US Gun Laws

[markabilly]

Wrong. There is no such thing as voluntary abdication of rights under the law and there is also no forcible removal of them without due process through the courts. Re-read the Fourteenth Amendment.



A simple question deserves a simple answer. The answer is: NO

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

Once again, very correct as to actions by a governmental agent, body or actor, but as to others, it does not apply at all, for the law reasons above.

As to the act of a person defending his home and person from attack, he is far more freer to use deadly force than is a police officer.
And so it should be.

[555-04Q2]

So it is all the fault of a political party rather than individuals themselves? I would have thought that you, as a right-winger, would believe in personal responsibility rather than farming the blame out.

:erm: I'm not a right winger, poopall.

[555-04Q2]

Lets be honest, South Africa has never been completely safe. Yes it has become far worse since the ANC took power but it was always a lot less safe than the rest of the world.

Dan, as a teenager I used to walk from the Berea through the Durban CBD at 4am in the morning to go catch some waves at the beach and never had a problem. I can't even drive through the CBD during the day anymore, let alone walk it. Pre 1994, we never had burglar bars on the windows, didn't have an alarm system, went to the shop for 5 minutes to get milk and left the house unlocked with no problem. RSA used to be very safe, sadly no more.

[555-04Q2]

No such "right" exists at law; there is certainly no right for a person to act as jugde and executioner either.

Every person on this planet has the right to defend themselves when under attack. If that escalates to the attacker being killed, then so be it.

Too many people on here don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Wait until you have been in a real life or death situation where every second of the encounter you are struggling for your very existance, and you will soon learn that all the post on here about human rights and right and wrong actions and laws are just plain old bullsh!t. I pray you never have to experience a life or death situation against attackers, but if you ever do and you survive it, you will know exactly what I mean. Until then, all the posts on here are just hot air.

[Bob Riebe]

Prove it.U.S. law, look it up.

[Daniel]

poopall.

Don't be naughty ;) :p

[Dave B]

And if I were to suddenly punch you in the face, would you shoot me? :eek:

I think not, given your other responses, so how many blows would it take before you quit "turning the other cheek"?

This is where you and Bob seem to have difficulty. It's not simply a black and white choice between shooting somebody or doing nothing, but there's a reasonable middle ground where one can defend oneself with reasonable force. I genuinely cannot comprehend why some people can't make that distinction.

[Dave B]

Every person on this planet has the right to defend themselves when under attack. If that escalates to the attacker being killed, then so be it.
Fair enough, but the key word there is "escalates".

In the examples we've heard so far a burglar was shot in the back while fleeing, and a mugger was shot four times for punching somebody. That's not an escalation while defending yourself, that's shooting to kill, and utterly indefensible.

[ArrowsFA1]

Dunno about him but i might depending on the circumstances.
The availability of a gun removes the need to give a second thought about circumstances though.

The view among few here seems to be 'he punched me so I'll shoot him', the assumption being that worse could happen if they don't and they're not about to wait and find out if they were right.

I can understand that in a society where guns are a fact of every day life, but I count myself fortunate that the gun culture we're talking about does not exist where I live.

Here in the UK there has been talk about knife crime, and the fact that youths in some areas routinely carry knives. Many of them say they only do so to protect themselves from those who already have them. The problem there was illustrated by a number of stabbings which showed that carrying a knife means it's more likely to be used. The same applies to guns.


Fair enough, but the key word there is "escalates".
:up:

[Mark]

Yes, it's often said that in a confrontation, if both have knives then they are much more likely to be used, whereas if e.g. only one has a knife then it's more often only used as a threat.

Now I'm sure our American friends will scoff at that, but is it better to be mugged at knife point, or to be killed?

[555-04Q2]

Don't be naughty ;) :p

Could'nt resist :D

[555-04Q2]

Fair enough, but the key word there is "escalates".

In the examples we've heard so far a burglar was shot in the back while fleeing, and a mugger was shot four times for punching somebody. That's not an escalation while defending yourself, that's shooting to kill, and utterly indefensible.

I made a blanket statement for all situations (fist fight, knife fight, gun fight etc).

A guy with a gun doesn't have to kill a criminal/mugger who has a knife, unless the criminal is about to inflict a life threatening attack or for whatever reason he can't get away from the criminal/burglar with the knife.

You need to also keep in mind, when most people find themselves in the heat of the moment during an attack, they lose all sense of rational thinking. You go into survival mode. Everything becomes a blur, your actions, time, pain etc

[Bob Riebe]

Fair enough, but the key word there is "escalates".

In the examples we've heard so far a burglar was shot in the back while fleeing, and a mugger was shot four times for punching somebody. That's not an escalation while defending yourself, that's shooting to kill, and utterly indefensible.
There is no "escalation" to be debated or what ever obtuse name wants to this silly attitude that they are being too mean to the criminals.

