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI)

Why is that?

7. And you can't refute the fact that NY rapes are going up and Florida's are going down, why is that? Nice that you keep avoiding that one.

8. Where?

9. Once again you can't dispute that the UK is rising and the US is dropping. Even w/ the anomolies, it was still below the US before the gun grabs.

10. Oh, OK, so now Switzerland and the UK are apples and oranges now? So you can't compare them because they are too different?

11. No, you can't compare them, they're too different. Japan's is even higher. Does that mean it's easier to kill oneself in a country that has almost no guns?

Once again. What anti-gun laws were enacted in Chicago and New York that preceded the drops in crime?

But how does option 2, everyone owning make us safer?
If a criminal without a gun broke in to my house and managed to steal my gun thats another one in circulation. If I don't own then they cannot steal the gun/Bullets.

The argument seems to be the same as the nuclear one. We are OK to have them, we just want everyone else not to. Sooner or later everyone else gets them.
We then get terrorists stealing them/Governments losing them.

Please find a hole in the analogy.

You have freely admited that it is easy for a criminal to get guns, are we to suppose that all criminals are idiots and can't/won't use them, or are bad shots? these are suppositions that are dangerous to rely on as even the worst shot could get lucky.
No your analogy stands up ok. But I never heard of anyone going down the range with a nuke for fun. My point is, guns held by a small numberof people, as used to be the case, for pleasure purposes should not be a problem. If you see how secure you have to hold guns in the UK the chance of someone steeling them is remote. Again I agree though there is no need for a gun to be held for home defence in the UK. A cast iron frying pan is your best weapon. Kill some one with that and you can claim self defence and no intent.

To start this off, I'd like to say that I do consider myself a "democrat". Does this mean that I blindly follow every decision the talking heads say? To be perfectly honest, I think gun control is a terrible idea. It is impossible to stop illegal guns from getting into a country, from being produced illegally, etc; criminals will always have guns. Disarming the people who actually need to protect themselves is such complete hypocricy under the guise of safety that I'm not sure why people are still gung-ho for it.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."-Ben Franklin
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."-Anonymous bumper sticker

If that is legal where you live then fine. It's a shame that the society is such that you feel that is needed, but I bow to your better knowledge of your situation.
However, if the ex spouses in question are violent, then the law should prevent them from holding a weapon. Difficult to enforce in the US I know but not impossible.
But you rasie another issue. If a gun is to be used for self defence there in no point in it being unloaded and in a draw. If it is for self defence it should be loaded and on your person and you should have the will and skill to use it.
Better a .25 in your hand than a .38 in a draw (well only just). If you want to protect your home then why use anything other than a shot gun? You are less likley to shoot some one in the next house and you need not be as accurate.

The law seems pretty effective in preventing the abusive spouse from keeping or buying a weapon. When you get a protective order filed against you, the police come and search your house for guns and take them. Then your name goes on the computer list and the gun store won't sell you a firearm.

In addition, the preferred method for an abusive spouse to use when killing their woman is beating and strangulation.

These women need protection in all locations. They are stalked. Most of the attacks on them come in public.

So far, none of the women I've trained have been confronted, attacked, or killed - largely because the men know the women are armed and trained.

Women who don't carry a weapon in my area are still dying.

Which would you rather have?

But how does option 2, everyone owning make us safer?
If a criminal without a gun broke in to my house and managed to steal my gun thats another one in circulation. If I don't own then they cannot steal the gun/Bullets.

The argument seems to be the same as the nuclear one. We are OK to have them, we just want everyone else not to. Sooner or later everyone else gets them.
We then get terrorists stealing them/Governments losing them.

Please find a hole in the analogy.

You have freely admited that it is easy for a criminal to get guns, are we to suppose that all criminals are idiots and can't/won't use them, or are bad shots? these are suppositions that are dangerous to rely on as even the worst shot could get lucky.


The criminals don't have to break into a house. Even if you managed to reduce the number of guns, the level of smuggling would just increase. Criminals tend not to care much about the laws.

Criminals in general are worse shots as they don't practice. Is this true for every one, no. Never said that. People who legally own guns, however tend to practice w/ them on a regular basis. Your average gun owner in the US is a better shot that the average police officer and trains more. You don't "suppose" the criminal is worse, you train to improve yourself and therefore more likely to be a better shot than the criminal.

Criminals don't often go to the range.

The Gov't has been losing them for years. Should we disarm the Gov't? ( I'ld almost say yes). Terrorists might also steal a propane truck and blow it up at a mall. Should we ban those?

Criminals need to be kept from getting guns. How? Increase prosecution/penalties for people knowingly selling/dealing them to criminals. Not this 4th & 5th person lawsuit crap that's going on right now. the criminals also need to be punished more. Increase sentencing on illegal ownership. Also go after the causes, drugs, poverty, illegal immigration, gangs culture, etc.

Why should Law Abiding Citizens be punished for the actions of criminals?

The law seems pretty effective in preventing the abusive spouse from keeping or buying a weapon. When you get a protective order filed against you, the police come and search your house for guns and take them. Then your name goes on the computer list and the gun store won't sell you a firearm.

In addition, the preferred method for an abusive spouse to use when killing their woman is beating and strangulation.

These women need protection in all locations. They are stalked. Most of the attacks on them come in public.

So far, none of the women I've trained have been confronted, attacked, or killed - largely because the men know the women are armed and trained.

Women who don't carry a weapon in my area are still dying.

Which would you rather have?
As I say if it works there, who on earth am I to say it is wrong. I don't live there or under those conditions. I do know that a gun does level the playing field for women faced with violence.

No your analogy stands up ok. But I never heard of anyone going down the range with a nuke for fun. My point is, guns held by a small numberof people, as used to be the case, for pleasure purposes should not be a problem. If you see how secure you have to hold guns in the UK the chance of someone steeling them is remote. Again I agree though there is no need for a gun to be held for home defence in the UK. A cast iron frying pan is your best weapon. Kill some one with that and you can claim self defence and no intent.

Sorry, i was aiming the post at the US posters some of whom have mentioned storing a "gun in a drawer".

But if the issue is self defence, then the better weapon would, as suggested, be a shotgun (short barrel) the stopping power is fantastic, the big bore would scare the s**t out of someone and its short range would help prevent killing inocent people 2 blocks away.

To start this off, I'd like to say that I do consider myself a "democrat". Does this mean that I blindly follow every decision the talking heads say? To be perfectly honest, I think gun control is a terrible idea. It is impossible to stop illegal guns from getting into a country, from being produced illegally, etc; criminals will always have guns. Disarming the people who actually need to protect themselves is such complete hypocricy under the guise of safety that I'm not sure why people are still gung-ho for it.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."-Ben Franklin
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."-Anonymous bumper sticker

I actually like some of the DP platform, however their absolute insistance to disarm the Law Abiding Public and coddle the criminals keeps me away from them in every election. Thier attempts to cater to firearms owners have been more insulting than honest. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Please write to your Democratic leaders and ask them to rethink thier policies

Sorry, i was aiming the post at the US posters some of whom have mentioned storing a "gun in a drawer".

But if the issue is self defence, then the better weapon would, as suggested, be a shotgun (short barrel) the stopping power is fantastic, the big bore would scare the s**t out of someone and its short range would help prevent killing inocent people 2 blocks away.

While I would like to carry a shotgun everywhere I go, it's bulky and tends to frighten people.

That's why I carry a concealed pistol. The hollowpoints are not likely to come out the other side of whomever I shoot, and the stopping power is fantastic. Once expanded, the bullet is the same diameter as an expanded shotgun slug.

Neither I, nor the women I train, store their guns in a drawer. It's either on their person, or sitting within arm's reach, in sight.

Guns that are not actively in use at my house are in the safe.

And yes, I have children. They are all far more familiar with gun handling than most of the people on this forum. My daughter (who is 12) is a better and faster shot than most of the local police.

Sorry, i was aiming the post at the US posters some of whom have mentioned storing a "gun in a drawer".

But if the issue is self defence, then the better weapon would, as suggested, be a shotgun (short barrel) the stopping power is fantastic, the big bore would scare the s**t out of someone and its short range would help prevent killing inocent people 2 blocks away.

In the US, most "short barrel" shotguns are regulated/banned as well, being classified as "sawed off". This is a result of social bias during the '30 in that mobsters tended to use them.

The shotgun I have, however, is about 1" longer than the legal minimum. It's the one I keep loaded.

The criminals don't have to break into a house. Even if you managed to reduce the number of guns, the level of smuggling would just increase. Criminals tend not to care much about the laws.

Criminals in general are worse shots as they don't practice. Is this true for every one, no. Never said that. People who legally own guns, however tend to practice w/ them on a regular basis. Your average gun owner in the US is a better shot that the average police officer and trains more. You don't "suppose" the criminal is worse, you train to improve yourself and therefore more likely to be a better shot than the criminal.

Criminals don't often go to the range.

The Gov't has been losing them for years. Should we disarm the Gov't? ( I'ld almost say yes). Terrorists might also steal a propane truck and blow it up at a mall. Should we ban those?

Criminals need to be kept from getting guns. How? Increase prosecution/penalties for people knowingly selling/dealing them to criminals. Not this 4th & 5th person lawsuit crap that's going on right now. the criminals also need to be punished more. Increase sentencing on illegal ownership. Also go after the causes, drugs, poverty, illegal immigration, gangs culture, etc.

Why should Law Abiding Citizens be punished for the actions of criminals?


I'd also suggest regular training for the firearm police units, everyone here seems to be saying they turn up late and couldn't hit a barn door.

I'd also suggest regular training for the firearm police units, everyone here seems to be saying they turn up late and couldn't hit a barn door.

I agree. I'm not opposed to the police. I support them in every way I can. However, in the US, they tend to be undertrained, under equipped (or over equipped for their capabilities. I saw one heavily armed officer body armor helmet ar-15, the works, with his scope on backwards.) and hindered by local laws. ie Sanctuary laws preventing the many police from arresting known illegal immigrants. The courts have also ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual.

So we have politicians saying you can't protect yourself, and police that can't protect you. In areas where guns are banned, you're SOL.

I'd also suggest regular training for the firearm police units, everyone here seems to be saying they turn up late and couldn't hit a barn door.

Turning up too late is a given.

By the time you pull out a cell phone and reach the 911 operator, the mugger has now punched you in the face. Unless the police are standing there watching the events unfold, they are, no matter how well trained and supplied, going to be too late.

As for firearm accuracy, it's been well-documented that the pyramid of successful hit ratios goes from the legal gun owners, down to the felons, and to the bottom for the police.

Legal gun owners practice a LOT. I fire around 500 rounds per week, and I'm not alone at the range. The typical felon probably doesn't fire as much, but he does fire more often than the police, who on the average will qualify with their weapon once or twice a year. I'm firing more rounds in a week than the typical policeman fires in a year.

Most police see the gun as "work". Most are not particularly enthusiastic about shooting, except as a method of increasing their odds of making it to their retirement. So spending extra time at the range, like the typical civilian, is not something they're going to do. And, if you want to do the training on job time, that's about 8 hours a week to match what I do - take that 8 hour block right out of the 40 hours you wanted that policeman on the street.

