NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple enough question

Simple enough question

Let's just say I suffer from a slight inferiority complex, but guns help me out by making me even with those with guns of their own.

No, but I am big, strong, and trained, so guns actually reduce my chances in a fight.

Yes. I'm not too worried about crime anyway, but seeing respectable armed people is just a little more reassuring.

If you ever go to Memphis Tennesee and party on Beal st. you will notice that many of the bouncers outside bars have pistols on their hip. You will also notice that troublemakers are few and far between.

i've never held a gun and only once or twice been in the presence of one. i can't say i felt safer with it in my general vicinity

"Does the presence of guns make you feel safer?"

Definitely. I've been around weapons of all sorts for most of my adult life. I know how to use them safely and effectively. I first came under, and returned fire at the age of 25, so I know what they can do and act accordingly. Weapons are only as useful as the skills and responsibility of those who use them.

Yes, but I do think that I could kill someone without a gun. I keep some throwing knives in close proximity, so if there were ever a disturbance, I could just fling a few toward the person's neck. I'm a pretty good shot.

I'm not scared of weapons, really. Just the people who handle them.

Hell no.

The overall presence of guns does not make me feel safer or more at risk. However, if I know there is a gun in the vacinity, and I do not know the individual in possession of it, I do get a little worried.

No, but I am big, strong, and trained, so guns actually reduce my chances in a fight.


I knew guys who thought they could catch bullets in their teeth. They would never try it for me. :(

Yes, but I do think that I could kill someone without a gun. I keep some throwing knives in close proximity, so if there were ever a disturbance, I could just fling a few toward the person's neck. I'm a pretty good shot.

I'm not scared of weapons, really. Just the people who handle them.
I killed two in Vietnam with a Bowie.

Definately not.

Eutrusca, are boasting about killing people or being a good shot?

Neither, a gun is a piece of metal, wood, or synthetic plastics. I feel no more or less comfortable or safer in the presence of a gun as any other piece of metal, wood, or synthetic plastic.

The real matter to look at is the character of the person holding the gun. Obviously I would not feel safe looking down the barrel of a handgun held by sweating and shaking drug addict. On the other hand, to see honest people taking their life into their own hands has always seemed to radiate an aura of dignity for me.

It depends with me.

If the gun is in the hands of a civilian who owns it just because they believe that they have the constitutional right etc...no, I don't feel safer. I despise individual possession.

However, in the hands of trained officers of the law, I feel safe, because I know that only those who challenge the police with weapons are the ones who have to worry (in general).

I killed two in Vietnam with a Bowie.

Bowie knife? That seems like it could some irreparable damage to your psyche.

It depends with me.

If the gun is in the hands of a civilian who owns it just because they believe that they have the constitutional right etc...no, I don't feel safer. I despise individual possession.

However, in the hands of trained officers of the law, I feel safe, because I know that only those who challenge the police with weapons are the ones who have to worry (in general).

Isn't their a totalitarian police state our there someplace where people like you could feel comfortable?

They're in my presence... who's holding them?

Bowie knife? That seems like it could some irreparable damage to your psyche.


It is a little stressful and also a bit of a rush, esp when they look you in the eyes. Their eyes look like they can't believe this is happening to them.

Isn't their a totalitarian police state our there someplace where people like you could feel comfortable?
What I mean is - keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible psycho lunatic next door, and in the hands of the responsible and the officers. And no...I couldn't live in there; I'd be a political prisoner, I don't know when the hell to shut up.

They're in my presence... who's holding them?

Exactly, the weapon itself is essentially irrelevant. The person holding it is all that matters. As for those who are terrified by the gun itself, well, see the Siggy quote in the sig.

I feel safer if the gun is in my control. Violent crime is almost non-existant where I live. Its not a major concern here. I'm prepared to handle what I'm likely to face.

I knew guys who thought they could catch bullets in their teeth. They would never try it for me. :(

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I am big, strong, trained and with an IQ of above 7, so catching bullets with my teeth is a no no. Guns still make me feel less safe.

I feel safer if the gun is in my control. Violent crime is almost non-existant where I live. Its not a major concern here. I'm prepared to handle what I'm likely to face.
You are prepared to handle almost non-existant violent crime? :confused:

No, but I am big, strong, and trained, so guns actually reduce my chances in a fight.

Well, I'm small, weak and untrained, so I'm happy to have one

Well, I'm small, weak and untrained, so I'm happy to have one

Lol! "God made man but Smith & Wesson made them equal." :D

only in computer games

Like a few others on this board I have been well trained in Kali for a long time now, and I also am a good shot with throwing knives. I'm not too worried about crime, however I would feel safe if I had the posession of a gun. I don't feel safe when I'm around other people with guns.

yes.

No. No matter who was holding it (including myself), I'd be worried about getting shot. Damn paranoia...

In theory, I would feel safer in the presence of guns. However, in practice, I'd have to say no.

only in computer games
So, if I came up behind you with my Dragon Mini-Lightening Gun with +2 Melee and 10% Chance of 5-10 Acid Damage, you're not worried?

Simple enough question

That very much depends on whose hands the guns are in.

well trained in Kali for a long time now, and I also am a good shot with throwing knives

I think that "bring a knife to a gun fight" thing might apply here. You'd be much safer and LEGAL with a concealed carry since you're in Florida.

I think that "bring a knife to a gun fight" thing might apply here. You'd be much safer and LEGAL with a concealed carry since you're in Florida.

According to my experience it is very well within my rage of ability to throw two knives into my opponet's eye sockets before they can unholster their gun and aim it. Knives have more quicker access in the heat of battle and because I've been trained to use them I'm quite effecient in their usage.

Have not learned use one propebly so no. And why I would need a gun again I got shit loads of things just laying everywhere that you could use as a weapon plus with darkness and little adrelanine I'm RAMBO. And what does it help if you got a gun,maybe that/those burglar/s got guns too and then you're on your way to see what is waiting over there.

Do I feel safer? - No
Am I afraid of guns? - No

I'll stick with my throwing knives and my katana, thank you. :)

I agree, Delator.

I prefer edged weapons myself-Guns go off a little to easily for my taste.

My knife makes me feel safer, however.

Yep, I feel safer when there are people with guns around. An armed person is far more likely to interfere if they see a crime being committed. When I still lived in Russia, where privately owned guns are virtually non-existent, I've seen a few too many people idly standing by while a bunch of thugs were beating someone up. Here in Israel, where guns are quite common (not least because most soldiers go on their week-end leave with their army issue assault rifles), violent crime is way lower and people's willingness to interfere is much higher. After all, there's always a good chance that you'll be backed up by someone armed and trained, and it alleviates much of the "bystander fear".

Hell no.
quite.

It really is a horribly leading question. Im not affected by the presence of a gun than I am by the presence of a toaster, or a car.

If that same toaster were to be in danger or falling into my bathtub, or I was in a crosswalk and I heard screeching tires, then I would feel decidedly unsafe at the moment.

Stop being afraid of a thing.

After September the 11th, there was a brief period when it was not uncommon for a normally unarmed British constable to be seen walking around with an MP5.

It was the first time I used my MP3 player in public. :)

In the hands of trained professionals, guns are bloody useful things.

yes, because i agree with my nations founders

"firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. they are the american peoples liberty teeth and the keystone under independance. from the hour that the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness. the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"-george washington
:)

No, the presence of guns do not make me feel safer.

That being said, the presence of guns do not make me feel less safe either.

Who holds the gun, on the other hand, does have an impact. If the guns are in the hands of people who mean to do me harm, or who I perceive to be irresponsible, I feel less safe.

No, the presence of guns do not make me feel safer.

That being said, the presence of guns do not make me feel less safe either.

Who holds the gun, on the other hand, does have an impact. If the guns are in the hands of people who mean to do me harm, or who I perceive to be irresponsible, I feel less safe.

That's basically what I said too.

Nice to see ya, Equus. :)

Simple enough question
The ability to make someone seeking to harm me or mine feel unsafe in doing so makes me feel safe. Cops are generally ineffective for this, but guns work rather well (I've had occasion to test this hypothesis, as have many people of my acquaintance.)

According to my experience it is very well within my rage of ability to throw two knives into my opponet's eye sockets before they can unholster their gun and aim it. Knives have more quicker access in the heat of battle and because I've been trained to use them I'm quite effecient in their usage.
The only guarantee in a Knife-fight, is that someone is going to get cut. How well do you throw knives when you're already hurt, I wonder? I've shot feral dogs successfully with a broken leg, can you throw your knives as accurately while prone, and going into shock?

The only guarantee in a Knife-fight, is that someone is going to get cut. How well do you throw knives when you're already hurt, I wonder? I've shot feral dogs successfully with a broken leg, can you throw your knives as accurately while prone, and going into shock?

Most likely yes, unless of course the damage is severe or I have eye or arm injuries. My point however is I will kill them before they can even get off a shot or at least disable their sensory organs so they have no choice but to not shoot me and tend to their severe injuries.

I don't mean this as an insult or to disperage you or anything like that but throwing knives are not the ultimate defense against an armed attacker. There is no ultimate defense against an armed attacker but some are better than others.

Noone is going to announce their intentions to open fire. And you might miss. Adrenaline and threat of bodily harm does horrible things to accuracy.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I am big, strong, trained and with an IQ of above 7, so catching bullets with my teeth is a no no. Guns still make me feel less safe.

I could catch a bullet in my teeth. Simple.

First you take a bullet.
Then through it in the air.
Tilt your head up and when the bullet falls try to catch it.

Not simple but probably hard and it would suck to miss and for it to go down your treachea.

Doesn't change a thing for me, unless it's a psychopath or someone like that who holds it.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel much safer with my katana in hand.

I don't mean this as an insult or to disperage you or anything like that but throwing knives are not the ultimate defense against an armed attacker. There is no ultimate defense against an armed attacker but some are better than others.

Noone is going to announce their intentions to open fire. And you might miss. Adrenaline and threat of bodily harm does horrible things to accuracy.

While all these factors are quite true, especially someone not announcing their intention to open fire, I've had shitloads of practice over the years and most of the methods I've been training in are used to develop muscule memory and instinctive reaction. You are quite correct in the fact that there is no ultimate defense. A trained fighter against a trained marksman is going to get killed every time, but a trained fighter against some random hoodlum with no projectile weapon training has a much better chance of survival.

Most likely yes, unless of course the damage is severe or I have eye or arm injuries. My point however is I will kill them before they can even get off a shot or at least disable their sensory organs so they have no choice but to not shoot me and tend to their severe injuries.