It is self-defense not a silly school yard game.
ANY assault should be stopped quickly and permanently.
The purpose of defending ones self IS to end the aggression as quickly as possible.
This is not a computer game with levels of success.

Whether one shoots them in the back or shoots them a dozen times, is not relevant, and U.S. law makers are finally waking up to that fact.
The criminal is the bad guy. The criminal is committing the criminal.

All the crocodile tears being shed here because criminals are killed is foolishness.

[Bob Riebe]

A guy with a gun doesn't have to kill a criminal/mugger who has a knife, unless the criminal is about to inflict a life threatening attack or for whatever reason he can't get away from the criminal/burglar with the knife.

\
Wrong-- that is the moronic defense posture that liberals tried to force on the U.S. public for decades as crime soared. "Don't defend yourself- flee".

People finally got sick of not being able to protect themselve, even in their own home, especially after people who gave the criminals what they wanted were too many time shot, or stabbed, or clubbed anyway.

There is zero reason to run away if some one confronts the one. The one has every right and reason to do what ever the one thinks proper to defend one's self.
More and more locations are finally saying if a criminal confronts you, and you are armed and kill the criminal, it is self-defense, case closed.

[Retro Formula 1]

All a bit sad really. This American ideal or blowing the crap out of someone that may have punched / bumped / glanced against you is very sad but not surprising really. It goes a long way to explaining thei foreign policy where innocent people can be justifiably murdered because they're in the wrong place.

Is it a coinscidence that with the increase in gun crime in this country, there is a shift in attitudes that more closely align us with this degenerative type of philosophy.

The UK should be very worried of this alignment to American values. We cannot legislate gun culture out of our youth and criminals will always use illegal guns. However, the UK population needs to reject en-mass the acceptability of personal weapons in our society whether it's a gun or a knife. It needs to be unfashionable.

[Dave B]

All a bit sad really. This American ideal or blowing the crap out of someone that may have punched / bumped / glanced against you is very sad but not surprising really. It goes a long way to explaining thei foreign policy where innocent people can be justifiably murdered because they're in the wrong place.

:up: This. Bob lectures on life not being like a computer game, but it seems that's exactly how it is treated by some people. Someone's attacking you? Quick cap in the head and on with your day. A terrorist hiding in a Pakistani school? Send an unmanned drone and hope the kids can run. Truly pathetic. I'm so glad the whole of the USA isn't like that.



The UK should be very worried of this alignment to American values.
Thankfully France are their new BFF now. Obama said so (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100071241/barack-obama-france-is-americas-strongest-ally-the-president-gives-britain-the-boot-again/). :p

[Retro Formula 1]

Truly pathetic. I'm so glad the whole of the USA isn't like that.

You are right of course. It just seems that the more blood thirsty and callous they are, the more vocal they are about it.



Thankfully France are their new BFF now. Obama said so (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100071241/barack-obama-france-is-americas-strongest-ally-the-president-gives-britain-the-boot-again/). :p

Ohhhh Nooooo, who's gonna save our lilly livered ass from rug munching commies if America isn't here to protect us. I'm scared!!

[Dave B]

You need to also keep in mind, when most people find themselves in the heat of the moment during an attack, they lose all sense of rational thinking. You go into survival mode. Everything becomes a blur, your actions, time, pain etc
Which is precisely why these people are the least qualified to make life and death decisions.

[Mark]

You'd basically be saying that if anybody commits a crime which affects you, then you have the right to kill them. Public excutions for any and all crimes? I thought we'd moved on from that sort of thing. (Down with this sort of thing!)

[Garry Walker]

Wrong-- that is the moronic defense posture that liberals tried to force on the U.S. public for decades as crime soared. "Don't defend yourself- flee".

People finally got sick of not being able to protect themselve, even in their own home, especially after people who gave the criminals what they wanted were too many time shot, or stabbed, or clubbed anyway.

There is zero reason to run away if some one confronts the one. The one has every right and reason to do what ever the one thinks proper to defend one's self.
More and more locations are finally saying if a criminal confronts you, and you are armed and kill the criminal, it is self-defense, case closed.

Indeed.
If there ever was to happen that I would be faced with an intruder in a situation where my family is in danger and the criminal is armed with a knife for example, I wouldnt hesitate to shoot him for a second. Any other option is unthinkable. And indeed I would shoot to kill, not to disable. Just the safer option.

If some liberal idiot wants to let his wife be raped and his property damaged, then that is his right. I prefer to stand up for myself.

[beachgirl]

More and more locations are finally saying if a criminal confronts you, and you are armed and kill the criminal, it is self-defense, case closed.

Could you please provide the names of those locations, and the detailed specifics of what they are "saying"? I don't believe there is any law in this country that allows someone to kill the alleged criminal and get off scot-free if the alleged criminal is not armed. Or if the alleged criminal is shot in the back. Individual citizens of the US have not yet been appointed judge-jury-executioner, no matter how much some think they have been.