Want to know why police departments went to the 15-shot 9mm as the standard, as opposed to the 6-shot revolver? Because they miss a lot, and the cost is prohibitive to raise the average skill level enough to make the revolver effective. More time is usually spent on safety (how not to shoot yourself with your new 9mm) than is spent on how to shoot effectively.

Right, I had to stop reading this thread from about half way so I apologise if what I'm about to say has already been mentioned or has already been discussed ad nausea on NS as a parallel to questioning the universal possession of a firearm(s).

I understand the argument over whether an American citizen should hold a firearm, i.e. to protect his family, himself/herself etc, and it’s not the tool, i.e. the gun, but the person behind it, i.e. their intentions, that cause the damage.

BUT: if I draw a parallel with the possession of nuclear weapons why is American foreign policy so worried about their proliferation?

I completely agree that irresponsible and hence dangerous nation states, (North Korea, Iran, former Saddam Hussein Iraq, etc), should not possess such weapons as they would pose a danger to the international community. But, American leaders are also against their possession by "responsible states" (e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel), because of the danger they pose, (as a weapon that could be deployed, e.g. over a local dispute like Kashmir, or filtered out to non-state actors, i.e. terrorists). However, the argument that such nations use to say why they have developed such weapons is for their own state's protection, (e.g. after the first Gulf War India and Pakistan pursued a nuclear capability due to the overwhelming conventional force that such nations like the USA could deploy, i.e. it was the only real currency to make powerful nations stake stock of).

Now I understand that the destructive power of a gun is completely different to the destructive power of a nuclear weapon but if you're the person being shot with a firearm surely it is nearly as destructive to your body and/or mind as a nuclear weapon (for argument's sake let's say you've been shot in the head/heart)? However the American political elite are pursuing policies (quite rightly I say) in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, (e.g. the NPT will soon be reviewed and probably tightened), due to the danger they pose to the international community even though they may be used, (and are argued to be used), in the to defence of a state's right to exist. However, domestically the possession of firearms is considered a right for every American to defend himself and herself and is not considered a danger even though its far harder to determine who's responsible or not (until they commit a crime and can be judged to be irresponsible) but by that point they could go "nuclear" and destroy a person through the use of a firearm for whatever reason.

The difference with nuclear weapons and conventional firearms that I can see are number of casualties caused and potentially the destruction of the human race, but if you're the one shot in the head, (i.e. dead), that's not going to bother you.

I'm sure this will be ripped apart and there are major flaws but I would like some feedback, constructive or otherwise....

So to ban guns from being held by people who's only intention is to use them at a club to shott targets does not make any sense.
Giving someone 15 years for an illegal gun does. As if you want to shoot it, join a club, if you have one and it is not registered and you do not have a legal place to shoot, I would assume it use was for crime. And as stated a gun is a perfect tool for murder. So hammer those who have them illegaly but give the person who is an upstanding citizen the benefit of doubt.

It makes perfect sense. The goal of every anti-gun law is the eventual disarmament of the citizenry.

In the UK, the excuses were anarchists/communists, a few guns were banned and some registration. No hunters would be affect or LAC's. Each step had new villians (crime, save the children, terrorists) and supposedly wouldn't affect LAC's until it was just a few people at the gun club who could own them. Then those got taken away and hunting is being banned.

That is why in the US, groups like the NRA, JPFO, and the NOR oppose "gun control" legislation because groups like VPC, MMM, and HCI are using the same tactics to whittle away our rights.

Right, I had to stop reading this thread from about half way so I apologise if what I'm about to say has already been mentioned or has already been discussed ad nausea on NS as a parallel to questioning the universal possession of a firearm(s).

I understand the argument over whether an American citizen should hold a firearm, i.e. to protect his family, himself/herself etc, and it?s not the tool, i.e. the gun, but the person behind it, i.e. their intentions, that cause the damage.

BUT: if I draw a parallel with the possession of nuclear weapons why is American foreign policy so worried about their proliferation?

I completely agree that irresponsible and hence dangerous nation states, (North Korea, Iran, former Saddam Hussein Iraq, etc), should not possess such weapons as they would pose a danger to the international community. But, American leaders are also against their possession by "responsible states" (e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel), because of the danger they pose, (as a weapon that could be deployed, e.g. over a local dispute like Kashmir, or filtered out to non-state actors, i.e. terrorists). However, the argument that such nations use to say why they have developed such weapons is for their own state's protection, (e.g. after the first Gulf War India and Pakistan pursued a nuclear capability due to the overwhelming conventional force that such nations like the USA could deploy, i.e. it was the only real currency to make powerful nations stake stock of).

Now I understand that the destructive power of a gun is completely different to the destructive power of a nuclear weapon but if you're the person being shot with a firearm surely it is nearly as destructive to your body and/or mind as a nuclear weapon (for argument's sake let's say you've been shot in the head/heart)? However the American political elite are pursuing policies (quite rightly I say) in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, (e.g. the NPT will soon be reviewed and probably tightened), due to the danger they pose to the international community even though they may be used, (and are argued to be used), in the to defence of a state's right to exist. However, domestically the possession of firearms is considered a right for every American to defend himself and herself and is not considered a danger even though its far harder to determine who's responsible or not (until they commit a crime and can be judged to be irresponsible) but by that point they could go "nuclear" and destroy a person through the use of a firearm for whatever reason.

The difference with nuclear weapons and conventional firearms that I can see are number of casualties caused and potentially the destruction of the human race, but if you're the one shot in the head, (i.e. dead), that's not going to bother you.

I'm sure this will be ripped apart and there are major flaws but I would like some feedback, constructive or otherwise....


The major difference is that a Nuke can kill millions while a gun might kill a few. That is where the biggest fault in your arguement lies. A gun can also be used for hunting, target shooting (an original olympic event), home defense, etc. A nuke does not have those purposes. The closest is the defense w/ the MAD arguement. Still not real good.

In the US, you're (in theory) innocent until proven guilty. Anti-gunners tend to assume that if you own a gun, you should be guilty until proven innocent, that you have "mental disorders", cowardly, etc. A person w/ a gun is not a criminal until they commit a crime. When they do, the punishment should be severe

Neither I, nor the women I train, store their guns in a drawer. It's either on their person, or sitting within arm's reach, in sight.

Guns that are not actively in use at my house are in the safe.

And yes, I have children. They are all far more familiar with gun handling than most of the people on this forum. My daughter (who is 12) is a better and faster shot than most of the local police.

And here's the crux of the matter: education. Most "accidents" come from parents not education their children about safety/dangers. They hide it away and pretend it doesn't exist so when the kid finds it, "oh look at the cool toy, I saw this in a movie". The same thing with OTC drugs. Child Safety Caps actually led to an increase in poisonings because parents stopped locking them up/teaching thier kids about the dangers.

The major difference is that a Nuke can kill millions while a gun might kill a few. That is where the biggest fault in your arguement lies. A gun can also be used for hunting, target shooting (an original olympic event), home defense, etc. A nuke does not have those purposes. The closest is the defense w/ the MAD arguement. Still not real good.

In the US, you're (in theory) innocent until proven guilty. Anti-gunners tend to assume that if you own a gun, you should be guilty until proven innocent, that you have "mental disorders", cowardly, etc. A person w/ a gun is not a criminal until they commit a crime. When they do, the punishment should be severe

But isn't a nation state merely a societal collection of the general populace? Thus the defence of one's nation through MAD, (which some acdemics would argue has been an effective balancing act for non-nuclear war), is similar to the defence of oneself and/or family, (i.e. you have a gun but I also have a gun). The scale is merely smaller but the affect is the same, but still American leaders are nervous about their proliferation to even responsible states.

And I did say that only by commiting a crime are you deemed guilty/irresponsible, but if you commit the crime with a gun and kill a person for that person it doesn't matter if you use a gun or nuke, they are still dead. For that person its too late. Again is it merely down to scale. Millions compared to one.

But I completely agree that you can't use nukes for sport or anything constructive.....

<snip>

But I completely agree that you can't use nukes for sport or anything constructive.....

Well, you CAN use them to create large, glass-surfaced underground voids/storage tanks.... ;)

<snip>(or over equipped for their capabilities. I saw one heavily armed officer body armor helmet ar-15, the works, with his scope on backwards.) <snip>
Aw, give the guy a break. He was probably far sighted. :rolleyes:

But isn't a nation state merely a societal collection of the general populace? Thus the defence of one's nation through MAD, (which some acdemics would argue has been an effective balancing act for non-nuclear war), is similar to the defence of oneself and/or family, (i.e. you have a gun but I also have a gun). The scale is merely smaller but the affect is the same, but still American leaders are nervous about their proliferation to even responsible states.

And I did say that only by commiting a crime are you deemed guilty/irresponsible, but if you commit the crime with a gun and kill a person for that person it doesn't matter if you use a gun or nuke, they are still dead. For that person its too late. Again is it merely down to scale. Millions compared to one.

But I completely agree that you can't use nukes for sport or anything constructive.....

Scale is the issue, you can also destroy the environment w/ nukes as well as entire populations. The effect is not the same.

Aw, give the guy a break. He was probably far sighted. :rolleyes:

It was a laser scope. I would have loved to see him turn it on.

It was a laser scope. I would have loved to see him turn it on.
Laser scope? There are projected laser aming devices, and non-projected light-type sights/scopes (Aimpoint et. al.) but I don't recall ever seeing a scope (telescopic look-through sight) with an integrated laser that would, as you imply, laze his eye.

Though a red-dot on his forhead would look pretty funny.

Stupidity should be terminal. (Him, not you)

Scale is the issue, you can also destroy the environment w/ nukes as well as entire populations. The effect is not the same.

For the person being targeted it isn't. They are still dead. Other concerns like the environment and the death of others can be of no concern to you.

And isn't much harder for responsible states to use nuclear weapons, i.e. the political checks and balances, than a person who has no such restrictions, only the punishment afterwards delegated by the laws of the nation, (thats even if they get caught).

To start this off, I'd like to say that I do consider myself a "democrat". Does this mean that I blindly follow every decision the talking heads say? To be perfectly honest, I think gun control is a terrible idea. It is impossible to stop illegal guns from getting into a country, from being produced illegally, etc; criminals will always have guns. Disarming the people who actually need to protect themselves is such complete hypocricy under the guise of safety that I'm not sure why people are still gung-ho for it.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."-Ben Franklin
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."-Anonymous bumper sticker

So, what makes you a democrat?

But if the issue is self defence, then the better weapon would, as suggested, be a shotgun (short barrel) the stopping power is fantastic, the big bore would scare the s**t out of someone and its short range would help prevent killing inocent people 2 blocks away.

Yes, shotguns make excellent HOME defense weaopns. But when you're out and about, a pistol is the least restrictive option. You can hide it so those who fear chunks of metal won't know, but you'll have it if you need it.