I have a gun, you have a knife. Its likely I'll put two rounds in your center mass before half a second after you become aware of my intentions to shoot you. A knife is an up close, surpise weapon.

While all these factors are quite true, especially someone not announcing their intention to open fire, I've had shitloads of practice over the years and most of the methods I've been training in are used to develop muscule memory and instinctive reaction. You are quite correct in the fact that there is no ultimate defense. A trained fighter against a trained marksman is going to get killed every time, but a trained fighter against some random hoodlum with no projectile weapon training has a much better chance of survival.


Ok-I agree with you here. Resolve is the key. Hesitation will kill either.

Most likely yes, unless of course the damage is severe or I have eye or arm injuries. My point however is I will kill them before they can even get off a shot or at least disable their sensory organs so they have no choice but to not shoot me and tend to their severe injuries.

Have you had to test this? I've had to test the deterrent effect of firearms (on humans) in Real Life(tm), what you're spouting sounds like dangerous overconfidence born of a lack of experience, lad.

Further, throwing-knives, in addition to being relatively bulky, require a full-range of motion, and most times also require a fair distance to wind up "point-at-enemy". There's also the factor of accuracy against a randomly-moving target to consider-flight time increases your chance of a miss, and I doubt your knives are pushing the sound barrier. Flashy, though-and impressive if you're as good as you say you are-but in the application, they're more of an offense, rather than an effective defense, since you're not given the option of disarming the situation before blood is spilt.

Simple enough question

It really depends on who's carrying them.

Drunk Bubbas? No, I am not comfortable with that.

Housewives with 20 hours at a shooting range? No!

Intensively trained military personnel? Yes, I can live with that.

Intensively trained civillians? Yes, I'm ok with that too.

Policemen? No. Absolutely no. Trained or not.

*shrug*

I grew up around firearms, for me they are no different than a screwdriver or a shovel. Just a tool to be used when they are needed. I am completely comfortable with them and if someone around me has a firearm I feel no anxiety.
Now if they point the weapon at me then I feel some fear, of course, I just never assume they are going to do that.
I remember watching a woman with a small boy in a RiteAid store. The boy picked up a water pistol and was playing with it. The woman slapped it out of his hands and began to yell at him. "I told you to never play with guns!!!! NEVER!!!!" I thought, lady, if anybody is going to accidently shoot himself or end up shooting somebody else it will be your son. He will be completely ignorant about firearms and also curious as hell because you denied them to him, even stupid toy waterpistols. Forbidden fruit.
My father never kept firearms away from me, his only rule when I was young was that he be present when I handled them, I had to learn proper care of them and to always treat them as loaded, the point was I knew about them and was comfortable with them and so they became boring for me.

According to my experience it is very well within my rage of ability to throw two knives into my opponet's eye sockets before they can unholster their gun and aim it.

Wait, you've actually knifed somebody's eyeballs out?

Since carrying guns is illegal in the UK, I'd be quite worried if I saw someone with one.

Guns scare me.

It depends with me.

If the gun is in the hands of a civilian who owns it just because they believe that they have the constitutional right etc...no, I don't feel safer. I despise individual possession.

However, in the hands of trained officers of the law, I feel safe, because I know that only those who challenge the police with weapons are the ones who have to worry (in general).Is this tongue-in-cheek?

Feels very dystopian-novelish. "Trust authority..."

No, I'm not used to seeing guns, even the police here don't carry guns. Guns make me uneasy.

I voted yes, simply because I believe that a knowledgable and trained individual has every right to ensure their own safety in any way they see fit, provided it is not infringing on others (I.E. 40mm AT gun).

One thing I would like to adress would be the knife/sword/gun thing - It depends VERY MUCH on technique, situation, and the exact weapons involved.

Among LEA's there is a common "21 foot rule", meaning anyone approaching with a knife within 21 feet can be shot till incapacitated. This is because an average individual can run that 21 feet and be ontop of the person with the gun usually around the same time as the firearm clears its holster. HOWEVER, in a home-defence situation there is no reason why you should have your weapon hostered, it would be stupid to do so.

Throwing knives:

A. they wont kill someone, they will probably die of infection a week later, and
B. if you do miss, you have lost the only weapon you have in your hand.
C. Head hit is unlikely to incapacitate perp, blade will glance off skull/eyesocket
D. impossible to guage the correct throw weight/grip for a moving target

Stabbing:

A. it is less lethal than a gunfire
B. you are coming in direct contact with someone elses blood, and when you have a crack addict in your home, that isnt too great (HIV anyone)?
C. you are now engaged in direct contact with someone else who likely has an edged weapon of their own.

A katana-like weapon:

A. Simply WILL incapacitate, if used PROPERLY
B. You dont need to come in direct contact with the perp
C. advatanges may be offset by the innability to fully swing inside an enclosed space

A handgun:

A. works at any range, they could be down a hallway or point blank
B. Is very likely to incapacitate
C. If all else fails can be used as a club
D. Is fast to line up and wont "catch" on corners

A shotgun or carbine with proper loads:

A. works at any range
B. WILL incapacitate (shotgun w/ 00 anyone)
C. uncommon to see one with it, but many can mount a bayonette

Yes

Wait, you've actually knifed somebody's eyeballs out?

Hell no! I was giving an example :p There are a few people I would just love to do that to though...

I'd feel better if the general public carried a gun. I always love to hear the stories about the 80 year old woman with 16 granbabies who stopped a mugging or break-in with her little 22.

The book More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr. Makes a convincing argument. But I'm not sure if any one has contested his findings.

No, because they're too often in the hands of idiots. I'd rather deal with unarmed idiots.

Simple enough question

Not exactly. While I still voted "Yes," it's more of an issue of who has the gun at any particular moment, and if they actually know how to use it, and control it. If they don't, then I actually do get an uncomfortable feeling around them.

Why shouldn't i be, i mean if somebody walks up to me, and i feel threatend i think its my right to shoot him, kill his family, his loved ones and his dog.
Every person should at least have a couple of guns, some bombs, a few rockets and a nuke..
That way you could also end all those sissy robbings and fights, if everybody had guns it would be much simpler, then people could just shoot each other and get i over with.
Of course if everybody had a nuke i would have to have an even bigger nuke to feel REALLY safe... no.. thats just silly.. in order to REALLY feel REALLY safe i would have to be the only person alive, that way nobody could harm me... hmm... how to kill everybody else.. i mean, its my constitutional right..

Why shouldn't i be, i mean if somebody walks up to me, and i feel threatend i think its my right to shoot him, kill his family, his loved ones and his dog.



Because that happens all the time in the 30 something states that allow citizens to carry guns.

What I mean is - keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible psycho lunatic next door, and in the hands of the responsible and the officers. And no...I couldn't live in there; I'd be a political prisoner, I don't know when the hell to shut up.

The responsible and the officers - you point out the flaws in your own argument. Being an officer of the law does not make them responsible.

As for my opinion on the matter....I'm fine with trained, sane civilians. Although <i>intensively</i> trained, and hopefully with some sort of intelligence test.

EDIT: Whoever said we don't have guns in the UK....one of the proposed Tory initiatives involves the legalisation of handguns.

I don't think we need them just yet in the UK....most criminals don't have firearms. As soon as they do, however, there would be cause for legalisation IMHO - otherwise it's just the criminals that are armed, which is generally <i>nein gut</i>.

~pr0ph37~

The presence of guns doesn't make me feel safer, it makes me feel like I could be shot.

The presence of guns doesn't make me feel safer, it makes me feel like I could be shot.

Same here. It also makes me feel that I could accidentally shoot someone. Well, maybe not accidentally...

Why shouldn't i be, i mean if somebody walks up to me, and i feel threatend i think its my right to shoot him, kill his family, his loved ones and his dog.
Every person should at least have a couple of guns, some bombs, a few rockets and a nuke..
That way you could also end all those sissy robbings and fights, if everybody had guns it would be much simpler, then people could just shoot each other and get i over with.
Of course if everybody had a nuke i would have to have an even bigger nuke to feel REALLY safe... no.. thats just silly.. in order to REALLY feel REALLY safe i would have to be the only person alive, that way nobody could harm me... hmm... how to kill everybody else.. i mean, its my constitutional right..
What color is the sky in your world?

What color is the sky in your world?
I'm betting puce.

The presence of guns doesn't make me feel safer, it makes me feel like I could be shot.

I carry a gun all the time, and I feel safer. So do the women I train. They are demonstrably safer than the abused women who don't carry.

It's not the gun you should fear - it's who carries it and why they carry it.

Intent is everything.

I carry a gun all the time, and I feel safer. So do the women I train. They are demonstrably safer than the abused women who don't carry.

It's not the gun you should fear - it's who carries it and why they carry it.

Intent is everything.

Now, hang on there... are you saying all women who don't carry guns are being abused? Funny, I never realised that....
I never so much as touched a gun in my whole life, so I must have gotten an awful lot of abuse, right? :confused:

Now, hang on there... are you saying all women who don't carry guns are being abused? Funny, I never realised that....
I never so much as touched a gun in my whole life, so I must have gotten an awful lot of abuse, right? :confused:

"They are demonstrably safer than the abused women who don't carry."

Emphasis added.

That doesn't look like a statement about ALL women in any sense.

Now, hang on there... are you saying all women who don't carry guns are being abused? Funny, I never realised that....
I never so much as touched a gun in my whole life, so I must have gotten an awful lot of abuse, right? :confused:
No, that's not what I said.

I train women who are victims of domestic abuse and stalking - they are trained in the use and carry of firearms.

Of the many women I've trained, none have had a repeat of the stalking or abuse. This is a far, far better record than the experience of the women who choose to rely on a protective order alone.

Women who rely on protective orders are at an even greater risk of attack and murder than women who stay with their abusive spouse or boyfriend.

If I'm the one with the gun, yes.
:mp5:

Could you explain to an outsider what "protective order" actually is? Never heard the term before....

Could you explain to an outsider what "protective order" actually is? Never heard the term before....
In the US, if you're a victim of domestic abuse or stalking (usually both together), you can go to court and obtain a "protective order".

The court must be convinced by you and your lawyer that the other person poses a lethal threat to life and limb (yours), and that you have evidence of repeated attempts by that person to stalk and/or abuse you physically.

It's more difficult to get one of these than you know. Since most abusers do their thing out of sight of others, there's precious little evidence - just the assertion on the part of the woman and the presence of injuries. Life is not like CSI: Special Victims Unit. It's even harder to get a conviction on abuse charges.