[markabilly]

Thankfully France are their new BFF now. Obama said so (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100071241/barack-obama-france-is-americas-strongest-ally-the-president-gives-britain-the-boot-again/). :p
Obama is one of those who still blames the Brits for slavery and colonialism :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

Could you please provide the names of those locations, and the detailed specifics of what they are "saying"? I don't believe there is any law in this country that allows someone to kill the alleged criminal and get off scot-free if the alleged criminal is not armed. Or if the alleged criminal is shot in the back. Individual citizens of the US have not yet been appointed judge-jury-executioner, no matter how much some think they have been.
In the USA, laws in most states authuorize a police officer or a private citizen to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony .

Many state laws also provide for the use of deadly force to prevent escape or fleeing when the citizen or officer announces that they are attempting to arrest or detain them as a result of a felony committed in their presence, which they witnessed, regardless of whether the criminal is armed or not. US Supreme Court has modified these rules somewhat for police officers only, although if lawful under state law, the officer can not be prosecuted under state law, but he might be sued under federal law.

The only requirement as to the amount of force is that the force must be reasonable to prevent their escape, regardless of whther they are fleeing or attacking, in the back or in the front.

Many states also authorize the use of deadly force to prevent someone from escaping with your property, regardless of the amount of your property, if the stealing occurs at night.

Private citizens may still do it; however, under the 14th amendment and 42 USC 1983, the US supreme Court limited the ability of police officers in a case called Tennessee v. Garner as follows:

"...if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given."

Probable cause does not require that the officer be correct, only that he has a reasonable beleif even though others might disagree, that a crime may have beeen committed or the suspect may present a danger

[555-04Q2]

Which is precisely why these people are the least qualified to make life and death decisions.

It goes for any person, every single one of us on this planet. There is no qualification required when all you are thinking of is saving yourself.

[chuck34]

Here in the UK there has been talk about knife crime, and the fact that youths in some areas routinely carry knives. Many of them say they only do so to protect themselves from those who already have them. The problem there was illustrated by a number of stabbings which showed that carrying a knife means it's more likely to be used. The same applies to guns.

So you also support a ban on knifes?

[555-04Q2]

If someone makes a decision - remember, it is their decision alone , no one is forcing them - to break into someone else's home, then they have waived any expectation of surviving that event.

Liberals forget, or ignore, that the initiating cause is on the criminal and not on the homeowner or resident. If you don't want to risk getting shot, don't break into someone else's home. Duh!

Well put :up:

It is crazy for anyone with any form of common sense to feel remorse for criminals who are injured and/or killed while performing a criminal act against someone else.

[markabilly]

The availability of a gun removes the need to give a second thought about circumstances though.

The view among few here seems to be 'he punched me so I'll shoot him', the assumption being that worse could happen if they don't and they're not about to wait and find out if they were right.

I can understand that in a society where guns are a fact of every day life, but I count myself fortunate that the gun culture we're talking about does not exist where I live.

Here in the UK there has been talk about knife crime, and the fact that youths in some areas routinely carry knives. Many of them say they only do so to protect themselves from those who already have them. The problem there was illustrated by a number of stabbings which showed that carrying a knife means it's more likely to be used. The same applies to guns.


:up:

never answered the question......

Again how many punches in your face or on those of your family, before you decide to quit being a crybaby? :rolleyes:
Reasonable force, oh sure, right.

Everybody should always sit down contemplate the situation, carefully explore all options, maybe even get on the internent, do a search or post a question in some forum, like, "some guy is in the room next door, whopping up on my wife and kids, should I shoot him or should I call the police and hope they get here in time? or maybe i should just go reason with him? Maybe i should try to stop it, but he appears bigger and certainly meaner than me...."

"Well I got my gun out and he has decided to run away, should I shoot him in the back??---I told him to stop that I was detaining him and would shoot, but he just laughed........"

Of course you should not shoot him, why would you? For sure he might do it again, but so what? It probably will not be your family......geeass you people are such whining little beggars, living on your knees

[markabilly]

If someone makes a decision - remember, it is their decision alone , no one is forcing them - to break into someone else's home, then they have waived any expectation of surviving that event.

Liberals forget, or ignore, that the initiating cause is on the criminal and not on the homeowner or resident. If you don't want to risk getting shot, don't break into someone else's home. Duh!
individual responsibility and paying the consequences for it?????

oh, not that. Clearly, this misguided soul might have been rehabbed and become a doc or a lawyer

[ArrowsFA1]

Before anything else let me repeat that I can understand the views of those living in a society where guns are a fact of every day life. The fact that there is wide ownership, legal or otherwise, means people feel they have a need to have a gun "just in case". That is understandable. It's also inevitable.

However, there is also emotive language and some macho posturing that comes into any discussion about gun ownership.