I know people who have died or killed somone in gun related accidents, I've also had friends who have taken their own life with guns. I haven't read the whole thread, but here (http://www.kidsandguns.org/images/Download-FactsaboutKidsandGuns.doc) are some facts from kidsandguns.org

From 1996-2001, more than 1,530 children were killed in firearm accidents.
In each of the last 10 years an average of 1,273 kids committed suicide with a firearm; 145 were under 15-years-old.
In 2002, there were 13,053 kids injured by a firearm – an additional 16,182 kids were injured from BB/pellet guns.
34% of children in the U.S. (representing more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in homes with at least one firearm.
Among homes with children and firearms, 40% had at least one unlocked firearm and 13% kept their unlocked firearm loaded or stored with ammunition.
In 30% of handgun-owning households, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey.
In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
47% of high school students said they could obtain a gun if they wanted to, while 22% of middle school students said they could get a firearm.


To me this is scary stuff.

I know people who have died or killed somone in gun related accidents, I've also had friends who have taken their own life with guns. I haven't read the whole thread, but here (http://www.kidsandguns.org/images/Download-FactsaboutKidsandGuns.doc) are some facts from kidsandguns.org

From 1996-2001, more than 1,530 children were killed in firearm accidents.

Hmm, lets see, that's 306 per year, out of 294,000,000+/- . Assuming the much bandied "one gun per USian", that's a .000001041 chance of a child being killed in a "gun accident". Look up the stats for drowning in bathtubs, pools or "deaths in bicycle accidents."

Edit: here's a good one. Drownings Facts & Figures
Each year, nationwide, about 300 children under 5 years old drown in swimming pools, usually a pool owned by their family. In addition, more than 2,000 children in that age group are treated in hospital emergency rooms for submersion injuries. (http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/safety/prevent_child_drownings.html)

Or this one: Bicycle/In-Line Skating/Skateboarding Safety - Injury Statistics and Incidence Rates
The following statistics are the latest available from the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): (http://wo-pub2.med.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PublicPediatrics.woa/1/wa/viewContent?contentID=3007&wosid=cULbPNhd57lX2AVoRKKogg)
Injury and death rates
A total of 203 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes in 1998.
Since 1992, more than 37 children ages 14 and under have died in in-line skating crashes - the majority of the crashes were collisions with motor vehicles.
More than 382,000 children ages 14 and under were treated for bicycle-related injuries at hospital emergency rooms in 1999.
More than 58,600 children ages 5 to 14 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for in-line skating-related injuries, and more than 27,000 children ages 5 to 14 were treated for roller-skating-related injuries in 1999.
More than 32,200 children ages 5 to 14 were treated for skateboarding-related injuries in hospital emergency rooms in 1999.

THOSE are injuries to CHILDREN.

In each of the last 10 years an average of 1,273 kids committed suicide with a firearm; 145 were under 15-years-old.
Is that 145 in the last 10 years or an average od 145 sub 15 year olds per year? Even using the higher number, it is so statisticly insignificant as to not merit comment.

In 2002, there were 13,053 kids injured by a firearm – an additional 16,182 kids were injured from BB/pellet guns.
No, "Kids" do not get injured "by chunks of metal" in the numbers you cite... unless you believe that sub-20 year old gang-bangers are "Kids".
To use the word "Kids" in this way is disingenuous and inflamatory. As for BB guns? Define Injury. I've been injured with a BB gun. The welt stung for an hour. Poor me.

34% of children in the U.S. (representing more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in homes with at least one firearm.
So? 99+% of children live in homes with bathtubs.

Among homes with children and firearms, 40% had at least one unlocked firearm and 13% kept their unlocked firearm loaded or stored with ammunition. In 30% of handgun-owning households, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey.
Some people are Stupid. You can't legislate stupidity. But that citation doesn't take into account people like me who keep one loaded gun on their person at all times. That's hardly "unsecured" even if it is "unlocked" and loaded.

In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
Look at that Cite. Since when are 18-19 year olds "Kids"? Oh, and where else would one store a firearm? In the Zoo? Of course it was "in the residence of".

47% of high school students said they could obtain a gun if they wanted to, while 22% of middle school students said they could get a firearm.


Again, so? How was the question asked? In my hometown in Wyoming, that number would have been in the 90% range for both. Of course they "could", but they "could" also build propane bombs. The Columbine Gits did. The school was just lucky they didn't set them off before offing themselves.

To me this is scary stuff.
Then hide under your kids under the bed until they are 21, because the fact is, once active gang/criminal activity is excluded, "kids" are far more likely to be injured by ANYTHING ELSE than a firearm.

But don't let facts change your opinion.

Hmm, lets see, that's 306 per year, out of 294,000,000+/- . Assuming the much bandied "one gun per USian", that's a .000001041 chance of a child being injured in a gun accident. Look up the stats for drowning in bathtubs or "deaths in bicycle accidents."


Is that 145 in the last 10 years or an average od 145 sub 15 year olds per year? Even using the higher number, it is so statisticly insignificant as to not merit comment.


No, "Kids" do not get injured "by chunks of metal" in the numbers you cite... unless you believe that sub-20 year old gang-bangers are "Kids".
To use the word "Kids" in this way is disingenuous and inflamatory. As for BB guns? Define Injury. I've been injured with a BB gun. The welt stung for an hour. Poor me.


So? 99+% of children live in homes with bathtubs.


Some people are Stupid. You can't legislate stupidity. But that citation doesn't take into account people like me who keep one loaded gun on their person at all times. That's hardly "unsecured" even if it is "unlocked".


Look at that Cite. Since when are 18-19 year olds "Kids"? Oh, and where else would one store a firearm? In the Zoo? Of course it was "in the residence of".



Again, so? How was the question asked? In my hometown in Wyoming, that number would have been in the 90% range for both. Of course they "could", but they "could" also build propane bombs. The Columbine Gits did. The school was just lucky they didn't set them off before offing themselves.


Then hide under your kids under the bed until they are 21, because the fact is, once active gang/criminal activity is excluded, "kids" are far more likely to be injured by ANYTHING ELSE than a firearm.

But don't let facts change your opinion.


At what age do signoff on children? at 13 when they might join a gang, at 16 when they can smoke (in UK), at 17 when they can drive (in uk), at 21 when the get full adult rights?

"Kids" is subjective, but hiding them under your bed unless they might thnk it's cool to join a gang is not going to work.

At what age do signoff on children? at 13 when they might join a gang, at 16 when they can smoke (in UK), at 17 when they can drive (in uk), at 21 when the get full adult rights?

"Kids" is subjective, but hiding them under your bed unless they might thnk it's cool to join a gang is not going to work.
Absolutely. But using a broad definition of "child" in order to scare parents and hide the real danger (i.e. gang behavior) is simple manipulation for a political agenda.

Absolutely. But using a broad definition of "child" in order to scare parents and hide the real danger (i.e. gang behavior) is simple manipulation for a political agenda.

that works both ways. Calling them gang members, "everyone has a mother" as the saying goes.

At what age do signoff on children? at 13 when they might join a gang, at 16 when they can smoke (in UK), at 17 when they can drive (in uk), at 21 when the get full adult rights?

"Kids" is subjective, but hiding them under your bed unless they might thnk it's cool to join a gang is not going to work.

In order to boost firearm death statistics amongst "children", the US government under Clinton changed the upper age limit from 18 to 21.

That permitted a lot of gang deaths to be recorded as "child deaths".

When you're 18, you're old enough to vote, and to join the military. You're well old enough to drive a car. Here in the US, other than for drinking alcohol, 18 is the generally accepted limit for "child". And depending on which felony you might commit, the limit for "child" might be lower - say 16.

I find it specious to count 19 to 21 year old adults as "children" in any statistic.

In order to boost firearm death statistics amongst "children", the US government under Clinton changed the upper age limit from 18 to 21.

That permitted a lot of gang deaths to be recorded as "child deaths".

When you're 18, you're old enough to vote, and to join the military. You're well old enough to drive a car. Here in the US, other than for drinking alcohol, 18 is the generally accepted limit for "child". And depending on which felony you might commit, the limit for "child" might be lower - say 16.

I find it specious to count 19 to 21 year old adults as "children" in any statistic.

I agree.
Then again, I know a lot of 21-28 year olds that are still immature.

I personally, think that a maturity/inteligence test should be standard, and control a lot of "rights", we could then let the sensible people do what they want. but thats an extreeeemly unpopular position.

I asumed the kids were under 18. But I can't understand how you can compare guns to bathtubs. There is a fundamental difference, one was designed to kill or injure humans (handguns) the other for washing yourself.

Some people are Stupid. You can't legislate stupidity. But that citation doesn't take into account people like me who keep one loaded gun on their person at all times. That's hardly "unsecured" even if it is "unlocked" and loaded.

:eek: At all times? When you go shopping? When you go to the pub for a beer with your friends? This is the kind of thing I don't understand. Why would you feel you have to carry a gun around at all times, is there an incident where a gun would have helped in any way, saved your life? The way I see it people who carry guns are creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. You never know when someone might pull a gun on you.

I have myself only touched only one gun in my life and that was my grandfathers and I refused to do military service (compulsory min.6 months) because I felt society doesn't have to teach every 18 year old how to kill other people. I did 13 months of civil service in a healthcare center instead.

I know people who have died or killed somone in gun related accidents, I've also had friends who have taken their own life with guns. I haven't read the whole thread, but here (http://www.kidsandguns.org/images/Download-FactsaboutKidsandGuns.doc) are some facts from kidsandguns.org

From 1996-2001, more than 1,530 children were killed in firearm accidents.
In each of the last 10 years an average of 1,273 kids committed suicide with a firearm; 145 were under 15-years-old.
In 2002, there were 13,053 kids injured by a firearm – an additional 16,182 kids were injured from BB/pellet guns.
34% of children in the U.S. (representing more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in homes with at least one firearm.
Among homes with children and firearms, 40% had at least one unlocked firearm and 13% kept their unlocked firearm loaded or stored with ammunition.
In 30% of handgun-owning households, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey.
In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
47% of high school students said they could obtain a gun if they wanted to, while 22% of middle school students said they could get a firearm.


To me this is scary stuff.


A couple of those lines had ages. That's good. What about the other lines?

Also, since when is an 18-19 year-old a child? They go to jail as an adult....

That's the thing that bothers me about the anti-gun sites, when they talk about children. They don't actually limit the numbers to children. Some of the Brady numbers use "children" up to the age of 23.

Last I checked, there are some high-schoolers that are 18. They are legal to buy a rifle in the state of Wisconsin at that point, so 47% doesn't surprise me.

I personally, think that a maturity/inteligence test should be standard, and control a lot of "rights", we could then let the sensible people do what they want. but thats an extreeeemly unpopular position.

I saw how they did that in the UK.

I was at a seaside cliff over a beach (about a 200 meter drop). Not a guardrail in sight. No park ranger to shoo me away from the edge. No warning signs saying, "LOOK OUT! DANGEROUS CLIFF!"

Nope. I think they figured good riddance to idiots if they didn't watch their step.