Your stalker/abuser is taken to court, where he gets to contest the facts, and if the court sides with you, you are given a piece of paper that states that he can't be anywhere near you.

The police go to his house, take away his guns, and he is entered in the NICS system so that he can't purchase a gun at any gun store.

The man usually takes this as a humiliation and an affront, and it nearly triples the odds that you will be killed. By his bare hands.

Police will respond to your 911 call if he violates the order, but if he is not present when they show up, they will not arrest him. Many men continually avoid arrest simply by beating the woman and leaving before the police arrive.

I've seen this happen so many times, it's completely predictable.

That's why I train these women to carry firearms.

Having guns won't necessarily protect you more, nor would it cause more crimes. Personally, I don't feel safer having a handgun in the drawer. I have no reason to fear anything, in fact.

Huh... the US seems to be a very scary place...

I never ever had a gun, I never saw one (except in movies) and I don't even KNOW anybody who owns a gun. I think the presence of a gun would make me feel rather unsafe in any given situation, no matter in whose hands it would be.

No, not one bit. If I put a gun in front of my door, and someone breaks into my house, it wont protect me at all. A gun can't make me feel safe, the only thing that could make me feel safe is knowing that there is a 0% chance that I would have to use that weapon.

So, if it doesn't make me feel safer, why have it for home defense? It makes me feel ready. By owning the firearm, I know that, should by some cruel act of fate I be forced to use it, I will have it when I need it. I know that, if the SHTF, I will be prepared to act in the defense of my life and the life of my family members.

No, not one bit. If I put a gun in front of my door, and someone breaks into my house, it wont protect me at all. A gun can't make me feel safe, the only thing that could make me feel safe is knowing that there is a 0% chance that I would have to use that weapon.

So, if it doesn't make me feel safer, why have it for home defense? It makes me feel ready. By owning the firearm, I know that, should by some cruel act of fate I be forced to use it, I will have it when I need it. I know that, if the SHTF, I will be prepared to act in the defense of my life and the life of my family members.

So, you actually feel threatened in you own home?

What are the statistics here, what are the chances that somebody breaks into your house and actually threatens you? Are they really so high that they justify the possession of a lethal weapon? I'm asking because I know that here where I live, those chances are failry slim. If homes get broken into here, it's normally when the owners are away, so it's more likely to be robbed then to be hurt or killed.
It may sound a bit naive, but when faced with crime of any kind, most people here would simply turn to the police...

I do not feel threatend in my own home as long as no one breaks into it. If someone trespasses on my property, I am going to take measures to defend myself, and further, why should I run from my own property? Last week, two houses in my neighborhood, which is considered very, very safe, were broken into, both with owners in the home. My neighbors used to hate the fact that I own an evil "black" rifle. Now most have asked me if they can go to the range with me, see what it shoots like, how it feels, and where I purchased it. Nearest police station is about 15 minutes away moving at speed. A gun in the hand, in this situation, will give you a better chance than a cop on the phone. But hey, its your call. However, let me leave you with a few words:

One-You want statistics? Well, I'll give you this one. There may be a .0001% chance that it could happen to me, and thats .0001% to much. Remeber, these kinds of things happen to everyone else, well guess what, to the rest of the world, you are everyone else.

Two-If you aren't willing to defend your own property, then what gives you the right to live on it, own it, or even claim its yours?

Huh... the US seems to be a very scary place...

I never ever had a gun, I never saw one (except in movies) and I don't even KNOW anybody who owns a gun. I think the presence of a gun would make me feel rather unsafe in any given situation, no matter in whose hands it would be.

I tend to think of firearms as being similar to chainsaws.

If you know how to use it, and you have a need for it, you'll need it and will use it well.

If you don't know how to use it, someone, probably you, will get hurt or killed.

If you don't need a chainsaw, you'll think that the idea of owning one is silly - but remember, there are some people in this world who need chainsaws.

One-You want statistics? Well, I'll give you this one. There may be a .0001% chance that it could happen to me, and thats .0001% to much. Remeber, these kinds of things happen to everyone else, well guess what, to the rest of the world, you are everyone else.

Two-If you aren't willing to defend your own property, then what gives you the right to live on it, own it, or even claim its yours?

True... there may be a .0001% chance. I'll take that anytime. Even the chance to win the National Lottery are higher than that ;)

Why would I NEED to defend my property? There's laws and a police force that were both created to do just that. According to your argument, you are the only person who has every right to defend your property? How far can you go with that? Does that include you having jurisdiction over people who are trying to steal from you? Or is that only the right to fire at trespassers? And - more interesting - who gave you that right?

I tend to think of firearms as being similar to chainsaws.

If you know how to use it, and you have a need for it, you'll need it and will use it well.

If you don't know how to use it, someone, probably you, will get hurt or killed.

If you don't need a chainsaw, you'll think that the idea of owning one is silly - but remember, there are some people in this world who need chainsaws.

People needing chainsaws I can understand - after all, they are tools. Would you call a gun a tool?
Even so, I would be surprised to find a chainsaw in, say, an urban apartment or an office. In this case, I would begin to wonder about the owner's motives and intentions...

Yes. I feel a bit reassured with armed forces around depending on the situation.

People needing chainsaws I can understand - after all, they are tools. Would you call a gun a tool?
Even so, I would be surprised to find a chainsaw in, say, an urban apartment or an office. In this case, I would begin to wonder about the owner's motives and intentions...

There are sometimes large power tools in use in an office building. Like I said, the morality of a tool is completely dependent on the user.

Suppose I got on the Tube in downtown London with a bag containing a small gas powered chainsaw with an 18 inch blade.

It's rush hour, and I take the saw out and start it as we leave the platform. How many people would be killed by the time we reach the next platform?

Or, I might just be carrying the chainsaw to work - I'm a landscaper who left a tool at home and had to go get it. I'm on my way to a downtown park where I'm scheduled to work.

Here in the US, I have a pistol and 17 rounds of ammunition on me at all times in public. I haven't shot anyone. If I was to shoot someone, I would be cognizant that I would have to have legal justification to do so - someone's life would have to be in imminent danger from an attacker.

So, am I like the first chainsaw example, or am I closer to the second?

I help a lot of abused women - and their abusive spouses know me and hate me. I get a lot of threats. Should I stop helping these women, and leave this area, and stop carrying a gun, or should I stay here because what I'm doing is right and legal and what they are doing is wrong and illegal?

And what morality does that place on my gun?

:sniper: does the presence of guns make you feel safer?

first off who's holding them. I would say that they are not much for making it safe, however "I believe everyone should have a gun, however it should be a musket, so you'll have enough time to escape if need be." however that is highly unlikely.

they should retrograde warfare to how it used to be: swordsman ship not marksmanship. the push of a button is not how to win a war. that is very disgraceful.

:sniper: does the presence of guns make you feel safer?

first off who's holding them. I would say that they are not much for making it safe, however "I believe everyone should have a gun, however it should be a musket, so you'll have enough time to escape if need be." however that is highly unlikely.

they should retrograde warfare to how it used to be: swordsman ship not marksmanship. the push of a button is not how to win a war. that is very disgraceful.


Yes, by all means, let's go back to a time when women could not defend themselves.

Lord fulkan, I invite you to come to Ohio and join me in some action shooting. I will allow you to use my .45 and ammo. In action shooting you will engage multiple targets while ducking behind baracades, and in the open. There are also "no shoots" which emulate hostages. I think your opinion on " one button pushed... one kill." will quickly be changed.

I help a lot of abused women - and their abusive spouses know me and hate me. I get a lot of threats. Should I stop helping these women, and leave this area, and stop carrying a gun, or should I stay here because what I'm doing is right and legal and what they are doing is wrong and illegal?

And what morality does that place on my gun?

I understand your reason for carrying a gun. That really makes you a first... I can fully understand that you need to be careful in your situation, and you also sound as if you know what you are talking about.

However, I daresay that the majority of gun owners aren't in a situation similar to yours.
What I find extremely difficult to understand an accept is not so much gun ownership (you can own a gun in almost any country on this planet if you want to, you just need to have a valid reason for having one and in many you have to prove that you know how to handle it as well) it's more the idea of having a right or even the duty (as somebody tried to point out to me in another thread) that I find morally ... well, let's say doubtful

However, I daresay that the majority of gun owners aren't in a situation similar to yours.
What I find extremely difficult to understand an accept is not so much gun ownership (you can own a gun in almost any country on this planet if you want to, you just need to have a valid reason for having one and in many you have to prove that you know how to handle it as well) it's more the idea of having a right or even the duty (as somebody tried to point out to me in another thread) that I find morally ... well, let's say doubtful

In the US, there are approximately 2 million violent crimes committed successfully - that is, they were accomplished before the police could arrive or stop them. 76 percent were done with bare hands alone - 24 percent with a weapon of any kind, some of which were done with firearms.

So a majority of violent crime in the US does not involve them being committed with guns.

In the US, several studies indicate defensive use of firearms - most of the time without firing a shot - to the tune of 2 to 2.5 million times per year - in each case stopping the commission of a violent crime.

If those guns weren't present, the crimes would have occurred.

Additionally, I'm in a position to see the deterrent effect of gun ownership.

The men who have up until now abused these women are very afraid. They have been disarmed by the state, and I have armed the women with knowledge of how to effectively defend themselves. The men know the women are armed.

No shots have been fired, but the women have never been attacked again.

I challenge you to show me the same result in the US or UK. In the UK, for example, 1 woman is killed every three days for the simple "crime" of having reported her abuse to the authorities, or attempting to leave her abuser.

The police obviously fail to protect at least 100 women from being killed. The women are relying completely on the police to do so.

I believe that the means of self-defense should be employed without guns, thus dictation the strength of a country though the strength of its people, not armory.

I believe that the means of self-defense should be employed without guns, thus dictation the strength of a country though the strength of its people, not armory.

That is by far the worst thoughts on self defence I have ever herd.
By your belief, a old lady is supposed to be able to fight off a teenage hoodlum.

Reading this thread gave me the idea that people in general tend to think more about the person that eventually holds the gun than the gun itself.
It doesn’t make sense to me.
Most say "if the person holding it, is responsible or trained or respectable (respectable Duh!!!)... blá blá". How can any sane person say something like this?
It's bad enough if guns are available. Period!
Or do you really think that guns label their users as "responsible" or "trained" or "respectable" (this one really amazes me).
When you get a couple of grams of lead added to your body, you won't bother to think if the holder was responsible.
How many definitions can you have for "responsible", "trained" or "respectable"? I guess the same number you have to define "psychopath", "drunken buba" or "middle class house wife".
And the knife thing… Is this a “My weapon is bigger than yours” issue?
Just my two cents worth of opinion.