And if I were to suddenly punch you in the face, would you shoot me? :eek: ...so how many blows would it take before you quit "turning the other cheek"? How many blows on any of your loved ones??
No, I wouldn't shoot you because I don't own a gun. No matter how many blows you throw, I still don't own a gun to respond with a bullet.


If some liberal idiot wants to let his wife be raped and his property damaged, then that is his right. I prefer to stand up for myself.
Good for you, but no-one, liberal or otherwise, wants those things to happen to them.


So you also support a ban on knifes?
Knives as weapons. Yes, of course I would like to see such weapons off our streets. It would make them a safer place.

It does seem as though some see guns, not the rule of law, as the answer and that is not healthy for any society. In another discussion someone said they'd abide by the law until it infringed on their own personal liberty, or right to make whatever choice they wanted. That's effectively anarchy, and yet I don't see anyone here advocating that as being welcome in the US or anywhere else for that matter.

[chuck34]

Knives as weapons. Yes, of course I would like to see such weapons off our streets. It would make them a safer place.

Same issue with knives and guns. Where do you stop? Guns for target shooting? Steak knives? The vast majority of guns are NOT used for any criminal enterprise. The vast majority of knives are NOT used for any criminal enterprise.


It does seem as though some see guns, not the rule of law, as the answer and that is not healthy for any society.

It might not be healthy, but it is reality. Understand that I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen. Your views would probably change the instant a burglarer/rapist/murderer is in your house. At that point, "the rule of law" is going to take some finite amount of time to get to you to help. What happens in the mean time? Do you really want to find out?

[Eki]

Same issue with knives and guns. Where do you stop? Guns for target shooting? Steak knives?
Well, steak knives are useful, just like cars, target shooting isn't, and you can target shoot with a BB-gun or even with a rubber band.

[ArrowsFA1]

It might not be healthy, but it is reality.
Absolutely, but if it's not healthy for society as a whole as things are now then the answer isn't more guns or more knives.

Robert Kennedy once said: "Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes."



Your views would probably change the instant a burglarer/rapist/murderer is in your house. At that point, "the rule of law" is going to take some finite amount of time to get to you to help. What happens in the mean time? Do you really want to find out?
If that were to happen the rule of law, at that particular moment, is no help whatsoever because it can't be on the doorstep 24/7. What happens in the mean time? I've no idea. I'd do what I can with the resources I have and can get my hands on.

[Dave B]

Same issue with knives and guns. Where do you stop? Guns for target shooting? Steak knives?
Guns for shooting can be left secured at a shooting club, or locked away in a licence holder's home. Steak knives are best kept in the kitchen, although that obviously wouldn't stop an intruder or a householder using them for violent means.

But why would I need to carry a gun in my glovebox or a steak knife on the Tube?

[Retro Formula 1]

Indeed.
If there ever was to happen that I would be faced with an intruder in a situation where my family is in danger and the criminal is armed with a knife for example, I wouldnt hesitate to shoot him for a second. Any other option is unthinkable. And indeed I would shoot to kill, not to disable. Just the safer option.

If some liberal idiot wants to let his wife be raped and his property damaged, then that is his right. I prefer to stand up for myself.

Emotive Garry but not really the point. I think that most people would respond with excessive force when threatened with a violent intruder in the house. Personally, if it were me, I would do whatever I can to incapacitate the bas*ard but I would hope not to kill him. No great shakes if they die in my book but I wouldn't try to kill them, although they wouldn't be walking to the Ambulance.

However, what we were talking about was common assault in the street. I only know that a man was punched while jogging and he then shot dead the alleged assaliant.

We don't know the other details; whether the jogger started the confrontation, if there was an alternative motive or if it was a misunderstanding. We just know that a man with a gun shot another man who he claimed punched him. Now, THAT I find worrying. With a couple of the Red Necks on here, I can imagine them on the wrong side of the Barrel.

Is it me or does anyone else find someone shooting an unarmed man rather cowardly. Do firearms allow people to be wimps rather than sort things out?

[schmenke]

...We don't know the other details; whether the jogger started the confrontation, if there was an alternative motive or if it was a misunderstanding. ...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/town-n-country-confrontation-with-jogger-ends-with-fatal-shooting/1136139

"Thomas Baker was on his usual late-night jog about 1 a.m. Wednesday when two teenagers in dark hooded sweat shirts approached him. A brief conversation quickly turned into a confrontation, authorities said.
One teen punched Baker, who thought he was about to become the victim of an armed robbery, Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies said.
So Baker, 28, pulled out a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and fatally shot 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier multiple times in the chest. He called 911 and remained on the scene until deputies arrived. ..."