I heard a man and his son were swept away not far from there. They went down to the beach at low tide, and the tide came in faster than they could run back to the ladder at the cliff. The man managed to call on his cell phone, but he and his son drowned before a helicopter could arrive.

He was an adult, and was doing what he wanted to do. I can't help it if he's completely stupid.

I asumed the kids were under 18. But I can't understand how you can compare guns to bathtubs. There is a fundamental difference, one was designed to kill or injure humans (handguns) the other for washing yourself..
I believe the point is, that bathtubs seem to be much more dangerous to kids health than guns.
And I've said it before... not all guns were designed to kill or injure humans. That seems to be a point anti gun types like to make "a gun's sole purpose is to kill etc. etc." Which simply isn't true.


:eek: At all times? When you go shopping? When you go to the pub for a beer with your friends? This is the kind of thing I don't understand. Why would you feel you have to carry a gun around at all times, is there an incident where a gun would have helped in any way, saved your life? The way I see it people who carry guns are creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. You never know when someone might pull a gun on you.

I have myself only touched only one gun in my life and that was my grandfathers and I refused to do military service (compulsory min.6 months) because I felt society doesn't have to teach every 18 year old how to kill other people. I did 13 months of civil service in a healthcare center instead.
How is a person who carries concealed (i.e. no one knows they are carrying) creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia? Rather, it's those who (and I have to assume) like you who are afraid of guns that create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia as you seem to believe that gun ownership leads to OK Corral-esque shootouts in the street and children dying in multitudes.

not all guns were designed to kill or injure humans. That seems to be a point anti gun types like to make "a gun's sole purpose is to kill etc. etc." Which simply isn't true.


Erm, yes it is

A gun is a weapon. Its primary purpose is the injury/killing of something alive. It may be used in sports such as clay pidgon shooting and marksmanship etc but in all of those it is still a weapon.

I asumed the kids were under 18. But I can't understand how you can compare guns to bathtubs. There is a fundamental difference, one was designed to kill or injure humans (handguns) the other for washing yourself.
Yet one is as statistically deadly as the other (in regards to children). Since guns are so much more "deadly", I wonder why that is?


:eek: At all times? When you go shopping? When you go to the pub for a beer with your friends? This is the kind of thing I don't understand. Why would you feel you have to carry a gun around at all times, is there an incident where a gun would have helped in any way, saved your life?
Three times, in fact. (I discount the times I used a firearm in commission of my duties as a security officer.) I have been the "victim" of an attempted strong-arm robbery by a gang of youths with knives & clubs, I have been the "victim" of an attempted car-jacking, and I have been the "victim" of an attempts assault with a tire-iron. In each case, had I not been armed I would likely have been injured or killed - certainly roughed-up and robbed.

The way I see it people who carry guns are creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. You never know when someone might pull a gun on you. I carry a gun concealed so no one has to feel fearful of it. What they can't see won't frighten them. I carry a gun because I never know when someone might threaten me with a weapon. If you don't threaten me, you won't know I have it.

I have myself only touched only one gun in my life and that was my grandfathers and I refused to do military service (compulsory min.6 months) because I felt society doesn't have to teach every 18 year old how to kill other people. I did 13 months of civil service in a healthcare center instead.

That is your perogative. I won't fault or berate you for it. But please don't try to force me to adhere to your lifestyle. I may have to save your life someday and it would be rather too bad if your actions prevented me from doing so.

Erm, yes it is

A gun is a weapon. Its primary purpose is the injury/killing of something alive. It may be used in sports such as clay pidgon shooting and marksmanship etc but in all of those it is still a weapon.
Yah, but so is/was a YoYo and the Boomerang. And the Knife, and The Bow & arrow, and explosives... you would be surprised to know what things were initially designed to be used to hurt people and break things, but are now generally considered benign or useful.

Yah, but so is/was a YoYo and the Boomerang. And the Knife, and The Bow & arrow, and explosives... you would be surprised to know what things were initially designed to be used to hurt people and break things, but are now generally considered benign or useful.

Yo-yo = now unbladed, safe

Boomerang = now unbladed, safe

Knife = Erm, this is still outlawed. You cannot carry a knife on your person in a public place

Bow and arrow = Again, if it is leathally tiped it counts as an illegal weapon and cannot be owned privately

Explosives = You have got to be kidding. There is no way these things can be owned privately any more in any fashion that is safe. Mining corperations use them but no one ever uses them privately

You have failed in your attempt to prove a gun valid for private use for a purpose other than killing someone else.

Yo-yo = now unbladed, safe

Boomerang = now unbladed, safe
So? My point was simply reflecting on the issue of "design".

Knife = Erm, this is still outlawed. You cannot carry a knife on your person in a public place
Where you live, perhaps. But then, how does one get a Chef's knife from the shops to home if it is illegal to carry one in public? (Sorry m'lud, I was carrying a knife... sure it was a Henkel Fridour Chefs Knife, but it's a fair cop...)

Bow and arrow = Again, if it is leathally tiped it counts as an illegal weapon and cannot be owned privately
Again, where you live. Where I live they are used extensively for hunting and competition. Oh, and any tip on an arrow can be lethal... even the blunts used to take rabbits. So I guess Competitive Archery is right out.

Explosives = You have got to be kidding. There is no way these things can be owned privately any more in any fashion that is safe. Mining corperations use them but no one ever uses them privately
Where you live. I used to use ammonium nitrate frequently to make ponds and post holes out on the Ranch in Wyoming. Dynamite could be had with a simple BATFE form when stumps &/or boulders needed to be removed.

You also use the term "any more", which intimates that there WAS, infact, legitimate non-military/death related personal ownership of explosives at one time. That gets us right back to the begining, that while it was developed to kill people, it has/had alternate, positive uses.

You have failed in your attempt to prove a gun valid for private use for a purpose other than killing someone else.
Only where you live. But I didn't think I had to prove the validity of somthing you yourself admitten, that: It may be used in sports such as clay pidgon shooting and marksmanship etc(none of which makes them weapons) My personally owned firearms have never been used to injure or kill anyone - even when they have been used in self defense. My personally owned firearms HAVE, however, earned me not a few trophies and some cash for participating in competitions. Those seem like fairly valid purposes to me.

The difference between a Weapon and Sporting Equipment is the intent/ideation of the (be)holder.

My Basebal/Cricket Bat is your Club.
My PC is your Virus Incubator
My Target Rifle is your Siper Rifle
My Spanner is your Cosh
My Camp Machette is your Sword
My Petrol is your Fire Bomb

Who here has the problem? :rolleyes:

But isn't a nation state merely a societal collection of the general populace? Thus the defence of one's nation through MAD, (which some acdemics would argue has been an effective balancing act for non-nuclear war), is similar to the defence of oneself and/or family, (i.e. you have a gun but I also have a gun). The scale is merely smaller but the affect is the same, but still American leaders are nervous about their proliferation to even responsible states.

And I did say that only by commiting a crime are you deemed guilty/irresponsible, but if you commit the crime with a gun and kill a person for that person it doesn't matter if you use a gun or nuke, they are still dead. For that person its too late. Again is it merely down to scale. Millions compared to one.

But I completely agree that you can't use nukes for sport or anything constructive.....

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


With a gun, you have a modicum of power, but not enough to do much without severe repercussions. With a nuke, however, it becomes the perfect tool for extortion.

Erm, yes it is

A gun is a weapon. Its primary purpose is the injury/killing of something alive. It may be used in sports such as clay pidgon shooting and marksmanship etc but in all of those it is still a weapon.
Actually, you are changing the context of the quote.
not all guns were designed to kill or injure humans
You claim that the primary purpose is to kill something alive, which is true. The gun is also designed to kill game for purpose of sport and food.

Yo-yo = now unbladed, safe

Boomerang = now unbladed, safe

Knife = Erm, this is still outlawed. You cannot carry a knife on your person in a public place

Bow and arrow = Again, if it is leathally tiped it counts as an illegal weapon and cannot be owned privately

Explosives = You have got to be kidding. There is no way these things can be owned privately any more in any fashion that is safe. Mining corperations use them but no one ever uses them privately

You have failed in your attempt to prove a gun valid for private use for a purpose other than killing someone else.

That's on you, though. We've all given valid examples--you just deem them invalid.

You have failed in your attempt to prove a gun valid for private use for a purpose other than killing someone else.

There are valid reasons for killing people, Neo.

It's called self-defense. Of course, being from the UK, you have a radically different view from the legal view here in the US.

Here, in the US, a woman is well within her rights to shoot a man dead who is attacking her with the intent to do serious bodily harm even if he is only armed with his bare hands.

That's because we find a live unraped woman in combination with a dead attempted rapist morally superior to a dead innocent woman and a live sexual predator.

<snip>
That's because we find a live unraped woman in combination with a dead attempted rapist morally superior to a dead innocent woman and a live sexual predator.

That is just unreasonable. Here in Ireland you are not allowed to have any kind of weapon at all (a blade of length greater than 7 inches must be blunted) and in return all we have to put up with is home invasions (sometimes to steal your car keys, sometimes to steal everything), assault (very common) and one in four women experiencing sexual assault (although this figure may be higher) with a REPORTED rape conviction rate of 5%.

OBVIOUSLY we are much better off in Europe. :rolleyes:

That is just unreasonable. Here in Ireland you are not allowed to have any kind of weapon at all (a blade of length greater than 7 inches must be blunted) and in return all we have to put up with is home invasions (sometimes to steal your car keys, sometimes to steal everything), assault (very common) and one in four women experiencing sexual assault (although this figure may be higher) with a REPORTED rape conviction rate of 5%.

OBVIOUSLY we are much better off in Europe. :rolleyes:

Wow. Yeah, your government is looking out for the people....ouch. But dang, you sure can't overthrow that government that is so looking out for ya.

You have my sympathies.

I'd just like to say that the first link on the first page is broken, and the second is just moronic, regardless of your views on gun control.
If gun control = tyranny, then I guess New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Ireland, and most of Europe (off the top of my head) are all tyrannys.

To argue for or against gun control is fine, but sites like this are just insulting and downright damaging to the pro-gun side.

Wow. Yeah, your government is looking out for the people....ouch. But dang, you sure can't overthrow that government that is so looking out for ya.

So can you then? Even with your guns, do you think it's actually possible for a bunch of civilians with pistols/hunting rifles/whatever to actually overthrow the US government? I'd sure like to see you try.

To pull that off you'd need the military on your side, and whoops, it turns out they have all the guns you'd need anyway. :rolleyes:

terrist/iraqi/saudi thread hijack
:mp5:
Whoever was the original poster,you suck for making this a 41 Page Thread of Bitching and Moaning (Well some,The rest make exellent debates,with proof to back up)
:mp5:
end of terrist/iraqi/saudi hijack

Wow. Yeah, your government is looking out for the people....ouch. But dang, you sure can't overthrow that government that is so looking out for ya.

You have my sympathies.

Sure you can overthrow the government, you just convince the people to vote for you or someone with the same views, it's called democracy. I would say owerthrowing a government (that was voted for by the people) would create tyrany.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country that was so backwards and uncivilised that I felt I had to have a gun to protect myself.