Just my two cents worth of opinion.

And that's about all it's worth.

As an absolute, I would say no. If I'm walking down the street and see a bunch of gang-bangers w/ guns, no I don't feel safer. However, if I'm walking down the street and see people w/ legal CC or the traditional shotgun in the truck, I know that there is less of a chance of something happening as criminals tend to avoid armed areas..

I believe that the means of self-defense should be employed without guns, thus dictation the strength of a country though the strength of its people, not armory.

Survival of the fittest may still be the rule in Jurassic Park but we humans use tools to beat the odds. Brains leads to tools, tools lead to successes we can't achieve with our own bodies.

Did you know in the areas the British control in South Iraq they allow one AK47 per household? I don't think everyone in London or Wessex or whereever should be "totin' shootin' irons" but with crime on the upswing in Europe they shold stop prosecuting British citizens who defend themselves with firearms.

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

Notice the obvious bias in the story.

And that's about all it's worth.

As an absolute, I would say no. If I'm walking down the street and see a bunch of gang-bangers w/ guns, no I don't feel safer. However, if I'm walking down the street and see people w/ legal CC or the traditional shotgun in the truck, I know that there is less of a chance of something happening as criminals tend to avoid armed areas..


Indeed?
Then should we say that "armed areas" have less criminals than "unarmed areas"?
I don't think so. In average the number of criminals (so to speak) is the same, the difference is the number of people who gets killed in armed areas and unarmed areas. It's easier to kill if you happen to have a weapon, no?
Don't you agree?

Simple enough question



No. Whenever there are guns around I worry that it will go off.

There are sometimes large power tools in use in an office building. Like I said, the morality of a tool is completely dependent on the user.

Suppose I got on the Tube in downtown London with a bag containing a small gas powered chainsaw with an 18 inch blade.

It's rush hour, and I take the saw out and start it as we leave the platform. How many people would be killed by the time we reach the next platform?

Or, I might just be carrying the chainsaw to work - I'm a landscaper who left a tool at home and had to go get it. I'm on my way to a downtown park where I'm scheduled to work.

Here in the US, I have a pistol and 17 rounds of ammunition on me at all times in public. I haven't shot anyone. If I was to shoot someone, I would be cognizant that I would have to have legal justification to do so - someone's life would have to be in imminent danger from an attacker.

So, am I like the first chainsaw example, or am I closer to the second?

I help a lot of abused women - and their abusive spouses know me and hate me. I get a lot of threats. Should I stop helping these women, and leave this area, and stop carrying a gun, or should I stay here because what I'm doing is right and legal and what they are doing is wrong and illegal?

And what morality does that place on my gun?



How about the nut on the Staten Island Ferry in 1986? He had a sword and killed two people, injured 9 others. A retired NYC policeman, legally carrying a pistol, used his experience and resolve to shoot this guy. I dont think he killed him either, but he stopped him effectively and brough thim under control.
Too bad there wasnt someone like that in Dec 1993, when Colin Ferguson shot and killed 6,wonded 19 on a train, stopping to reload more than once.

Indeed?
Then should we say that "armed areas" have less criminals than "armed areas"?
I don't think so. In average the number of criminals (so to speak) is the same, the difference is the number of people who gets killed in armed areas and unarmed areas. It's easier to kill if you happen to have a weapon, no?
Don't you agree?

"armed areas" have less criminals than "armed areas" ? What?

Sure it's easier to kill if you have a weapon, and easier to defend yourself if you have one as well. The majority of crime is committed w/ out any weapon at all. Can you dispute that?

The DOJ has surveyed criminals who have stated that they avoid areas that have a high gun ownership. Can you dispute that?

:sniper: does the presence of guns make you feel safer?

first off who's holding them. I would say that they are not much for making it safe, however "I believe everyone should have a gun, however it should be a musket, so you'll have enough time to escape if need be." however that is highly unlikely.

they should retrograde warfare to how it used to be: swordsman ship not marksmanship. the push of a button is not how to win a war. that is very disgraceful.


Maybe you're right- There are a few billion asians that wouldnt mind hacking and stabbing, just like the old days.

"armed areas" have less criminals than "armed areas" ? What?

Sure it's easier to kill if you have a weapon, and easier to defend yourself if you have one as well. The majority of crime is committed w/ out any weapon at all. Can you dispute that?

The DOJ has surveyed criminals who have stated that they avoid areas that have a high gun ownership. Can you dispute that?

I meant to write (than "UNarmed areas").
I won't disagree that the majority of crime is committed without a weapon, that was not the point. The point was, that more people get killed (generally the innocent ones) in armed areas. Even considering that criminals avoid areas with high gun ownership.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that security won't come with the possession/use of weapons, otherwise some "armed areas" would have long ago solved this problem, no? I mean this great idea of arming civilians to protect themselves is not what one calls new.

I meant to write (than "UNarmed areas").
I won't disagree that the majority of crime is committed without a weapon, that was not the point. The point was, that more people get killed (generally the innocent ones) in armed areas. Even considering that criminals avoid areas with high gun ownership.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that security won't come with the possession/use of weapons, otherwise some "armed areas" would have long ago solved this problem, no? I mean this great idea of arming civilians to protect themselves is not what one calls new.


What are you drawing these conclusions from?

When a county (in US) adopts a right to carry concealed weapons law murder, rape and assualt rates fall. Usally by 5-10 % percent in the first year. As more time passes and more people get permits and guns the rates continue to fall. Converesly property crime rise, auto theft most notibly.
No armed civilian aren't a new idea but then the fact that US counties with concealed rights and higher arrest rates have less violent crime then those wothout concealed right and or high arrest rates.

Source. More Guns, Less Crime, John R Lott, Jr. The University of Chicago Press.

All I know is that I feel much safer in a world where any religious fanatic or angry x-lover nut can buy an armour peircing automatic assault weapon for 3.50$ americain.

Its like that NRA commercial for their weapons with armour peircing "Because some vermin have kevlar hide"

(kevlar is what they make bullet proof vests out of

up to a point i guess, but i really'd prefer to have my bow.

All I know is that I feel much safer in a world where any religious fanatic or angry x-lover nut can buy an armour peircing automatic assault weapon for 3.50$ americain.

Its like that NRA commercial for their weapons with armour peircing "Because some vermin have kevlar hide"

(kevlar is what they make bullet proof vests out of

I'ld love for you to source either of those.

(and there is no such thing as a bullet proof vest.)

I challenge you to show me the same result in the US or UK. In the UK, for example, 1 woman is killed every three days for the simple "crime" of having reported her abuse to the authorities, or attempting to leave her abuser.

Source? Otherwise - quit bullshitting.


Kecibukia - Are you being pedantic or ignorant?

I'ld love for you to source either of those.

(and there is no such thing as a bullet proof vest.)

No there isn't such a thing as a bulletproof vest but there's armour that'll take the first hit for you and if you are both using non-automatic weapons that might be enough to win the shootout.

Personally I think that civilian gun ownership is wrong, mostly because too many civilians are undisciplined prats. Any fool can make it through firearms training (I know plenty who have been allowed to use airguns by some bloody strict instructors) and any fool can get pissed and shoot at random passersby.

And any sensible person can panic and pull the trigger on the wrong person in the dead of night.

No there isn't such a thing as a bulletproof vest but there's armour that'll take the first hit for you and if you are both using non-automatic weapons that might be enough to win the shootout.

Personally I think that civilian gun ownership is wrong, mostly because too many civilians are undisciplined prats. Any fool can make it through firearms training (I know plenty who have been allowed to use airguns by some bloody strict instructors) and any fool can get pissed and shoot at random passersby.

And any sensible person can panic and pull the trigger on the wrong person in the dead of night.

Your argument about training applies to the police.

Here in the US, police in armed confrontations are far more likely to engage in unjustified use of force than civilians in armed confrontations.

Civilians here are far more likely to hit their targets than the police.

Why the disparity?

Because civilians here train far more often on average.
Because civilians in armed confrontations have a better idea of what's going on - it's happenning in their house, in their neighborhood, at their local store, probably with local people they know - while to the policeman he likely has no idea who the good and bad guys are and doesn't really care. The policeman here in the US views ALL civilians as "THEM". The bad guys. And no amount of training removes that.

I have carried a gun for some time now, and have been in confrontations, and I haven't shot anyone yet. I also have resolved those situations without handing over my wallet, or allowing someone to abuse me. And I am not a cop.

Point of fact - people with concealed carry permits here in the US are far less likely to escalate a situation - precisely because they know what might be at stake. The police on the other hand have no trouble opening fire at the minimum legal provocation.

Every 2 hours in the US someone is shot and every 5 out of every 12 times it is fatal.

Who needs sources, eh?

All I know is that I feel much safer in a world where any religious fanatic or angry x-lover nut can buy an armour peircing automatic assault weapon for 3.50$ americain.

Its like that NRA commercial for their weapons with armour peircing "Because some vermin have kevlar hide"

(kevlar is what they make bullet proof vests out of
Maybe $3,500.00 US... after undergoing an FBI rectal exam & paying a $300 transfer fee. Unless you know someone I don't, then I'd llike to meet them. My collection is mighty short on sub Five-Dollar firearms.

As for Kevlar? If I know I'm going up against Kevlar I'll be using a 75+ lb compound bow with razor points. Only thing that will stop that is a ClassIII trauma plate (Ceramic-Steel sandwich below kevlar). Soft body armor can't stop a blade, hard armor can't stop bullets. Too much of both means you can't move. Tradeoffs to everything.

Every 2 hours in the US someone is shot and every 5 out of every 12 times it is fatal.

Who needs sources, eh? Obviously some people do, and since these threads obviously have exclusive readership and no-one looks at the data already posted, I'll provide them again.

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, one a favorite of the "there's too many guns" position:

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) that means that in 2003 there were 460,207 crimes committed 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.

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

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).

Boy, for something so deadly, with no other purpose than to kill people, all those guns sure don't seem to be used that much...

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

--------------------------------

Edit: Ahhh, the deafaning roar of silence. Maybe someone will take this up over the weekend when I can't post.

Every 2 hours in the US someone is shot and every 5 out of every 12 times it is fatal.

Who needs sources, eh?

Most of those are criminals shooting criminals.Gangland stuff. And Where's your source?
Also those stats about how you are more likely to shoot some one you know are strange. They sound like it's friend or loved one. But will also include The jerk neighbor who's going to beat you dead because he doesn't like your dogs barking or a neighborhood drug dealer that you might have stood up to. More simply you only have to know who he/she is.