[Retro Formula 1]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/town-n-country-confrontation-with-jogger-ends-with-fatal-shooting/1136139

"Thomas Baker was on his usual late-night jog about 1 a.m. Wednesday when two teenagers in dark hooded sweat shirts approached him. A brief conversation quickly turned into a confrontation, authorities said.
One teen punched Baker, who thought he was about to become the victim of an armed robbery, Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies said.
So Baker, 28, pulled out a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and fatally shot 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier multiple times in the chest. He called 911 and remained on the scene until deputies arrived. ..."

So, a normal kid with no criminal record can be murdered in cold blood because someone "thinks" he's about to be robbed.

Just what the feck does a jogger have on him worth robbing anyway; sweat?



He said the neighborhood is pretty quiet with a lot of children.
Two miles from where Mustelier died, family and friends packed the living room of Mustelier's parents' home on Camino Villa Boulevard a few hours after the shooting.
His mother, Elena Lopez, 34, sat on a couch surrounded by loved ones. One hand covered her mouth as her arms hugged her body.
"He was a kid, like anyone else," she said in Spanish. "He was a little spoiled with me, but he was normal."
On the wall, Mustelier posed and smiled in a picture next to his brothers, Jordan Sarlabous, 21, and Michael, 11. Outside the home, Mustelier's father, Nicholas Sarlabous, 42, sat on the porch with bloodshot eyes.
Mustelier recently graduated from high school and planned to start studying physical therapy at Erwin Technical Center in Tampa.
"He was a jokester," said friend Jennifer Martinez, 17. "He was a good kid."
She said about 10 of Mustelier's friends showed up at the scene, including her brother John Martinez. He's been Carlos' best friend and basketball buddy for six years.
When John got the call, he rushed to the scene, dropped to his knees and tried to revive Carlos before paramedics took him away.
"My brother just fell on his knees and I knew it was him," Martinez said.
Friends and relatives didn't believe he was doing anything wrong.
"What they're putting in the news about a robbery, I don't believe it," said his uncle, Gustavo Gonzalez, 41. "He's always been provided for."
Said Martinez, "He never tried to start problems. … He never started a fight with anybody."


This is murder. Pure and simple.

[chuck34]

Well, steak knives are useful, just like cars, target shooting isn't, and you can target shoot with a BB-gun or even with a rubber band.

Ok steak knives are useful. What about butcher knives? If you're not a butcher, why would you have one? And cars are useful, but why do you need one that goes 200mph, or a big SUV? Those just end up killing people. We should outlaw them too.

[Eki]

Ok steak knives are useful. What about butcher knives? If you're not a butcher, why would you have one? And cars are useful, but why do you need one that goes 200mph, or a big SUV? Those just end up killing people. We should outlaw them too.
That makes sense.

[chuck34]

Absolutely, but if it's not healthy for society as a whole as things are now then the answer isn't more guns or more knives.

Robert Kennedy once said: "Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes."

And the answer is just as wrong if you are saying that outlawing the lawful ownership of guns will make a healthy society. It isn't about the gun, it's about the owner. Why is that so hard?


If that were to happen the rule of law, at that particular moment, is no help whatsoever because it can't be on the doorstep 24/7. What happens in the mean time? I've no idea. I'd do what I can with the resources I have and can get my hands on.

Yep, and if one of the resources you could get your hands on is a gun, you'd be thankful. Oh you'll never admit that here. But in the back of you're mind you know that if your family was being threatened, you'd do whatever you could to "take care" of the threat, up to and including using a gun.

[chuck34]

That makes sense.

So you're on board with banning anything deemed to be dangerous? Who gets to decide that?

[Eki]

So you're on board with banning anything deemed to be dangerous? Who gets to decide that?
Those who decide the speed limits, for example. Cars could be controlled by GPS positioning so that they can't drive faster than the speed limit on that particular position.

[Daniel]

So, a normal kid with no criminal record can be murdered in cold blood because someone "thinks" he's about to be robbed.

Just what the feck does a jogger have on him worth robbing anyway; sweat?



This is murder. Pure and simple.

He could have a wallet or something. Sadly some people seem to think that a life is worth less than $20 yet they're happy to send people overseas to die on the basis of misleading intelligence at the waste of billions of dollars just because it might save a few lives

[schmenke]

... if your family was being threatened, you'd do whatever you could to "take care" of the threat, up to and including using a gun.

Absolutely! Any father would fight to the death to protect his family. To say otherwise by anyone is hypocritical.

However, I still would not own a firearm.
I still do not believe that arming citizens is healthy for a society. It is symptomatic of larger social issues.
I would not subject my family to such a society. If my community degenerated to such a condition, I would move.

[chuck34]

Those who decide the speed limits, for example. Cars could be controlled by GPS positioning so that they can't drive faster than the speed limit on that particular position.

Are you really ok with "those in charge" deciding what you can and can not do? Can and can not own? Can and can not say? Where you can and can not go?

[schmenke]

Ok steak knives are useful. What about butcher knives? If you're not a butcher, why would you have one? And cars are useful, but why do you need one that goes 200mph, or a big SUV? Those just end up killing people. We should outlaw them too.