All I can say is for everyone that is Pro-Gun it is a waste of time to argue this thread. One thing I have learned in life is you will never convince a bleeding heart liberal they are wrong. Half of them probably think Adolf Hitler was a sensitive man and his methods of disarming his victims were brilliant because he had the best intrest of the people in mind.

So can you then? Even with your guns, do you think it's actually possible for a bunch of civilians with pistols/hunting rifles/whatever to actually overthrow the US government? I'd sure like to see you try.

To pull that off you'd need the military on your side, and whoops, it turns out they have all the guns you'd need anyway. :rolleyes:

An infantry of 80 million....not a sight any government wants to see thrown against it.

It's been stated before that if the US military is so hot, why are under-equipped Iraqis still a problem for them?

You greatly exaggerate the potential of the US military. Not to mention, if the military were ordered to actually lock down the country, half would leave and join the rebellion.

Sure you can overthrow the government, you just convince the people to vote for you or someone with the same views, it's called democracy. I would say owerthrowing a government (that was voted for by the people) would create tyrany.

Kinda like we did 230 years ago, eh? Well, we didn't actually vote that particular government in....but it's been proven that it can be done.

PS. We're a federal republic, not a flat, mob-rule democracy. The individual is supposed to be as important.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country that was so backwards and uncivilised that I felt I had to have a gun to protect myself.

You like to live in dreamland, then? Neat. If you don't want to be prepared for certain situations, that's your prerogative. Some of us like to be ready for just about anything.

There are valid reasons for killing people, Neo.

It's called self-defense. Of course, being from the UK, you have a radically different view from the legal view here in the US.

Here, in the US, a woman is well within her rights to shoot a man dead who is attacking her with the intent to do serious bodily harm even if he is only armed with his bare hands.

That's because we find a live unraped woman in combination with a dead attempted rapist morally superior to a dead innocent woman and a live sexual predator.

You better be sure not to upset any women then. once your dead, its hard to plead your innocence.
I'm not suggesting that all or even most women would do this but a few would and a few dead innocent men does screw up your high morals.

Valid reasons to kill?
In self defence when your are in danger of being killed?
How about I shoot the bad drivers, they are more likely to kill me than an attacker. It is a speculative position to be in, one when your likely to err on the side of you walking away safely, so you kill more people than you "need" to on the Self defence basis. This is why you really want to start training and employing more police to do your defending for you, that way an independent Professional can make the judgement. You pay for the doctor to make life and death decisions, why not the police.

You pay for the doctor to make life and death decisions, why not the police.

If the police didn't take 40 minutes to get there there would be no problems.
A student of mine ended up getting mugged, he managed to get away and call the cops. You know what he was told? "Do not call us unless someone is bleeding." In a case like that, I will not be the one bleeding.


Why is it that everyone seems to ignore the fact that guns are being used for recreation?

I see one guy from Australia asking why we need one gun let alone four. I have several that I have collected for just that. I take em out about once a month to go target shooting. I keep them in a secure place when I am not using them. So why is it that anti-gunners want to take away my toys?

You better be sure not to upset any women then. once your dead, its hard to plead your innocence.
I'm not suggesting that all or even most women would do this but a few would and a few dead innocent men does screw up your high morals.


I'd say be cordial to EVERYONE you meet. This way, there would be no reason to be worried.


Valid reasons to kill?
In self defence when your are in danger of being killed?


Uh, YAH.


How about I shoot the bad drivers, they are more likely to kill me than an attacker. It is a speculative position to be in, one when your likely to err on the side of you walking away safely, so you kill more people than you "need" to on the Self defence basis. This is why you really want to start training and employing more police to do your defending for you, that way an independent Professional can make the judgement. You pay for the doctor to make life and death decisions, why not the police.

An independent professional???? They can't shoot half as well as most private citizens! And they most certainly don't know the laws. Doctors screw up on a REGULAR basis, too. Sheesh. You just blindly trust someone that shows you a slip of paper that says, "I'm qualified"???? Damn, dude.

It's been pointed out time and again, in the US, the police are NOT responsible for protecting the individual. Only enforcing the laws. If they take the perpetrator in, it doesn't matter if the person they stabbed is dead or not. It only adds to the charges. The police don't have to even attempt to save the victim. There are those that would try to save the individual from being attacked, but they aren't required to.

You better be sure not to upset any women then. once your dead, its hard to plead your innocence.
I'm not suggesting that all or even most women would do this but a few would and a few dead innocent men does screw up your high morals.


Here in Virginia, if a woman is abused by her husband, and can demonstrate to the court that he poses an immediate and constant threat to her life and limb, then she can have a "protective order".

This is a misnomer, because all it does is give the police the right to arrest the husband IF he's still there when they get there. Otherwise, they turn around and go back to the station, and the man usually returns to harass the woman again.

These are fearful, frightening, life-threatening, and sometimes lethal situations. The mere fact that the protective order was obtained more than doubles the chances that the woman will be killed outright - because the husband now takes it as an affront and a challenge. The most common method of murder in these cases is beating and strangulation.

Since self-defense in the state of Virginia requires you to prove that the person you shot posed an immediate threat to life and limb, the protective order has the salutary effect of proving that in advance.

So we're not just having women in the position to make the judgment themselves - the court has already decided that the man is lethal. And thus, so armed with the backing of the court's opinion of the man, and with a gun in her hand, she is at liberty to defend herself should he choose to threaten her again.

It works. And so far, no husbands have been shot. These men understand something I call the "bright line" - the line where they dare not cross out of fear of punishment or death. They know that if the woman calls the police, they have many minutes to play with tormenting the woman until the bright line says they have to leave to avoid arrest. And they know that if there's a protective order, and she's armed, the bright line puts him in the position of staying very, very far away.

The only way you can argue in favour of the 2nd amendment in a fair way is to get rid of licensing, which allows the government to say who is allowed guns and who isn't. Either everyone has the right or nobody does.

THEN try and see if everyone's so gung ho about the whole matter. Wouldn't do, arming those who might not share your beliefs, would it?

Why is it that everyone seems to ignore the fact that guns are being used for recreation?

I see one guy from Australia asking why we need one gun let alone four. I have several that I have collected for just that. I take em out about once a month to go target shooting. I keep them in a secure place when I am not using them. So why is it that anti-gunners want to take away my toys?
I'm not against the use of guns as recreation. I'm all for hunting and target practice, but I don't want people to have guns in their homes let alone on their person. I know this is near impossible to implement, but I still think it's worth striving for.

I'm not against the use of guns as recreation. I'm all for hunting and target practice, but I don't want people to have guns in their homes let alone on their person. I know this is near impossible to implement, but I still think it's worth striving for.

So what are you going to tell the women I train - go back to your husband and let him beat you to death?

I see that on a woman to woman basis, my arming of women is working much better than even the domestic violence services provided by UK police. None of the women I've trained have been assaulted or killed since their abusive spouse learned that they had guns. In the UK, a woman is killed every three days by domestic violence.

Nice system.

The only way you can argue in favour of the 2nd amendment in a fair way is to get rid of licensing, which allows the government to say who is allowed guns and who isn't. Either everyone has the right or nobody does.

THEN try and see if everyone's so gung ho about the whole matter. Wouldn't do, arming those who might not share your beliefs, would it?

Actually, I wouldn't mind at all. I don't fear people because they have a firearm even when they disagree with me. If I have a firearm then I have as much chance as them, it evens out if everyone is armed and it evens out if no one is armed, but neither situation is possible.
Firearms were made and then the cat was out of the bag. Why do people think we can magically put it back in?

<snip>This is why you really want to start training and employing more police to do your defending for you, that way an independent Professional can make the judgement. You pay for the doctor to make life and death decisions, why not the police.

Quoted from Telegraph.co.uk:

Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Directorate believed that they planned to rob the Colombian, a rival, of drugs and money and possibly to kidnap him.

A car containing three black men was stopped in Hale Lane, Edgware, north London, at around 8pm on Saturday and officers in a police vehicle tried to shoot its tyres to prevent it escaping.

At the same time, sources said that a man in the rear was seen to be "making a move" which was thought to be reaching for a gun. One officer - said to be an experienced "specialist firearms officer", the most highly trained members of SO19 - opened fire.

It is said the officers feared that the man posed a threat to their lives.

It is thought that up to eight shots were fired, some of which shattered the window of the suspects' car, and that three hit the man, who was in his twenties, in the head.
End of quote

For every ten cars the police stop on suspicion of possessing a firearm, they get one gun.

So to clarify:
The police imagined they were criminals.
The police imagined they were armed.
The police imagined they were a threat.
The police REALLY DID shoot one dead, on a 10% chance.

And you ask that we trust these people?
(I say imagined because, factually, at the time of the murder they did not know. )

Full article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=QC5U5YATCOWVZQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/05/02/nshoot02.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=55268) (May require registration.)

If the police didn't take 40 minutes to get there there would be no problems.
A student of mine ended up getting mugged, he managed to get away and call the cops. You know what he was told? "Do not call us unless someone is bleeding." In a case like that, I will not be the one bleeding.


Why is it that everyone seems to ignore the fact that guns are being used for recreation?

I see one guy from Australia asking why we need one gun let alone four. I have several that I have collected for just that. I take em out about once a month to go target shooting. I keep them in a secure place when I am not using them. So why is it that anti-gunners want to take away my toys?


I am not ignoring that you have guns for fun. It's just not what I'm discussing.

I am trying to understand that in a first world country, you feel that everyone needs to carry a weapon for personal safety. It just is not nessersary here in the UK, (I know we have some less salubrious areas, I have lived/worked in them for most of my life) I have never needed to carry a weapon, the only people I know who did/do are attacked on a regular basis which I can put down to thier own idiocy. It would be nice if there were no bad people but being aware of basic safety is normally sufficient.

The point of interest, and difference between the US and the UK is the use of force and the acceptability of killing (at least potentially) someone.

In the UK we are not legally allowed to carry firearms, knifes with a blade over 3" or that lock (regardless of blade length), and you as a defender must only use "resonable" force to restrain the attack. For me as a martial artist any defence must be made with the minimum of force as I have gained knowledge of unarmed and weapon combat.

The US posters here have repeatedly stated that you can kill/shoot an unarmed attacker in a public place.

These are very different positions and the discussion is trying to aid an understanding.

That you can and wish to own guns is your own perogative and I have no issue with it.

The only way you can argue in favour of the 2nd amendment in a fair way is to get rid of licensing, which allows the government to say who is allowed guns and who isn't. Either everyone has the right or nobody does.

THEN try and see if everyone's so gung ho about the whole matter. Wouldn't do, arming those who might not share your beliefs, would it?

I don't have a problem with everyone being free to defend themselves. Attacking another would still be illegal. So, yeah, I'm still gung-ho.

I have never needed to carry a weapon, the only people I know who did/do are attacked on a regular basis which I can put down to thier own idiocy. It would be nice if there were no bad people but being aware of basic safety is normally sufficient.

Really, you're blaming the victim for the crime now. That's immoral.