Source. The 10 things You Can't Say In America, Larry Elders

No guns don't make me feel safe because normally the lunatics who hold them...other wise known and the general public...are not tested to see if they are capable of being respoisble...but how many people take responsibility for taking someones life?

Oh I'd like to point out at that i spent my entire life around guns being in the airforce...and being trained makes me even more vary, as it should.

I grew up around firearms, for me they are no different than a screwdriver or a shovel. Just a tool to be used when they are needed. I am completely comfortable with them and if someone around me has a firearm I feel no anxiety.
Now if they point the weapon at me then I feel some fear, of course, I just never assume they are going to do that.
I remember watching a woman with a small boy in a RiteAid store. The boy picked up a water pistol and was playing with it. The woman slapped it out of his hands and began to yell at him. "I told you to never play with guns!!!! NEVER!!!!" I thought, lady, if anybody is going to accidently shoot himself or end up shooting somebody else it will be your son. He will be completely ignorant about firearms and also curious as hell because you denied them to him, even stupid toy waterpistols. Forbidden fruit.
My father never kept firearms away from me, his only rule when I was young was that he be present when I handled them, I had to learn proper care of them and to always treat them as loaded, the point was I knew about them and was comfortable with them and so they became boring for me.


I always loved guns as a child though my parents hated them and wouldnt let me near them. It was my uncles that taught me proper handling and respect for them. They ingrained into me a few simple habits at a young age, habits that I have I kept till now. I shudder to think how I would have handled my first gun if the only experience I had was my parents admonishion to stay away from them.

ignorance and fear is not safety.

No guns don't make me feel safe because normally the lunatics who hold them...other wise known and the general public...are not tested to see if they are capable of being respoisble...but how many people take responsibility for taking someones life?

Oh I'd like to point out at that i spent my entire life around guns being in the airforce...and being trained makes me even more vary, as it should.
So to be honest, it's not the guns that don't make you feel safe, it's the people. Too many people are afraid of a thing when it's the people that they should fear.

Actual enforcement of laws has much more to do with decreasing crimes and making people "safer" than any gun control/restriction laws ever did.

No, because they're too often in the hands of idiots. I'd rather deal with unarmed idiots.

Who you would rather dea with isnt up to you. Besides, I would prefer that the idiot is unarmed and I am armed vs both of us being unarmed.

No guns don't make me feel safe because normally the lunatics who hold them...other wise known and the general public...are not tested to see if they are capable of being respoisble...but how many people take responsibility for taking someones life?

Oh I'd like to point out at that i spent my entire life around guns being in the airforce...and being trained makes me even more vary, as it should.

As usual, Gun Control is not about the guns, it's about Control. Have fun trying to Control us lunatics.

So to be honest, it's not the guns that don't make you feel safe, it's the people. Too many people are afraid of a thing when it's the people that they should fear.

Actual enforcement of laws has much more to do with decreasing crimes and making people "safer" than any gun control/restriction laws ever did.

You got it, but the thing is i don't believe in giving every person a gun, unless every single person who wants one goes through psycho-testing to weed out the odd ballers.

However i don't realy buy this whole "give everyone a gun and crime falls" perhaps it does to a certain extent, but i spent some time in Colombia (odd ball country but you get the point) nearly everyone in the poorer areas has a gun...where is the highest murder rate? The poor areas...surly with such high gun owner ship that should be really low with only 25% of inccidents resolved peacefully.

Now maybe America is still not up to Colombian standards so maybe giving everyone a gun could help...however it's a slippery slope between there and something not very pleasent.

All i ask people is this...you daughter gets murdered by someone you think you know whom, now if you have a gun can you really trust yourself not to use that gun to kill someone you may or may not be innocent?

I can't...and I'm being bloody honest here, if i thought someone had killed my son or my daughter very very little would stop me using that gun to kill them.

Maybe i should manage my anger better but the idea of giving everyone a gun to protect themselves i think works on the principle that everyone is law abiding and rational...they are not...you can tell that by the number of people who do not where thri seat belts in their cars...for example.

As far as I'm concerned if law abiding people have guns it makes guns more and more acceptable...and sooner or later criminals will just tool up more and more.

In Britain the police were never armed with guns...never but gun crime rose, so to meet that the police armed many of it's officers, gun crime continues to rise...more police are armed...criminals are now armed as a matter o course...it's cyclical...i believe it will get worse and worse.

Luckerly for Britain the majority of these illgal weapons start of as very legal replicas which can be turned into live guns.

These will soon be illegal and so i hope slowly the gun situation will get back under control...until a new sourse of fire arms is found.

As usual, Gun Control is not about the guns, it's about Control. Have fun trying to Control us lunatics.

:)

So you think every person despite their mental instability and the obvious ramifications should have a gun?

:) So you think every person despite their mental instability and the obvious ramifications should have a gun?
The first part of the problem is to define "mental instability". If we use the DSM-V everyone would have some type of "mental instability". (Unless you are a paedophile... they are trying to remove that as a classification).
Then we would have to determine who would determine who had the knowledge, authority to determine which determinations of mental instability were worthy of censure.
Who would determine which determinations were faulty? (Who watches the watchmen?)

Right now, if you have bee adjudicated by a court to be "mentally unstable" and therefore involuntarily committed to mental health treatment, you are prohibited from owning firearms. But it takes a court order to get to that point.

I think that's a pretty fair way of dealing with it.

The first part of the problem is to define "mental instability". If we use the DSM-V everyone would have some type of "mental instability". (Unless you are a paedophile... they are trying to remove that as a classification).
Then we would have to determine who would determine who had the knowledge, authority to determine which determinations of mental instability were worthy of censure.
Who would determine which determinations were faulty? (Who watches the watchmen?)

Right now, if you have bee adjudicated by a court to be "mentally unstable" and therefore involuntarily committed to mental health treatment, you are prohibited from owning firearms. But it takes a court order to get to that point.

I think that's a pretty fair way of dealing with it.


Oh i could just see all 300 million americans turning up for that one.

So just oout of interest...your pooved to be "stable" but bad things happen to good people...you go over the top and unfortuantly go loopy...no one really knows about it..."good ol' steve he always was a brick" then one day he gets' his legally bough and registered fire arm and blows away a few people at work.

Do we also put that down to caltoral damge?

Also why not ban people who have criminal records from having guns?

Every 2 hours in the US someone is shot and every 5 out of every 12 times it is fatal.

Who needs sources, eh?

Every few seconds a child dies in India because some idiot decided to ban DDT. What the hell is your point?

Oh i could just see all 300 million americans turning up for that one.

So just oout of interest...your pooved to be "stable" but bad things happen to good people...you go over the top and unfortuantly go loopy...no one really knows about it..."good ol' steve he always was a brick" then one day he gets' his legally bough and registered fire arm and blows away a few people at work.

Do we also put that down to caltoral damge?

See This Post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8824096&postcount=267) I don't want to cross-post it again.

Also why not ban people who have criminal records from having guns? We do. If you violate the social contract by committing a violent felony (any felony actually) you are not permitted to possess a (modern) firearm. You may possess a black-powder muzzleloader or revolver however.

You got it, but the thing is i don't believe in giving every person a gun, unless every single person who wants one goes through psycho-testing to weed out the odd ballers.

However i don't realy buy this whole "give everyone a gun and crime falls" perhaps it does to a certain extent, but i spent some time in Colombia (odd ball country but you get the point) nearly everyone in the poorer areas has a gun...where is the highest murder rate? The poor areas...surly with such high gun owner ship that should be really low with only 25% of inccidents resolved peacefully.

Now maybe America is still not up to Colombian standards so maybe giving everyone a gun could help...however it's a slippery slope between there and something not very pleasent.
Comparing America to Colombia just doesn't work. In America, while the justice system does fail from time to time, at least the system is in place and it works fairly well. Crimes are investigated and criminals are prosecuted and the corruption in the police force is kept to a minimum. I can't say the same for Colombia.
Im sorry you can't buy the principle "more (responsible ownership of) guns = less crime". But just because you can't buy it, doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's been shown several times in different threads that it does work.

All i ask people is this...you daughter gets murdered by someone you think you know whom, now if you have a gun can you really trust yourself not to use that gun to kill someone you may or may not be innocent?

I can't...and I'm being bloody honest here, if i thought someone had killed my son or my daughter very very little would stop me using that gun to kill them.

Maybe i should manage my anger better but the idea of giving everyone a gun to protect themselves i think works on the principle that everyone is law abiding and rational...they are not...you can tell that by the number of people who do not where thri seat belts in their cars...for example.
Then you should not own a gun. Why is it that the anti-civilian-ownership crowd is always under the assumption that the pro-civilian-ownership crowd is advocating that every Tom, Dick and Jane must own a gun? I'm advocating that every TD&J have the right to own a gun, but to do so or not is their personal choice. The anti crowd is trying to force their opinion on me, where all I want is to be allowed to make my own choice.

As far as I'm concerned if law abiding people have guns it makes guns more and more acceptable...and sooner or later criminals will just tool up more and more.

In Britain the police were never armed with guns...never but gun crime rose, so to meet that the police armed many of it's officers, gun crime continues to rise...more police are armed...criminals are now armed as a matter o course...it's cyclical...i believe it will get worse and worse.

Luckerly for Britain the majority of these illgal weapons start of as very legal replicas which can be turned into live guns.

These will soon be illegal and so i hope slowly the gun situation will get back under control...until a new sourse of fire arms is found.
Criminals "tool up more and more" with or without law abiding people's input. That's the major sticking point that some people can't seem to get past. All the gun control laws in the world will have little or no affect on the criminals, since by definition, they don't obey the laws in the first place. All gun control laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves with the most efficient means availiable.

Sure it would be nice to live in a utopean society where the police didn't need to carry weapons (or that there would be no need for police at all) but that's simply not possible. There will always be people who want what other people have, and will steal/rob/kill to get it. But even if we were in that mythical place, I would still wish to own a gun for recreation purposes.

Every few seconds a child dies in India because some idiot decided to ban DDT. What the hell is your point?

Right on. And as soon as South Africa started using it in extremely limited and controlled sprays again, their malaria caseload dropped like a stone.

DDT = Bad, Dying Children = "acceptable losses" to theoretically save some birds.

Feh.

See This Post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8824096&postcount=267) I don't want to cross-post it again.

We do. If you violate the social contract by committing a violent felony (any felony actually) you are not permitted to possess a (modern) firearm. You may possess a black-powder muzzleloader or revolver however.