Poor analogy.
Kitchen knives and SUVs are not designed for the singular purpose of killing another human being.

[Daniel]

Schmenke's hit on an important point.

People seem to use language that no reasonable person could disagree with like "Do you want someone to come in and rape your family?!?!?!?!" as if someone who doesn't own a gun actually wants someone to come into their house, rape their wife and make a California cheeseburger out of their first born.

For those who don't know what a California cheeseburger is......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wggps67h-qU/SvF70_pkT_I/AAAAAAAACUc/4o6nk7_Hcn0/s320/RaAhBBk4Tnoucxg7LfEjJzUio1_500.png

Of course no one wants anything bad to happen to their family, but the fact is that in most parts of the world you're more at danger from your own weapon in the hands of a family member or a robber.

If someone tries to break into our house they can have all of our posessions, they're insured FFS!!!!! It's not worth the risk of getting killed or having to kill another human being :crazy:

[markabilly]

So, a normal kid with no criminal record can be murdered in cold blood because someone "thinks" he's about to be robbed.

Just what the feck does a jogger have on him worth robbing anyway; sweat?



This is murder. Pure and simple.

WTF--"normal kid"??? :rotflmao:

normal kids do not go around attacking people
the fact that the jogger had nothing shows how stupid he was. :crazy:

murder???? :rotflmao:

not by any definition is the USA.

He got what he asked for, and now he is dead.

hard lesson but none of the other punks will learn it

[chuck34]

Absolutely! Any father would fight to the death to protect his family. To say otherwise by anyone is hypocritical.

However, I still would not own a firearm.
I still do not believe that arming citizens is healthy for a society. It is symptomatic of larger social issues.
I would not subject my family to such a society. If my community degenerated to such a condition, I would move.

I also do not own a firearm. I have often thought about getting one for target shooting, looks like it could be a fun diversion.

I agree with you that if one feels so unsafe that they have to own a gun that perhaps they should think about moving. I also agree that there are larger social issues involved in many of the situations under discussion. But no one has put forward a reasonable argument how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do anything to solve any crime issues.

[chuck34]

Poor analogy.
Kitchen knives and SUVs are not designed for the singular purpose of killing another human being.

Neither are guns. You can trap shoot, target shoot, hunt, etc.

[markabilly]

Schmenke's hit on an important point.

People seem to use language that no reasonable person could disagree with like "Do you want someone to come in and rape your family?!?!?!?!" as if someone who doesn't own a gun actually wants someone to come into their house, rape their wife and make a California cheeseburger out of their first born.

For those who don't know what a California cheeseburger is......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wggps67h-qU/SvF70_pkT_I/AAAAAAAACUc/4o6nk7_Hcn0/s320/RaAhBBk4Tnoucxg7LfEjJzUio1_500.png

Of course no one wants anything bad to happen to their family, but the fact is that in most parts of the world you're more at danger from your own weapon in the hands of a family member or a robber.

If someone tries to break into our house they can have all of our posessions, they're insured FFS!!!!! It's not worth the risk of getting killed or having to kill another human being :crazy:


Daniel dude are you serious??

I never figured you were such a coward.

Every woman I know, would not tolerate someone coming into their house and threatening their family, indeed, would shoot dead anyone who even acted as though they might do something to their children

[chuck34]

Schmenke's hit on an important point.

People seem to use language that no reasonable person could disagree with like "Do you want someone to come in and rape your family?!?!?!?!" as if someone who doesn't own a gun actually wants someone to come into their house, rape their wife and make a California cheeseburger out of their first born.

For those who don't know what a California cheeseburger is......


Of course no one wants anything bad to happen to their family, but the fact is that in most parts of the world you're more at danger from your own weapon in the hands of a family member or a robber.

If someone tries to break into our house they can have all of our posessions, they're insured FFS!!!!! It's not worth the risk of getting killed or having to kill another human being :crazy:

Of course no one wants bad things to happen. But sh!t does happen.

And of course if you have a gun in the house, there's a chance that some horrible accident will happen. Same thing with ladders, stairs, some household chemicals, etc. Perhaps you're with Eki, let's outlaw anything dangerous?

[Daniel]

WTF--"normal kid"??? :rotflmao:

normal kids do not go around attacking people
the fact that the jogger had nothing shows how stupid he was. :crazy:

murder???? :rotflmao:

not by any definition is the USA.

He got what he asked for, and now he is dead.

hard lesson but none of the other punks will learn it

What most sensible people would do would be to pull the gun out and say "eff off buddy" rather than just shooting straight off.

[markabilly]

bottom line--you girls need to man up.
Tough, yeah for some of you.