The US posters here have repeatedly stated that you can kill/shoot an unarmed attacker in a public place.

You have to demonstrate that they posed a lethal threat to you. A 6 foot 4 inch, 240 pound 25 year old man of athletic build beating a 110 pound 5 foot 2 inch woman is a lethal threat to her. I, on the other hand, would probably not be able to justify shooting him if he were attacking me, unless he had already given me a serious injury and demonstrated (by word or action) an intent to kill me. A large man beating a small woman is by definition demonstrating such an intent. So she could shoot him, or I could move to defend her and shoot him as well.

Armed civilians who stop crimes are far less likely to be involved in unjustified shootings than the police. It's because in most cases, they know their attacker and are familiar with the local circumstances - police who show up have trouble knowing what's going on in time to make an accurate decision.

Just a misconception of yours that civilians are somehow less able to make decisions than police. They are three times less likely per shooter than the police to make a mistake. They are many times more likely to hit the bad guy than the police. The police miss far more often than they hit, unlike the legally armed civilian who hits more often than they miss.

By your definition, the police are positively dangerous and untrustworthy compared to our legally armed civilians.

An independent professional???? They can't shoot half as well as most private citizens! And they most certainly don't know the laws. Doctors screw up on a REGULAR basis, too. Sheesh. You just blindly trust someone that shows you a slip of paper that says, "I'm qualified"???? Damn, dude.
How do you measure if someone is qualified? Around here peaople have to attend ~7 years med.school befor becoming a doctor. Of course I'll trust him more than someone who hasn't got the slip of paper. Everyone makes mistakes from the president to the postman, you can minimize these, but you can't avoid them.

It's been pointed out time and again, in the US, the police are NOT responsible for protecting the individual. Only enforcing the laws. If they take the perpetrator in, it doesn't matter if the person they stabbed is dead or not. It only adds to the charges. The police don't have to even attempt to save the victim. There are those that would try to save the individual from being attacked, but they aren't required to.
Is this true? Wow, you learn all kinds of stuff on these boards. You guys should start lobbying for some new laws. Imagine how much you could do if all gun owners cut down on 'shootin range time', got together and did something constructive. ;)

I am trying to understand that in a first world country, you feel that everyone needs to carry a weapon for personal safety. It just is not nessersary here in the UK, (I know we have some less salubrious areas, I have lived/worked in them for most of my life) I have never needed to carry a weapon, the only people I know who did/do are attacked on a regular basis which I can put down to thier own idiocy. It would be nice if there were no bad people but being aware of basic safety is normally sufficient.


Ah, there's the difference. The criminals win when they get to "keep" their own turf. No one goes in because it's too dangerous. That's horseshit. I shouldn't have to alter my path because someone illegally claims territory and implements their own illegal laws. That's not safety, that's giving in.


The point of interest, and difference between the US and the UK is the use of force and the acceptability of killing (at least potentially) someone.


Definitely a major cultural difference.


In the UK we are not legally allowed to carry firearms, knifes with a blade over 3" or that lock (regardless of blade length), and you as a defender must only use "resonable" force to restrain the attack. For me as a martial artist any defence must be made with the minimum of force as I have gained knowledge of unarmed and weapon combat.


Yup, you're limited, while your assailant is not. Yup, that's fair and balanced.


The US posters here have repeatedly stated that you can kill/shoot an unarmed attacker in a public place.
These are very different positions and the discussion is trying to aid an understanding.
That you can and wish to own guns is your own perogative and I have no issue with it.

Well, now, that IS a different perspective. So, you're not about gun-control, then?

Is this true? Wow, you learn all kinds of stuff on these boards. You guys should start lobbying for some new laws. Imagine how much you could do if all gun owners cut down on 'shootin range time', got together and did something constructive. ;)

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

It's true. And you couldn't pass a law - it's unrealistic to say that police will always respond to every call in time to prevent further harm. It's not physically or economically possible.

The only way you can argue in favour of the 2nd amendment in a fair way is to get rid of licensing, which allows the government to say who is allowed guns and who isn't. Either everyone has the right or nobody does.

THEN try and see if everyone's so gung ho about the whole matter. Wouldn't do, arming those who might not share your beliefs, would it?
No problem here. Any free citizen should have that Right. A Felon, convicted of a violent crime, has proven their Sociopathy and voided their Rights as a Free Citizen. Why would that give anyone cause to pause?

How do you measure if someone is qualified? Around here peaople have to attend ~7 years med.school befor becoming a doctor.


Same here, and yet doctors mis-diagnose, screw up in surgery, etc.


Of course I'll trust him more than someone who hasn't got the slip of paper.


Just so you don't automatically assume they're competent. It is possible to just pass tests, and not retain anything.


Everyone makes mistakes from the president to the postman, you can minimize these, but you can't avoid them.


Nope, you're right. Which is why I never accept everything at the first. Many times I automatically get a second opinion, to validate.


Is this true? Wow, you learn all kinds of stuff on these boards. You guys should start lobbying for some new laws. Imagine how much you could do if all gun owners cut down on 'shootin range time', got together and did something constructive. ;)

We should be lobbying for the repeal of laws, is what we should be doing. And many of us do. The government takes our protections away and doesn't provide us with a viable alternative.

Practicing so you don't miss IS a constructive activity.

Thanks for the reply See u Jimmy! On answering one question about why americans seem to need deadly force for a unarmed person is in for one hell of a legal battle.

For the concealed carry.. there are many laws here local allowing concealed carry. One has to have a permit to conceal carry. One must be 21 to get that permit. If someone breaks into your place, you do not have the right to shoot them unless they are threatening your life. ( A law in Florida has changed this there) If on the street and one gets mugged, one can not shoot unless there is reason to beleave ones life is in danger. There are also a whole list of stores , buildings ,and parks that will not let you conceal carry.

Now, if you end up shooting someone durring a mugging, break-in, etc. , expect one hell of a nasty legal battle and high legal fees. Not to mention the shock that you did just kill someone. I know a swat officer who wasted someone threatening to kill thier five year old daugher. He is still upset about it years later.

It is by no means a light load to carry, here in ohio there has not been one shot fired in anger from someone who has thier permit.

To answer that nobody "needs" a gun BS... Try this report and notice the names.

The 1981 D.C. Court of Apeals en banc decision of Warren v. District of Columbia in which Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them from a pair of rapists, even after they had called the police and the police had come to the home, left when noone answered, and ignored further calls from the home.

These women lived in the District in 1975, a short while before D.C. passed its draconian firearms restrictions, but in any case none of them were armed, and they depended on the State for their protection.

Twenty nine years to the day later in Ohio:

Man shot to death in Canton

The first time Carolyn Warren called police, she wanted to be rescued from a man she said was trying to break in her door.

Three minutes later, she called back to say the man was in her apartment, but she didn't need to be rescued anymore.

The man was shot dead.

Kenneth G. Riggs, 38, died about 12:30 a.m. Thursday (March 11, 2004) of a gunshot wound to the head. He was shot inside Warren's apartment on Mahoning Road Northeast, less than a block from his home.

Canton Police Lt. Tom Thomas said the two women in the apartment knew Riggs, but he declined to describe their relationship. Police say the shooter is a 31-year-old woman, who Thomas said was identified in the 911 call as Warren's daughter.

The mother apparently made the calls and the daughter allegedly fired a .22 rifle at Riggs twice after he forced his way into the apartment.

Police did not arrest the woman. Thomas said information from the shooting investigation will be turned over to the Stark County prosecutor.

A telephone number listed for Warren was out of order Thursday.

Riggs, who lived in the 2600 block of Mahoning Road Northeast, had a history of arrests in Stark County that stretched back to the late 1980s. Court records include a one-year prison sentence for illegal possession of a firearm and using a weapon while intoxicated. The records also list multiple arrests on charges of assault, aggravated burglary, menacing, drug abuse and violating a protection order.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2004_03_01_archive.html#107909658902811370

You know, I was thinking this morning, and have come to the conclusion that there is a farirly simple disconnect between the European posters and the US posters.

Look at the following maps:

US (http://gislounge.com/images/density.gif)

World (http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/gpw/gppycpd-12in.gif)

Europe (& Africa) (ftp://ftpserver.ciesin.org/pub/data/Grid_Pop_World/total_cov/gif/eurafdenssmoo.gif) (data from un.org)

Note that there are areas in the US that are larger than Europe (certainly most individual European countries) with population densities so low as to be virtually non-existant.

The highest proportion of "gun-control" laws are in high population areas. (where most Crime and need for Self Defense is, BTW). Only the Wealthy - those who can afford private facilities or trips to low-density areas - have the wherewithall, means or access to "sporting" firearms use. So there immediately becomes a class-issue/disconnect between the "average" Urban dweller and those who like sporting arms. This class issue leads people to the notion that the hobbies of the Rich are elitist and not worthy of protection. These areas, because of their voter base, attempt - often successfully - to implement their Urban World View on areas where, conversely, MOST people own firearms and their "sporting" use is de-reguer across SES lines. Why should I, whose home is in one of those "yellow" areas be forced to follow the whims and fears of people who find living in high density areas more to their liking? (Edit: Note, this also applies to Canada where the folks in the North & West (ex. Vancouver) are uniformly annoyed with Canada's Urban-centric gun laws. When I last visited the Yukon, the Mounty at the border wanted to makes sure I HAD a gun before I went camping there. When was the last time you saw a bear in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver?)

It comes down to choice. I believe people have the right to choose. Want an abortion? I don't like abortion, I think abortion is responsible for the deaths of millions of children, but given the contentious nature of the issue, I think that CHOICE should be left to the individual. Why people don't want me to have the CHOICE to own a firearm is beyond me.

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

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



Try actually READING the page. The statistic is 2.3 per MILLION.

Florida has the highest Violent Crime Rate in the US, even though the residents have the right to carry a concealed weapon since 1987. Why?


Ah, nope! Wrong!! Florida: 812 violent crimes per 1000 pop in 2000 vs DC with 1507.9 per 1000.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The law seems pretty effective in preventing the abusive spouse from keeping or buying a weapon. When you get a protective order filed against you, the police come and search your house for guns and take them. Then your name goes on the computer list and the gun store won't sell you a firearm.And what does it take to have a protective order made against a person?

And what does it take to have a protective order made against a person?
It depends on the jurisdiction, but usually verifiable acts of violence or witnessed threats of violence against the filer, but not always. In places where actual events or witnessed threats are not required, there havebeen abuses, usually by vindictive ex-spouses wanting to make their ex's lives miserable.

Why didn't gun owning americans rise up and oust Bush when he cheated his way to office in 2000?

A number of media outlets did a full recount. Even if you do the recount the way Gore wanted, Bush still wins. Do your research before spouting off.

SWAT teams are a liitle better trained than beat cops.

At any rate, no one ever said this woman was a gun enthusiast. She bought a gun to keep her husband away.

I just love the way wingnuts wiggle when you start to tighten. WL was talking about a woman he had trained. We can have an experiment if you wish. You attack one of the women he trained and let's see if she can shoot you.