So then why do you have so many gun related murders in the USA, you've got the bad guys without the guns, nearly everyone owns a gun (250 millions guns divided by an adult population of 250 million) so why do you have gun crime...or crime in gneral for that matter if as some people state more guns=less crime?

Right on. And as soon as South Africa started using it in extremely limited and controlled sprays again, their malaria caseload dropped like a stone.

DDT = Bad, Dying Children = "acceptable losses" to theoretically save some birds.

Feh.

Apart from the links with cancer and mental disorders...good for nothing people at WHO what do they know? :)

Apart from the links with cancer and mental disorders...good for nothing people at WHO what do they know? :)
Correct, in high doses. Of course, oxygen gives you cancer in high doses as well, guess we'll just have to ban that.

So then why do you have so many gun related murders in the USA, you've got the bad guys without the guns, nearly everyone owns a gun (250 millions guns divided by an adult population of 250 million) so why do you have gun crime...or crime in gneral for that matter if as some people state more guns=less crime?
The problem is we already have many laws supposedly preventing criminals from owning, purchasing, possessing, using firearms. But the fact that they are criminals means they don't obey those laws in the first place. Firearms are used defensivly 2,000,000 times each year. Compare that to the ammount of crime and you will see that gun ownership does indeed lessen the ammount of crime. It's a simple concept.... I still wonder why some people refuse to accept it.

Apart from the links with cancer and mental disorders...good for nothing people at WHO what do they know? :)
Acutally the health affects were grossly exagerated and the EPA knew it. Infact during the hearings on banning it, the judge admitted that they had no credible evidence on any adverse health affects from DDT. But they banned it anyway. Nice to know that millions of people dying every year is worth some feeling good about themselves for getting rid of a "bad" chemical.

Apart from the links with cancer and mental disorders...good for nothing people at WHO what do they know? :)

Excuse me? Are you actually saying that a supposed increase in cancer rates and mental retardation is justification for letting a child DIE every few seconds? Cancer(all forms) kills a few hundred thousand people a year. Malaria kills in the MILLIONS. I realize that there are people who are thoroughly brainwashed, but a few MILLION people dying every year from something that is preventable seems like a very bad thing to me...

regardless of how many bald eagles or jumping tree frogs it might theoretically save.

Acutally the health affects were grossly exagerated and the EPA knew it. Infact during the hearings on banning it, the judge admitted that they had no credible evidence on any adverse health affects from DDT. But they banned it anyway. Nice to know that millions of people dying every year is worth some feeling good about themselves for getting rid of a "bad" chemical.

Dont sell it short. DDT was made by <gasp> "companies". "Companies" that probably made a "profit" by developing and marketing and selling it. Therefore, despite evidence, it was most probably evil. Lets forget about the good that DDT does, and only focus on the bad. That way we can properly vilify all the productive people/institutions in the world.

So then why do you have so many gun related murders in the USA, you've got the bad guys without the guns,

Bad guys are not ALLOWED to have guns. That doesn't mean the DON'T have them, it just means that they don't follow the LAW - duh, they are CRIMINALS. Unlike Citizens, they don't give a rat's arse what they aren't "allowed" to do.

...nearly everyone owns a gun (250 millions guns divided by an adult population of 250 million) so why do you have gun crime...or crime in gneral for that matter if as some people state more guns=less crime?
READ THE BLOODY LINKED POST (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8824096&postcount=267) It has the real numbers.

How about if I told to that the CDC has counted almost 200,000 violent KNIFE crimes in 2002 that resulted in injury? Another 2600 resulted in death. Thats almost FOUR TIMES that of firearms injuries, and TWICE all firearms incidents combined. The problem isn't with the metal, the problem is with the criminal - primarily the Urban Criminal. There's not a lot of "gun crime" in the outer suburbs & rural areas.

Try using some common sense.

Apart from the links with cancer and mental disorders...good for nothing people at WHO what do they know? :)
Thank you, I'll take LIVE children with the POSSIBILITY of "links with cancer and mental disorders" to the MILLIONS that DIE to Malaria.

But maybe those millions don't matter to you.

AFAIC, WHO is as bogus, corrupt and useless as the UN.

How about if I told to that the CDC has counted almost 200,000 violent KNIFE crimes in 2002 that resulted in injury? Another 2600 resulted in death. Thats almost FOUR TIMES that of firearms injuries, and TWICE all firearms incidents combined. The problem isn't with the metal, the problem is with the criminal - primarily the Urban Criminal. There's not a lot of "gun crime" in the outer suburbs & rural areas.


Firstly calm down...

Secondly if you read this thread and many other people have stated that there is a lower crime rate when there was a high owner ship of guns. I wasn't debating knives or other parts of the debate (why you keep inclusding that when it is seldom mentioned...what you do have to admit though is that gun crime is a lot higher than in the US than hear...which is what i mean by a high rate of gun crime...compared to Britain you do...comapred to most western countries your gun crime rate is higher.

Now if you were not getting so angry and worked up (don't think i would give you a gun if you had such anger management problems) you would see that your actually agreeing with me...duh.

My first post into this thread stated that.

My entire point is that and i know this maybe a difficult concept for you...that guns themselves are not dangerous, it is the person, guns are also a grade higher than knives for example because firstly it's easier to kill someone with gun...secondly a long as you have a gun you can keep killing people until someone turns up with another gun and shoots back...with a knife you can be over powered by brave people without any weapons...therefore i believe a gun is more dangerous. (i just thought i would spell it out because i knew the first thin you would do is see my writing saying guns and more dangerous than knives and post stats saying how more people die from knives each year :rolleyes: )

Now because of this i would regulate the people that legally own guns, that means psycitric testing it would mean keeping guns in locked boxes with ammunition else where, it would mean having the sort of hard ass course to pass that the Japaneese have (interesting enough have the lowest level of gun crime and the lowest level of guns) . Only when you pass that course can you own a gun.

Now maybe you think everyone should own a gun reagrdless (-people confirmed with dmental disorders and criminal records) but honestly i think that's about as safe as giving everyone the right to won a car without giving them training.

Excuse me? Are you actually saying that a supposed increase in cancer rates and mental retardation is justification for letting a child DIE every few seconds? Cancer(all forms) kills a few hundred thousand people a year. Malaria kills in the MILLIONS. I realize that there are people who are thoroughly brainwashed, but a few MILLION people dying every year from something that is preventable seems like a very bad thing to me...


Don;'t want to break it to you but DDT is still used throughout the 3rd world anyway...you point is pointless.

Im sorry you can't buy the principle "more (responsible ownership of) guns = less crime". But just because you can't buy it, doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's been shown several times in different threads that it does work.

LOL yet anther person who can't read...as i said before it's not really the guns it's the people...what I've said is that not every person is capable of owning a gun for a number of reasons...in the same way your not allowed to drive if your blind...get it it's a simple concept. However because everyone in America would see that as an attack on their freedom (Americans seem have little common sense) that would never happen...and you can't regualte the guns because again that would remove the average Americans right to be shot in ther place of work...or their school with a legally owned gun. :)


Then you should not own a gun. Why is it that the anti-civilian-ownership crowd is always under the assumption that the pro-civilian-ownership crowd is advocating that every Tom, Dick and Jane must own a gun? I'm advocating that every TD&J have the right to own a gun, but to do so or not is their personal choice. The anti crowd is trying to force their opinion on me, where all I want is to be allowed to make my own choice.

Firslty i don't own a gun...firslty why is it about you...i have not really had a chat with you so how in any way could this be about you.?

I've never mentioned the idea that every person must own a gun...or that you think that way(why so defensive?)...however the problem with choice on such matters is that not everyone is rational...i have no need to own a gun, so i don't own one, not everyone thinks that way (duh) and so we don't know the motivation for buying the gun...i hope you get my point.


Criminals "tool up more and more" with or without law abiding people's input. That's the major sticking point that some people can't seem to get past. All the gun control laws in the world will have little or no affect on the criminals, since by definition, they don't obey the laws in the first place.


I'm using Britain because that's what i know, but what your saying in this case is not really true...Britain has increased and increased the number of guns it's police has over the past 20 years and gun crime has constantly kept up with this...like the cold war you could say.

you point is pointless.
Can a point be pointless? Isn't it the definition of a point to be pointed? And may I also point out that until this point, I would give this thread a whole lot of bonus points and point other people in its direction to save them from their pointless boredom? :p

Can a point be pointless? Isn't it the definition of a point to be pointed? And may I also point out that until this point, I would give this thread a whole lot of bonus points and point other people in its direction to save them from their pointless boredom? :p

Of course every point has a point has a point...it's just dependent on how pointy it is....this one is not very pointy to the point of not having a point...therefore pointless...IMHO :p

LOL yet anther person who can't read...as i said before it's not really the guns it's the people...what I've said is that not every person is capable of owning a gun for a number of reasons...in the same way your not allowed to drive if your blind...get it it's a simple concept. However because everyone in America would see that as an attack on their freedom (Americans seem have little common sense) that would never happen...and you can't regualte the guns because again that would remove the average Americans right to be shot in ther place of work...or their school with a legally owned gun. :)
I read quite well thank you. You implied in the post that I quoted that since criminals weren't allowed to possess guns, then criminals didn't possess guns, therefor there should be no crime at all. Yes, some people should not be allowed to own guns. In the above quote, you allude to the fact that since I oppose gun control, I am advocating that everyone be allowed to possess guns, regardless of mental stability or past criminal history. That's just stupid.... and horribly disengenous for you to suggest that. Why do you think, that someone who believes in repealing all of the gun control laws must also believe that it's someones right to harm other people outside self defense? Sorry to be a troll, but that's idiotic.

Firslty i don't own a gun...firslty why is it about you...i have not really had a chat with you so how in any way could this be about you.?

I've never mentioned the idea that every person must own a gun...or that you think that way(why so defensive?)...however the problem with choice on such matters is that not everyone is rational...i have no need to own a gun, so i don't own one, not everyone thinks that way (duh) and so we don't know the motivation for buying the gun...i hope you get my point.
No, sorry, I guess I don't get your point. You choose to not own a gun, you don't think that everyone must own a gun. Yet you say the problem with choice is that not everyone is rational, so therefor you would remove everyones right to prevent the actions of a hypothetical few who are not rational and would with the ownership of a gun go in a rampage in the streets.

I'm using Britain because that's what i know, but what your saying in this case is not really true...Britain has increased and increased the number of guns it's police has over the past 20 years and gun crime has constantly kept up with this...like the cold war you could say.
So are you saying that if we disarmed the police, the criminals would disarm themselves, out of a sense for fair play? :rolleyes:

Firstly calm down...