[markabilly]

If that were to happen the rule of law, at that particular moment, is no help whatsoever because it can't be on the doorstep 24/7. What happens in the mean time? I've no idea. I'd do what I can with the resources I have and can get my hands on.

you might try crying......who knows that might work

[Garry Walker]

Emotive Garry but not really the point. I think that most people would respond with excessive force when threatened with a violent intruder in the house. Personally, if it were me, I would do whatever I can to incapacitate the bas*ard but I would hope not to kill him. No great shakes if they die in my book but I wouldn't try to kill them, although they wouldn't be walking to the Ambulance.
I think a fair share of people would do nothing, because they lack any courage and would not fight back at all.

You`d call the ambulance :D ?



However, what we were talking about was common assault in the street. I only know that a man was punched while jogging and he then shot dead the alleged assaliant.

We don't know the other details; whether the jogger started the confrontation, if there was an alternative motive or if it was a misunderstanding. We just know that a man with a gun shot another man who he claimed punched him. Now, THAT I find worrying. With a couple of the Red Necks on here, I can imagine them on the wrong side of the Barrel.
Well, we dont know all the details nor will be probably ever know all details. But if someone attacks me, then its free game in my view. What is considered an attack? If you push me, then that is not. You hit me in the face, thats attack all right.



Is it me or does anyone else find someone shooting an unarmed man rather cowardly. Do firearms allow people to be wimps rather than sort things out? Would it be cowardly if we are talking about a 140 pound dude getting attacked by two guys who are both 250 pounds? Would it be cowardly if the one who shot the guy was a woman who obviously has little chance of being able to stand up to the guy in a fight?

That said, I am no fan of weapons. I would be much happier if there were no guns in world, I hate hunting and think that killing animals for your own pleasure is sick. But the sad reality where we live in is that there is a huge number of people for whom crime is a lifestyle and who dont back down from anything. I have seen enough crime in my life to know of the dangers, which is also the reason why I have guns in my home, why I have alarm systems to protect my home and so on. I sincerely hope that I will never have to use them.

[schmenke]

.... But no one has put forward a reasonable argument how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do anything to solve any crime issues.

For the record, I'm not arguing that.

[schmenke]

...He got what he asked for...

He asked for 4 hollow-point .45 slugs in (well, probably through) his body?

[Daniel]

Markabilly, Don't call me a coward because you're so scared that the big black bogey man is going to come and rape you and your inflatable doll, which scares you so much that you have to sleep with a gun under your pillow. I have a choice of where I live and if I honestly thought my life was in any unreasonable danger then I'd move. Statistics say that Caroline is more likely to be the one that kills me rather than someone breaking in through the window at night.... Perhaps I should do the American thing and make a pre-emptive strike.....

[Daniel]

He asked for 4 hollow-point .45 slugs in (well, probably through) his body?

I think you meant to say in the back.......

Obviously if someone punched me in the face I wouldn't be happy but when he started to run away I wouldn't keep on shooting.

[Garry Walker]

Schmenke's hit on an important point.

People seem to use language that no reasonable person could disagree with like "Do you want someone to come in and rape your family?!?!?!?!" as if someone who doesn't own a gun actually wants someone to come into their house, rape their wife and make a California cheeseburger out of their first born.

For those who don't know what a California cheeseburger is......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wggps67h-qU/SvF70_pkT_I/AAAAAAAACUc/4o6nk7_Hcn0/s320/RaAhBBk4Tnoucxg7LfEjJzUio1_500.png

Of course no one wants anything bad to happen to their family, but the fact is that in most parts of the world you're more at danger from your own weapon in the hands of a family member or a robber.

If someone tries to break into our house they can have all of our posessions, they're insured FFS!!!!! It's not worth the risk of getting killed or having to kill another human being :crazy:

If I ever decide to become a criminal, I sincerely hope my first break-in would be at your house. You would probably give me cookies and cakes before I leave with the loot.

[schmenke]

Neither are guns. You can trap shoot, target shoot, hunt, etc.

:?:

The design of a semi-automatic pistol, with a multi-round magazine, equipped with a laser targeter, firing .45 cal. hollow-point ammunition is for target shooting? :mark:

[Daniel]

If I ever decide to become a criminal, I sincerely hope my first break-in would be at your house. You would probably give me cookies and cakes before I leave with the loot.

Being compliant there's a good chance that you won't have to shoot me. After you leave I'll call the cops, give them your description, invest in a better security system and hope for the best. Posessions are posessions, who really gives a **** :)

[Bob Riebe]

Which is precisely why these people are the least qualified to make life and death decisions.
What 555 said about rational is again wrong, the inborn self-defense mode is rational, giving in and cowering in fear is irrational if one has a mode to go on the offense against thee attacker; therefore your statement is void.

[Bob Riebe]

You'd basically be saying that if anybody commits a crime which affects you, then you have the right to kill them. Public excutions for any and all crimes? I thought we'd moved on from that sort of thing. (Down with this sort of thing!)