For the person being targeted it isn't. They are still dead. Other concerns like the environment and the death of others can be of no concern to you.

And isn't much harder for responsible states to use nuclear weapons, i.e. the political checks and balances, than a person who has no such restrictions, only the punishment afterwards delegated by the laws of the nation, (thats even if they get caught).I don't actually know for sure, but I would imagine that if the US President really wants to use nuclear weapons he can. The only cooperation he would probably need is that of military officers sworn to obey him. I don't think Truman got a vote from congress to drop nukes on Japan. And afterwards, no hearings were held to determine whether those bombings were justified.

So we've reached a point of;

ex-husband harrassing wife = death penalty???

And your problem with this is? Just how many times does a woman have to get beaten before his death is a just reward?

<==== (Overtyrant Adrian = DOUBLE THE FIST)

An infantry of 80 million....not a sight any government wants to see thrown against it.

Does it matter if they have guns though? If the military goes all genocidal it wouldn't matter if its 80 billion, a couple of nukes alone would sort things out, not to mention any air support would be completely invulnerable. If the military doesn't head off to kill their own civilians, what are they going to do instead? They don't nearly have the manpower and equipment to stop them, and so that many people would easilly be able to do what they want, guns or no.

You greatly exaggerate the potential of the US military. Not to mention, if the military were ordered to actually lock down the country, half would leave and join the rebellion.

...And here it is, you just proved my point. Once the military sides with the people, they'd have more than enough firepower to take down any hypothetical resistance. Once again, those privately owned guns won't be needed.

As an aside, your standard G.I. would probably be MORE willing to join the people if the people are unarmed. It's far easier to not shoot someone when they don't appear to pose an immediate danger to you (ie. they're bearing down on your unit, brandishing handguns).

Gun ownership does not equal protection from evil government tyranny. In fact, it's completely unecessary since as far firepower is concerned, the military will be holding all the aces.

oh, I hadn't realised this only applied to ninja husbands who can disarm women with ease.

Ok, how is he trying to attack her from across the room? Has he crept into her house and waited for her? If so, does she have to have the gun on her all the time?

Ok, this takes general knowledge of women and understanding of the concept of "upper body strength", hence I believe that I am going to be talking over your level, but I must try. Generally speaking, men have much more upper body strength than women. This is why the husband is usually called to open the pickle jars. The average man could disarm the average knife weilding woman without getting cut. Hint: at this point the confrontation takes a turn for the worse.

It depends on the jurisdiction, but usually verifiable acts of violence or witnessed threats of violence against the filer, but not always. In places where actual events or witnessed threats are not required, there havebeen abuses, usually by vindictive ex-spouses wanting to make their ex's lives miserable.
That is unacceptable. It is my opinion that only those charged with crimes of violence deserve to have their guns confiscated and that they should be returned if they fail to be convicted or, if convicted, complete their sentence. If making serious threats of violence is not a crime, perhaps it should be.

If you deserve freedom, you deserve freedom. If you don't, you don't. Please don't inform me that the law disagrees with my opinion.

That is unacceptable. It is my opinion that only those charged with crimes of violence deserve to have their guns confiscated and that they should be returned if they fail to be convicted or, if convicted, complete their sentence. If making serious threats of violence is not a crime, perhaps it should be.

If you deserve freedom, you deserve freedom. If you don't, you don't. Please don't inform me that the law disagrees with my opinion.
You won't get any argument from me. I abhor the abuses that forfiture laws have created. In reasonable jurisdictions there are fairly stringent criteria for determining whether a witnessed threat of violence is credible, and making such threats are (again, by jurisdiction) crimes. Ysually it is in the Urban, anti-gun areas that such abuses occur.

Besides, think over that one part for a second:

Dictator appears, dictator controls armed forces. Armed forces vs militia, armed forces win rather easily (show me how to deal with an M1A2 or an F-22 with a few semi-automatic rifles, please... *rolls eyes* like any civilian in the US would have the equipment to fight a real war, yeah, right). If not (even though extremly unlikely), then dictator goes Nero on the country and nukes a few of his own cities. Then what? And well, the millions of dollars are a bad argument, why would a dictator care about that? I mean, look at history and show me a dictator who gave a damn about that.

Oh yeah, and... if he gets actually elected, then he has the majority of the people behind him, so... the whole plan wouldn't really work.
Right now at this very second, a small group of armed men could steal a tank or two from an armory, or perhaps even a fighter jet or two. As far as the millions of dollars goes, such a blatant American dictator would destroy the value of the dollar and lose all his spending power.

i dont know about the UK,but in the USA,states where people are allowed to carry weapons(registered weapons) in plain sight(such as the hip or ankle) have a lower incident of rape,robbery,and murder than states with strict gun laws. why? because a thug is less likely to attack someone who is packing. they like weak,easy targets that cant fight back.

guns laws dont protect citizens,they disarm them and leave them defenseless. criminals will have guns regardless of the laws. if most of the people in your area owned a gun,people would be less likely to break into your house at 2am if they know they will be shot.

i think anyone who attacks you without provocation or breaks into your home should should expect to be shot. it should be legal and filed under "self-defense of ones person and property." unfortunately,the laws are so screwed up in the USA that a person can actually get sued if a trespasser gets hurt while on his property. a person can break in and rape your wife,and if you come home and he dives through a window he can sue you for emotional damages.

i also read of a case where a criminal with a long rap sheet broke into a mans house to steal stuff. as he was poking around,he discovered the owners stash of porn,which included some underage images. when he got busted,he turned in his victim based on the alleged CP images. the owner of the house got put away for having CP,and the man that robbed him went free because he "did the community a service" by locating the CP.

american law is assbackwards. the suppossed CP should have been discarded when sentencing the burglar because he was committing a crime and invading the persons privacy when he found them. the cops got by with it because the burglar "wasnt an officer,and therefore,didnt need a search warrant."
can you believe that?

with logic like that,i dont think we should be giving up our gun rights so quickly. you need to protect yourself from criminals as well as any future possibility of a police state. your right to bear arms(i have one on each side,yuk,yuk,yuk) was written in to protect us from government corruption...

Right now at this very second, a small group of armed men could steal a tank or two from an armory, or perhaps even a fighter jet or two. As far as the millions of dollars goes, such a blatant American dictator would destroy the value of the dollar and lose all his spending power.
Fshaw. You don't even have to be armed. IIRC a guy dressed as a senior noncom walked into Ft.Sill (US Army training base) and commondeered a truck and a platoon-worth of M16 (full auto) rifles. Even got the poor trainee private "guarding" them to load them into the truck.

He drove off base and was never seen again.

Ban Milspec Uniforms and Insignia! :rolleyes:

Really i thought the 2nd amendment was to allow a militia to be formed to protect you from Mexico and a small island called Britain as your country was too large and not very organised at the time to keep a huge army everywhere to protect the entire nation.


Then you should do some research about the origin of the amendment, because you are wrong.

...And here it is, you just proved my point. Once the military sides with the people, they'd have more than enough firepower to take down any hypothetical resistance. Once again, those privately owned guns won't be needed.


<sigh> Okay, you just wait for your protectors to show up. I'll be my own, thanks.


Gun ownership does not equal protection from evil government tyranny. In fact, it's completely unecessary since as far firepower is concerned, the military will be holding all the aces.

Again, history has shown that though technologically superior, the US military can have major issues with indigenous populations. The government won't nuke the populace because they would want the land and the people to rule over.

i dont know about the UK,but in the USA,states where people are allowed to carry weapons(registered weapons) in plain sight(such as the hip or ankle) have a lower incident of rape,robbery,and murder than states with strict gun laws. why? because a thug is less likely to attack someone who is packing. they like weak,easy targets that cant fight back.
Which States have "open carry" laws?

guns laws dont protect citizens,they disarm them and leave them defenseless. criminals will have guns regardless of the laws. if most of the people in your area owned a gun,people would be less likely to break into your house at 2am if they know they will be shot.
Burglary rates in "pro gun" Florida are 233% higher than in "gun control" New York State.

i think anyone who attacks you without provocation or breaks into your home should should expect to be shot. it should be legal and filed under "self-defense of ones person and property." unfortunately,the laws are so screwed up in the USA that a person can actually get sued if a trespasser gets hurt while on his property. a person can break in and rape your wife,and if you come home and he dives through a window he can sue you for emotional damages.
Proof?

i also read of a case where a criminal with a long rap sheet broke into a mans house to steal stuff. as he was poking around,he discovered the owners stash of porn,which included some underage images. when he got busted,he turned in his victim based on the alleged CP images. the owner of the house got put away for having CP,and the man that robbed him went free because he "did the community a service" by locating the CP.
Both are criminals, what is your problem?

american law is assbackwards. the suppossed CP should have been discarded when sentencing the burglar because he was committing a crime and invading the persons privacy when he found them. the cops got by with it because the burglar "wasnt an officer,and therefore,didnt need a search warrant." can you believe that?
Do you have a link to this story, then maybe I could believe it?

with logic like that,i dont think we should be giving up our gun rights so quickly. you need to protect yourself from criminals as well as any future possibility of a police state. your right to bear arms(i have one on each side,yuk,yuk,yuk) was written in to protect us from government corruption...
More guns = more crime. :(

I thought the 2nd ammendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/) was to provide for a "regulated milita"?

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.

The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

Erm, yes it is

A gun is a weapon. Its primary purpose is the injury/killing of something alive. It may be used in sports such as clay pidgon shooting and marksmanship etc but in all of those it is still a weapon.

Erm, no. Smith&Wesson Model 52. It's a target pistol. It was designed to shoot only wad cutter bullets. Wad cutter bullets were designed to cut nice clean circular holes in paper targets. That very design makes them less efficient at stopping a human, the bullet goes through rather than expand or "mushroom" and thus does substantially less damage than "normal bullets".

So I stand by my assertion that not all guns were designed to kill or injure.

Erm, no. Smith&Wesson Model 52. It's a target pistol. It was designed to shoot only wad cutter bullets. Wad cutter bullets were designed to cut nice clean circular holes in paper targets. That very design makes them less efficient at stopping a human, the bullet goes through rather than expand or "mushroom" and thus does substantially less damage than "normal bullets".

So I stand by my assertion that not all guns were designed to kill or injure.
Like my 1946 Remington 513T... the "T" stands for "target". It is a bolt action, heavy barrel, heavy stock .22. The modern incarnation is the Anchutsz.

Which States have "open carry" laws?


Wisconsin is one of them.

Which States have "open carry" laws?
For someone who does "quite a bit of research", you sure can't seem to answer some pretty simple questions. - But Here, I'll do it for you:

US States and their Carry conditions (among other things) in 2003. (http://www.notpurfect.com/main/concealed.html)

Have a nice read.

For someone who does "quite a bit of research", you sure can't seem to answer some pretty simple questions. - But Here, I'll do it for you:
Well you do have 50 States and it appears that the rules are all over the place. :eek:

However, from what I have been able to garner thus far, is that gun control when tied to responsible prosecution of criminals is a good recipe for less crime. New York State appears to be a prime example.