???

Secondly if you read this thread and many other people have stated that there is a lower crime rate when there was a high owner ship of guns.

Even though I am pro-choice, I find this statistic debatable. There are other policies, totally unrelated to guns, that show causal relationships to diminished crime statistics.

I wasn't debating knives or other parts of the debate (why you keep inclusding that when it is seldom mentioned... Actually, this was the first time I mentioned knives... the article I linked to was specifically about Firearms, Firearms Ownership and Firearms injury/death statistics.

what you do have to admit though is that gun crime is a lot higher than in the US than hear...which is what i mean by a high rate of gun crime...compared to Britain you do...comapred to most western countries your gun crime rate is higher.

Compared to "most western countries" there are a LOT of things that are different, culturally, sociologically, ethnologically, enviornmentally, etc. Comparing the two is basically pointless.

Now if you were not getting so angry and worked up (don't think i would give you a gun if you had such anger management problems) you would see that your actually agreeing with me...duh.

How do you come to the conclusion that I have anger management issues? I fear a little projection here.

My first post into this thread stated that.

My entire point is that and i know this maybe a difficult concept for you...that guns themselves are not dangerous, it is the person, guns are also a grade higher than knives for example because firstly it's easier to kill someone with gun...secondly a long as you have a gun you can keep killing people until someone turns up with another gun and shoots back...with a knife you can be over powered by brave people without any weapons...therefore i believe a gun is more dangerous. (i just thought i would spell it out because i knew the first thin you would do is see my writing saying guns and more dangerous than knives and post stats saying how more people die from knives each year :rolleyes: )

Nothing you said is particularly bothersome, even the bit about knives.

Now because of this i would regulate the people that legally own guns, that means psycitric testing it would mean keeping guns in locked boxes with ammunition else where, it would mean having the sort of hard ass course to pass that the Japaneese have (interesting enough have the lowest level of gun crime and the lowest level of guns) . Only when you pass that course can you own a gun.

Here is where we part company. You are advocating regimented government control over a set of people for their desire to own something. There is no practical way to achieve this, and the net/end result is hideous expense and the abolition of thing ownership. Who determines the criteria? Who has the power to change the criteria? At one point, in much of the US, simply being Black was sufficient criteria to prohibit the ownership of firearms. Would you endorse that? How would you stop it?

Oh, and the Japanese have NEVER had the right, or even privilege, to own firearms without explicit permission from the government. Guns were the sole provance of the Samaurai (along with swords). So your point is immaterial.

Now maybe you think everyone should own a gun reagrdless (-people confirmed with dmental disorders and criminal records)

The only "should" I believe in is that anyone not causally adjudicated as criminal or incompetent "should" have the right to choose whether or not they want to engage in commerce or trade and possess or not possess firearms. You would deny that right to choose by making it subject to the capricious whim og government.

but honestly i think that's about as safe as giving everyone the right to won a car without giving them training.
Um, hate to tell you this, but there is no "training" required (except in individual, usually urban, jurisdictions) for anyone to drive an automobile in the US. IF (and that is a conditional IF) you are required to take a monitored driving test after a written (rules) test, you can most often take that test with no formal drivers education whatsoever.

If you want my take on a licensing scheme, you could always look up my post that included my article entitled "License & Registration Please?" which applies common US motor vehicle law to a Firearms License". (The upshot is, it would give more people more access to more guns - and therefore unacceptable. :rolleyes: )

Don;'t want to break it to you but DDT is still used throughout the 3rd world anyway...you point is pointless.
Only partially true. While certain 3rd world nations are allowed to use DDT, they can rarely afford it (low supply due to being largely banned), and the WHO, UNCEF and others discourage its practical application.

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/faq.php#v8

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/petition.php

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html

http://scope.educ.washington.edu/malaria/

WHen scientists/doctors have to argue at Stochkolm every 3 years for 3rd world countries to even get limited perission to use DDT, there is a problem.

Guns cause no fear to me.
The wielders determine whether a person feels safe. I'm paranoid wth any wielders of firearms beside myself, but that's a blend of
They may shoot me/They will shoot me/It may accidently fire.
Guns are inanimate objects. People are the dangerous bastards that fire them

When you ask why the US has so much gun crime are you doing Micheal Moore Math? Are you comparing totals or per capita rates? It's true more people get shot in the US because the US has more people in general. We also have more car crashes and for that matter I'm going to guess we have more hot air balloons crashes.

No, no , NO!!!! I would like to say that i ONLY feel save at a total lack of weapon. I don't even feel comfortable in the presence of anything that could easily be used as a weapon. This includes kitchen knives.

No matter who uses it (especially me)!
Anybody is capable of doing mistakes!

I don't feel threatened by anyone (at least if there isn't anybody with a weapon around me) cause i don't think there is anybody who wants to hurt me! The risk of hurting someone by accident is much higher than getting into a situation in which a gun would have been useful.

By the way i dont like throwing knives - they are not very handy.. so i was 10 years in Tibet and learned to take off my sock and choke someone in less than a second to defend myself.


Edited:
When you ask why the US has so much gun crime are you doing Micheal Moore Math? Are you comparing totals or per capita rates? It's true more people get shot in the US because the US has more people in general. We also have more car crashes and for that matter I'm going to guess we have more hot air balloons crashes.

LoL? You can't deny that even in percent the us have more people killed by guns than probably germany and britain together. Ok you can deny that but this wouldn't qualify you as a serious person...but maybe you can't agree to the facts because of "your Math":"if i can't hear you you're not real".

Simple enough question


Depends on who's holding the guns. If i am...then yes. If someone who has my best interests in mind is, then yes. If not....well, then no.

As an american who has a gun, I must admit that I feel mush safer in disarmed London or Cardiff than in most places stateside.

This may however be, in london's case, to the extreme wealth of the city and its effect of bringing down violent petty crime.

The welsh seem too... nice? to worry about.

LoL? You can't deny that even in percent the us have more people killed by guns than probably germany and britain together. Ok you can deny that but this wouldn't qualify you as a serious person...but maybe you can't agree to the facts because of "your Math":"if i can't hear you you're not real".

What the hell? "my Math" has nothing to with you. Or what you assume to be true. Show me something to back that up. Hopefully something where we can trace it back to an actually study. Such as the bold type below.

the following is from http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

I'm a gun owner. I also went through extensive training in the military before deciding to own one. Now, do I feel safer in the presence of guns. Yes, now. Before the military I would have said no because I was unfamiliar with them.

In Canada, we have somewhat stricter gun laws than the US, and I think that it's worked quite well (aside from the gun registry program). We can't carry weapons around town, and I'm quite comfortable with that. It reduces the tension in public settings, and our crime rate involving firearms is quite low, despite the large amount of guns that Canadians posess. For the most part, I would say that Canadians look at guns as instruments to hunt (either for food, sport or both), and you will rarely find them being used otherwise.

I not only feel safer, I AM safer.

If I hadn't had my pistol, there are three occasions where I would have been robbed.

And I wasn't robbed, because they ran when the pistol came out.

No one hurt. No one robbed. And we each went our separate ways.

In Canada, we have somewhat stricter gun laws than the US, and I think that it's worked quite well (aside from the gun registry program). We can't carry weapons around town, and I'm quite comfortable with that. It reduces the tension in public settings, and our crime rate involving firearms is quite low, despite the large amount of guns that Canadians posess. For the most part, I would say that Canadians look at guns as instruments to hunt (either for food, sport or both), and you will rarely find them being used otherwise.
Which is the case with 99.98% of all firearms owned in the US too (less than .02% are ever used in a crime of violence). Your aside about how "well" the gun registry program has worked is why I am so puzzled as to why (other) Canadians seem all hell bent on getting the US to adopt a similar program.

I not only feel safer, I AM safer.

If I hadn't had my pistol, there are three occasions where I would have been robbed.

And I wasn't robbed, because they ran when the pistol came out.

No one hurt. No one robbed. And we each went our separate ways.
You were lucky. In my unfortunate encounters, one of the individuals got hurt. True, he got hurt when he released his hold on my moving car when I pointed a gun at him (attempted car-jacking), but he didn't get hurt because I pulled the trigger... :D

Given that criminals have guns, and the govt (corrupt and leaning ever more towards fascism to the cheers of the ignorant masses) has guns, do you feel safer with or without one?

What the hell? "my Math" has nothing to with you. Or what you assume to be true. Show me something to back that up. Hopefully something where we can trace it back to an actually study. Such as the bold type below.

the following is from http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey does what? Yeah the crime rate in the US (29-21) fell and in Englad (19-26) it raised. So what??

I don't see the connection. As you can see in the survey there are states with more or less guns than the US which got lower/higher/equal crime rates. This shows imho that the possession of guns has very little to do with the crime rate. Gun restrictions (like said in your "article") may influence this but they are neither the cause nor the cure for crime.

I don't know what this John R. Lott, Jr. (...!) is talkin about. After guns were banned in '96 the crime rate fell from 30-26 in England.

By the way as you know this survey was a questionnaire and as far as i know someone needs to be alive to fill a questionnair.
And the homicide/gun homicide statistics i found showed that the US has one of the highest murder rates of the western states. In '99 5.7 homicide/3.7 firearm homicide per 100K. And England? In '97 there were only 1,4 killed.

It's not a question of how many guns a country owns - it's important like Moore said what they are used for. For "protection" like in the US which seems to work really great or for hunting/sports/traditions like in Canada. But it's also obvious that the availability of guns easy to kill people - so I AM feeling safer with no guns around!

Copy/paste a text which was published in a magazine doesn't prove anything. You should question those things you read especially if you're trying to argue with them.

I don't know what this John R. Lott, Jr. (...!) is talkin about. After guns were banned in '96 the crime rate fell from 30-26 in England.

By the way as you know this survey was a questionnaire and as far as i know someone needs to be alive to fill a questionnair.
And the homicide/gun homicide statistics i found showed that the US has one of the highest murder rates of the western states. In '99 5.7 homicide/3.7 firearm homicide per 100K. And England? In '97 there were only 1,4 killed.

It's not a question of how many guns a country owns - it's important like Moore said what they are used for. For "protection" like in the US which seems to work really great or for hunting/sports/traditions like in Canada. But it's also obvious that the availability of guns easy to kill people - so I AM feeling safer with no guns around!

Copy/paste a text which was published in a magazine doesn't prove anything. You should question those things you read especially if you're trying to argue with them.

You'll have to help here. You still have no sources. Yet without looking over Lott's body of work you want to tell me to question it. Again Show us a source that can be checked.

Well where are the sources of Lott's article?

The www.unicri.it survey proves the opposite (as i already said). And i don't want you to question Lott's work - i want you to question ALL work even if it supports your oppinion.
And won't say that numbers really proves a thing - you always have to think about causes by yourself.
I think most of you visited school and are able to see that this can't be a reliable article - at least i got the demand of a little objectivity you won't find there. The clumsy way he tries to manipulate the reader is ridiculous.

All i said was that gun availability may eases to kill people but it's not a cause. But in the US the fear to become a victim is much higher than elsewhere (you can see this in this thread too). So i say that weapons plus fear are a dangeous mix which causes innocent deaths. That's all bowling for columbine was about.

I took the other stats from this site but in some cases the stats are rather old... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

That's all bowling for columbine was about.

Michael Moore said that Bowling for Columbine was comedy - not fact.

If you believe Bowling for Columbine, then perhaps you should watch the Flintstones to get your view of what life was like for primitive man. There are gross distortions and outright lies all throughout Bowling for Columbine.

Also, you should understand that 76 percent of people who commit violent crimes NEVER USE A WEAPON OF ANY KIND. And that of the remaining 24 percent, that also includes ANY KIND of weapon - not just firearms.

So most violent criminals can and ARE driven off by the mere display of a gun.

I've personally done it several times. And I train victims of domestic violence to carry guns - and the mere idea that they have a gun is currently enough to keep their former abuser from repeating their attacks - a result that is NOT achieved by the system of hoping that the police will protect you.

Fear is not unreasonable or illogical if an abuser is stalking his ex-wife. She has every real reason to be in fear of her life - and the court agrees with her by granting her a protective order. Yet the police still will not guard her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life. Just obtaining such a protective order usually doubles the chance that the woman will be killed, because the abuser sees this as a personal affront and a pointed challenge.

Of the 104 women I've trained over the past two years, none of them have been attacked and none of them have been killed. I would challenge you to compare this to any other population of 104 women in any country where those women are in a domestic violence prevention program. I would also compare the liberty that these women have to stay in their neighborhood, stay in their home, keep the same job, and still visit their friends and relatives - while women in other programs hide in secret locations, lose their jobs, never see their relatives again out of fear the man will find them, and still get killed.

A gun is not just used for killing. It embodies a deterrent that cannot be matched by any other means.

Ok, I can understand why you feel the need to protect yourself with a firearm and I can also understand the reason these women have. BUT that still doesn't mean I feel safer when I know that there's a gun around.
I think you will agree that both you and the women you train are in circumstances that are not the norm, not even in the United States (at least I hope so)
I've discussed this topic with a few friends of mine, among them my housemate, whose sister lives in Illinois. While I myself only spent some time in Canada, she had spent some time with her sister there and she tried to describe to me what life there "feels" like. I can't say if I would change my opinion on guns should I ever come to live in the states... personally, I doubt that. At the moment I'm living in Ireland, and to be honest, I never felt the need to protcet myself from anything or anybody here.

"Bowling for Columbine" is a movie I for one was happy to see, not so much for the facts and opinions that were presented (of course they were biased, there is no such thing as objective journalism), but for the questions i raised.
Why is it that the United States of America is so mad about guns? No othe nation has that big an issue with it... where is the difference?

Like Switzerland, a lot of Americans were raised with guns - a lot of Americans see a gun as a normal tool - not as an instrument of fear.

We also have a historical background as a frontier area, where almost everyone had at least one gun.

There was a recent attempt by a historian to debunk this using falsified data (his name was Belesiles) - he wanted to say that most Americans in history had never owned a gun.

Emory University and his publisher were forced to kick him in the ass when he couldn't back anything up - and then other historians who knew his assertions were bullshit leaped on his carcass.

It's just true that most legally owned firearms will never be involved in a crime. And most legal gun owners will never commit a crime. And most violent crime (76 percent) is committed without a weapon of any kind.

So this image of the US as a place where gunplay erupts constantly on the street is just not true in general. In fact, it's probably more true in the urban areas where guns are literally forbidden, where ownership is illegal.

You can own a gun without the intent of ever using it to kill or harm or threaten anyone. It's going on to the tune of 80 million legal gun owners with 300 million guns.

The attraction for me initially is that the firearm is an instrument of power. Rarely in life does someone get to practice the exercise of power - it's why so many politicians are screwups - they haven't had any experience in where the line is drawn. Carry a weapon with a legal purpose in mind every day, and you begin to realize that conflict can be resolved in many ways OTHER than the use of force - or even calling the police. I'm of the opinion that if I have to call the police to resolve a problem, either it's a problem that's too big for me to handle, or I've done something wrong in handling a small situation.

No, I don't go hoping that I kill someone. But I do feel an inner duty to protect myself and my fellow human beings from the harm that comes from stupidity and selfish aggression.

Have you ever been to Switzerland?
They seem to handle their guns very differently. Also, if I remember correctly, most guns in Switzerland are army guns, as service is compulsory every few years and people get to take their guns home in between the training intervals. They have to acconut for everything that is going on with the gun, down to every single bullet (and if you know a bit about Switzerland, THAT really means every single bullet including the packing and receipt)

So, if you are saying that the famous "right to own a gun" is just cherished part of your cultural tradition and is not related to the very high number of violent crimes in the US nor for the general feeling of having to protect yourself, where does that come from, then?

Have you ever been to Switzerland?
They seem to handle their guns very differently. Also, if I remember correctly, most guns in Switzerland are army guns, as service is compulsory every few years and people get to take their guns home in between the training intervals. They have to acconut for everything that is going on with the gun, down to every single bullet (and if you know a bit about Switzerland, THAT really means every single bullet including the packing and receipt)

So, if you are saying that the famous "right to own a gun" is just cherished part of your cultural tradition and is not related to the very high number of violent crimes in the US nor for the general feeling of having to protect yourself, where does that come from, then?

Violent crime skyrocketed in the time of Prohibition (alcohol was illegal and gangs ran rampant). It then plummeted, even though gun ownership did not.

It stayed low until the late 1960s - and there's a connection that's been drawn many times between the culture of illegal drugs and most of the violent crime in the US. I'll see if I can find the graph for you.

So, violent crime has been skyrocketing in the time of the War on Drugs (drugs are illegal and gangs are running rampant).

Gangs are fueled by money that they obtain from selling illegal drugs. Stop the flow of money by making drugs legal, and we would probably be a fairly quiet place.

Violent crime skyrocketed in the time of Prohibition (alcohol was illegal and gangs ran rampant). It then plummeted, even though gun ownership did not.

It stayed low until the late 1960s - and there's a connection that's been drawn many times between the culture of illegal drugs and most of the violent crime in the US. I'll see if I can find the graph for you.

So, violent crime has been skyrocketing in the time of the War on Drugs (drugs are illegal and gangs are running rampant).

Gangs are fueled by money that they obtain from selling illegal drugs. Stop the flow of money by making drugs legal, and we would probably be a fairly quiet place.


I just LOVE this explanation, make drugs legal and live happily ever after... :D

But I find it hard to believe it :(

Drugs are illegal in most countries in Europe, yet none of these can compare to the US when it comes to the number of violent crimes. Drug laws are a lot more relaxed in the Netherlands for example, yet their crime rate is European average... no relation there, I'm afraid.

Simple enough question
The question is who is the gun in the hands of, a mugger or a policeman.The question to me is just a little bit simplistic. I mean is the question meant a rorshac [sic] test to see how i feel in the presence of a guns. Not good, but it could be because when i was seventeen i almost shot a game warden. The fact that was accidental doesn't negate the discomfort i feel when i know i am in the vicinity of of guns .The latest person i knew who owned some guns ended up killing himself with one of them. The latest insanity is that Florida has passed a bill that basically says that if you feel threatened by anyone you can shoot them. Bloody scary!

Michael Moore said that Bowling for Columbine was comedy - not fact.

If you believe Bowling for Columbine, then perhaps you should watch the Flintstones to get your view of what life was like for primitive man. There are gross distortions and outright lies all throughout Bowling for Columbine.

Also, you should understand that 76 percent of people who commit violent crimes NEVER USE A WEAPON OF ANY KIND. And that of the remaining 24 percent, that also includes ANY KIND of weapon - not just firearms.

So most violent criminals can and ARE driven off by the mere display of a gun.

I've personally done it several times. And I train victims of domestic violence to carry guns - and the mere idea that they have a gun is currently enough to keep their former abuser from repeating their attacks - a result that is NOT achieved by the system of hoping that the police will protect you.

Fear is not unreasonable or illogical if an abuser is stalking his ex-wife. She has every real reason to be in fear of her life - and the court agrees with her by granting her a protective order. Yet the police still will not guard her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life. Just obtaining such a protective order usually doubles the chance that the woman will be killed, because the abuser sees this as a personal affront and a pointed challenge.

Of the 104 women I've trained over the past two years, none of them have been attacked and none of them have been killed. I would challenge you to compare this to any other population of 104 women in any country where those women are in a domestic violence prevention program. I would also compare the liberty that these women have to stay in their neighborhood, stay in their home, keep the same job, and still visit their friends and relatives - while women in other programs hide in secret locations, lose their jobs, never see their relatives again out of fear the man will find them, and still get killed.

A gun is not just used for killing. It embodies a deterrent that cannot be matched by any other means.

I would never say that BfC was a proper documentation - but it can help you to understand why the US are mad about guns and why they got such a high rate of gun crime.
Yes but most murder are commited with guns and you got a lot of both.

"most violent criminals"? So those who don't use weapons are violent, yeah...

Your stalker example - first of all this is precise threat. I agree that in special cases a gun can be justifyed. But you'll agree that most people aren't stalked by anyone. So does anyone need a gun to defend himself against a general threat?

You think the police can't defend this person and that those people need to take justice to their own? - this is overrideing the executive. Why don't you try to fight the cause? The helplessness of the goverment.

If you think you're safer in a country with lots weapons the stalker would have access to guns as well so your determent wouldn't work anymore.

"I've personally done it several times." Several times? I really don't want to live in your country!! I never was a victim of crime and haven't even been close it it either! You got so many guns and are still more unsafe than most other western countrys - ironic it seems.
I can just say that i don't know anyone who has been victim of violent crime or stalking. Well, i don't even remember anyone was ever killed with a gun in my city and i don't remember any woman was killed by a stalker. We got a pop. of 65K.

I think a "simple enough question" deserves a "simple enough answer."

No.