US States and their Carry conditions (among other things) in 2003. (http://www.notpurfect.com/main/concealed.html)

Have a nice read.
Thanks for the link. It will help me to answer the "simple questions" a little better.

Well you do have 50 States and it appears that the rules are all over the place. :eek:

However, from what I have been able to garner thus far, is that gun control when tied to responsible prosecution of criminals is a good recipe for less crime. New York State appears to be a prime example.


Thanks for the link. It will help me to answer the "simple questions" a little better.

New York State is your only example. Chicago you explain as "guns are obtained illegally" (well duh) and is still over 5x higher than the rest of the state, DC is a nightmare,

Why are the 5 safest states CC states?

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. [/B]

The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

You've been listening to Cat-tribe too much. The Founding Fathers clearly stated it was a right of the people and individuals. The Justice Dept. has recently released a report stating the same thing. True the courts are attempting to take away the rights of the people. They base it almost exclusively off of the "precedent" of one case that had no defendent, was historically innacurate, and was based more off of social biases than reality.

Here in Virginia, if a woman is abused by her husband, and can demonstrate to the court that he poses an immediate and constant threat to her life and limb, then she can have a "protective order".

This is a misnomer, because all it does is give the police the right to arrest the husband IF he's still there when they get there. Otherwise, they turn around and go back to the station, and the man usually returns to harass the woman again.


And to further back this up...

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/11557568.htm

Restraining orders aren't enough to keep battered spouses safe

J.E. STONE PARKER AND F. PAUL VALONE

Special to the Observer

Shennell McKendall did everything "by the book." She moved out, sought police protection and a restraining order against her abusive husband, had him arrested when he violated the order ... and ended up dead. Out on bail yet again, Randy McKendall drove up as she walked to work at UNC Hospital. Jumping from his truck, he shot her, then killed himself.

What distinguishes the calamity is not perpetration of a murder/suicide by an abuser under a restraining order (Polk County resident Gary Rose killed his wife and himself just weeks later), but rather the utter failure of a law passed to prevent such things.

Sponsored by Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, the 2003 Homicide Prevention Act purports to seize firearms from abusers under protective orders. Far from preventing homicide, however, its advocates' own Web site reveals that in the year following implementation, it shepherded not only a 26 percent increase in domestic homicide, but a 40 percent increase in murder/suicide.

Even when confiscations succeed, the problem remains: Firearms are used less often in domestic homicides (57 percent) than in others (75 percent) . Because abusers -- 91 percent of whom are male -- typically kill smaller, physically weaker partners, popular weapons include blunt objects, knives and bare hands.

You've been listening to Cat-tribe too much. The Founding Fathers clearly stated it was a right of the people and individuals. The Justice Dept. has recently released a report stating the same thing. True the courts are attempting to take away the rights of the people. They base it almost exclusively off of the "precedent" of one case that had no defendent, was historically innacurate, and was based more off of social biases than reality.

The left totally ignores this part, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who has the right? THE PEOPLE, the same PEOPLE as covered in the first amendment, the one the ACLU so loves. The "PEOPLE" does not change from amendment 1 to amendment 2, it's THE PEOPLE.

Continuing my thoughts on the disconnect between Euro/US gun issues:

Where do non USians get their information about US gun ownership/use?

#1 From their Governments = Anti-civilian ownership
#2 From the UN = Anti-civilian ownership
#3 From the Media, US and Local = Anti-civilian ownership
#4 From the Film industry = Pro-graphic violence/Anti-civilian ownership
#5 From Global Anti-civilian ownership/activists (like George Soros)
#6 From US Anti-civilian ownership propagandists
#7 From US Pro-civilian ownership propagandists (often radical)
and finally
#8 From Non-radical Pro-Choice/civilian ownership bloggers/posters.

Why shouldn't you have a bad opinion of firearms ownership? You have to take an active role in discussion to even get a 1 in 8 chance of hearing/reading a non-radical POV. In that light, the non-USian anti-civilian ownership position is totally understandable. Wrong, but understandable.

Since we've often discussed violent crime statistics, lets approach a few other statistics: (link) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) (Note that despite the increase in firearm ownership and "shall issue" carry laws, firearm related crime is DOWN)

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms.

Now, we'll look at this data and apply 4 assumptions:
Assume the oft-touted statistic of "one gun per USian" - that puts ther number of US civillian held guns at 287,974,001 (+/-).
Assume that murders were not incuded inthe NVCS survey (victim is dead, can't respond after all) that means that in 2003 there were 460,207 crimes committed in 2003 that involved a firearm.
Assume that for each of the above crimes, a different gun was used.(not true, some guns are used more frequently, but this assumption raises the bar)
Assume that only 10% of USians own guns. (also false, the best-guess stat is between 30% & 50%, but it is only a guess since people don't like to give that information to pollsters)

What do these assumptions show us?

Assuming the above "worst-case" scenerio, less than two tenths of a percent (.001598) of all firearms in the US were used in a crime in 2003.

Assuming the above "worst-case" scenerio, less than 2% (.015980) of US gun owners (legal and illegal) commit violent crimes with firearms.

Edit: Best-case (50%) = less than four tenths (.003196) of a percent of US gun owners (legal and illegal) commit violent crimes with firearms.

Edit: 2002 Fatal gunshot injuries = 30,242 (CDC) = .10% (worst case) or .021% (best case) caused by US gun owners (legal and illegal).
2002 Non-Fatal gunshot injuries = 58,841 (CDC) = .2% (worst case) or .04% (best case) caused by US gun owners (legal and illegal).

I guess this just proves how bad private gun ownership in the US really is eh? Let's ban them WorldWide. ;)

Wisconsin is one of them.
List of states with "shall-issue" (which means, if you're not a felon, they can't deny you the permit or delay its issue)
1 Alaska
2 Arizona
3 Arkansas
4 Colorado
5 Connecticut
6 Florida
7 Georgia
8 Idaho
9 Indiana
10 Kentucky
11 Louisiana
12 Maine
13 Michigan
14 Minnesota
15 Mississippi
16 Missouri
17 Montana
18 Nevada
19 New Hampshire
20 New Mexico
21 North Carolina
22 North Dakota
23 Ohio
24 Oklahoma
25 Oregon
26 Pennsylvania
27 South Carolina
28 South Dakota
29 Tennessee
30 Texas
31 Utah
32 Virginia
33 Washington
34 West Virginia
35 Wyoming

percentage of gun owners in US (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=percentage+of+gun+owners+in+US)

number of gun related crimes in US (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=number+of+gun+related+crimes+in+US)

Some pro, some anti. Look for real statistics rather than hyperbole.

List of states with "shall-issue" (which means, if you're not a felon, they can't deny you the permit or delay its issue)
1 Alaska
2 Arizona
3 Arkansas
4 Colorado
5 Connecticut
6 Florida
7 Georgia
8 Idaho
9 Indiana
10 Kentucky
11 Louisiana
12 Maine
13 Michigan
14 Minnesota
15 Mississippi
16 Missouri
17 Montana
18 Nevada
19 New Hampshire
20 New Mexico
21 North Carolina
22 North Dakota
23 Ohio
24 Oklahoma
25 Oregon
26 Pennsylvania
27 South Carolina
28 South Dakota
29 Tennessee
30 Texas
31 Utah
32 Virginia
33 Washington
34 West Virginia
35 Wyoming


That's for concealed carry, though, right? I think Canuck wanted the open carry states.

That's for concealed carry, though, right? I think Canuck wanted the open carry states.
IIRC, Virginia, Arizona, Vermont (a few others).

An example of "justice" in the UK.

Wether you agree w/ Martin's imprisonment or not, this speaks for itself:

"a so-called secret document which was never disclosed to Martin's legal team - and which the judge considered in private - did not "materially advance" Martin's case, he said."



So, to sum up, Martin is not allowed to defend himself even in court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3010949.stm.

Children & Guns = a recipe for disaster.

How could people let this happen:

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/NEWS01/505010340/1002

Children & Guns = a recipe for disaster.

How could people let this happen:

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/NEWS01/505010340/1002

Why is this bad? Kids are learning how to responcibly handle guns.

Why is this bad? Kids are learning how to responcibly handle guns.

Sorry, forgot to add {sarcasm}. I think it's friggin' outstanding.

Children & Guns = a recipe for disaster.

How could people let this happen:

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/NEWS01/505010340/1002
The same way I got my High School Letter Jacket, (secondary school sport) for .22 caliber target shooting. How horrid.

But: as a truisim:

Children untutored in gun safety = recepie for disaster
Children untutored in stove safety = recepie for disaster
Children untutored in water safety = recepie for disaster

See a pattern here?

I have successfully tutored children as young as 2-1/2 to safely encounter firearms. (Not shoot them, but encounter them - just as you would a hot stove...)

I have successfully tutored children as young as 2-1/2 to safely encounter firearms. (Not shoot them, but encounter them - just as you would a hot stove...)
Fun story that will appall the Anti's...

When I was in the Army, a buddy & I had been out shooting and were at his house cleaning our guns. There was, as appropriate, no ammunition anywhere in the vacinity. We did, however have some rather large handguns disasembled on our cleaning sheet on the livingroom floor.

Buddy's 3 year old son, forbidden from pestering us, was watching us from the kitchen.

When we had nearly completed (the guns were assembled, mine were cased) and had started to clean up, the squirt asked if he could come look. As there was no ammunition present, and there was extreme supervision, we decided that it would be OK. After looking fo a minute, the well-trained kid ASKED if he could touch/pick up a particular gun. Again, because of the safe condition, and because we wanted to positively reinforce the concept of ASKING, we let him.

Here is the fun bit. This little kid chose the LARGEST handgun on the floor. A 7" stainless .44 Redhawk. He picks up the gun, and, like daddy, makes sure he doesn't point it at anyone. (We didn't tell him this, this was just our observation of obvious actions - the thing is HEAVY for a 3y/o.)

Being closet sociologists, we decide this is an interesting & safe experiment and let him continue. Child tries to pull long, heavy DA trigger (he saw us dry-fire). No joy - fingers too short. He then sets the pistol down and looks at it. Little gears in little head start spinning at mach 4. He then picks up the pistol again, ballances it on the hammer spur on the floor, cocks the hammer !!!, turns it back over, picks it up, points it away from people, and pulls the trigger!!!

Oh wow.

Load up kid and .44, and back to the range we go.

We go to a bench, and with the child on daddy's lap and daddy's hands firmly around the child's, say "Daddy's going to cock the hammer, you pull the trigger like you did at home." - "OK..."

BOOOOOM! - Welcome to a full-house .44 load. :eek: (Daddy's job was only to provide sufficient safety to ensure the gun didn't fly off into the sunset.)

Next question to child (whose eyes were as big as plates) "What do you think about daddy's guns?"

Quoth the child: "I don't want to play with guns until I'm big like daddy!"

The rest of the time I knew them, and had many other range & cleaning trips with the Dad, the child NEVER AGAIN asked to even LOOK at a gun, much less touch one.

Great object/safety lesson. (His flinch is going to be a bitch to break though... :D )