Tell that to the friends andd relatives of those who were murdered after they gave-in to the criminals demands.
Again the sympathy and out-cry against those who defend themselves says much about the attitudes of those condemning the victims actions.

[Rollo]

but no one has put forward a reasonable argument how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do anything to solve any crime issues.

Will real world evidence work for you?

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
...
The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.
...
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

[Retro Formula 1]

I'm just happy I live in the UK where you have <1% of the chance of dying from a gun related homicide than they have in the US. Leaves me feeling quite smug :D

Then again, I'm not a rooting, tooting cowboy that hides behind a Gun rather than dealing with issues like a man: through dialogue, through intuition and by using violence when all else fails.

[Daniel]

Will real world evidence work for you?

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
...
The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.
...
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
Bah Rollo, you can prove anything with statistics. The fact of the matter is that after the people of Australia were disarmed, hoardes of punks (mostly black because they're the scariest type) have gone around raping and pillaging at will and there aint a god damn thing anyone in Australia can do about it or at least someone told me that.

[Daniel]

Then again, I'm not a rooting, tooting cowboy that hides behind a Gun rather than dealing with issues like a man: through dialogue, through intuition and by using violence when all else fails.

Just remember if you go to the US to give joggers a wide berth because they might mistake you knocking into them as an attack :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

Yep, and if one of the resources you could get your hands on is a gun, you'd be thankful. Oh you'll never admit that here. But in the back of you're mind you know that if your family was being threatened, you'd do whatever you could to "take care" of the threat, up to and including using a gun.
Being honest, it's hard to disagree with you chuck. Yes, I'd do whatever I could, however I can't ever imagine being "thankful" that the society I live in makes it necessary for me to own a gun for the purposes of defending myself and my family.

I still do not believe that arming citizens is healthy for a society. It is symptomatic of larger social issues.
Exactly.

...But no one has put forward a reasonable argument how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do anything to solve any crime issues.
Law abiding citizens in the UK do not have guns in the same way those in the US do, but we do have the larger social issues so guns themselves do not cause those issues. They can however provide instant "justice" without the need to think about the causes of crime. Why worry about why a crime is committed when you can just shoot the criminal?

[Bob Riebe]

Could you please provide the names of those locations, and the detailed specifics of what they are "saying"? I don't believe there is any law in this country that allows someone to kill the alleged criminal and get off scot-free if the alleged criminal is not armed. Or if the alleged criminal is shot in the back. Individual citizens of the US have not yet been appointed judge-jury-executioner, no matter how much some think they have been.
NO, you look it up, I am not a librarian. If you read journals or even watch TV such cases are mentioned not infrequently.

Look up- self-defense castle doctrine, or something similar.

I will give you this:
A jury that heard a defendant was guilty of an earlier murder acquitted him Thursday in a shooting death at an April party.

Wakinyon W. McArthur, 20, of Minneapolis, had been accused of second-degree intentional murder in the shooting of Jerome Peake in the front yard of a house in the 2300 block of Bloomington Av. S.
Peake, 21, of Minneapolis, was shot in the back, waist, chest and shoulder.

The Hennepin County District Court jury deliberated about seven hours before finding McArthur not guilty.
However, he wasn't released from jail, where he has been held since April, because he is awaiting a probation revocation hearing.

[Bob Riebe]

Robert Kennedy once said: "Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes."

People, especially politicians, ignore, or hush-up what "rule of law" can mean. It is not sacrosanct.

Minorities who were alive in the South, pre-1965 can tell how filthy rule of law can be.

[chuck34]

Will real world evidence work for you?

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
...
The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.
...
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

Cool. After 16 pages someone actually makes a rational case for gun control. I can't argue with that.

"Those that would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither."

[chuck34]

:?:

The design of a semi-automatic pistol, with a multi-round magazine, equipped with a laser targeter, firing .45 cal. hollow-point ammunition is for target shooting? :mark:

Sure, why not? I'm not going to argue with you about the fact that a gun can be used to kill people. That's a silly argument. The fact remains that there are other uses for guns than outright murder. The fact also remains that people are killed by other "innocent" means as well. So let's outlaw knives, bows-and-arrows, cars, stairs, ladders, electricity, ice, and anything else one might deem dangerous.

[Bob Riebe]

Is it me or does anyone else find someone shooting an unarmed man rather cowardly.
That is the TV, Hollywood- bad guy draws first farce.
If a woman kills an unarmed rapist, is she being cowardly?

Do firearms allow people to be wimps rather than sort things out?

What do you mean by the second statement?

[Bob Riebe]

So, a normal kid with no criminal record can be murdered in cold blood because someone "thinks" he's about to be robbed.

Hmm, let's see, so you think they should first run a back-ground check on the criminal to see if this is something he has done before.
Secondly, the victim has to stand there and wait for the aggresor to get the crime ball rolling, to X degree, then and only then, can the victim defend itself.

Just what the feck does a jogger have on him worth robbing anyway; sweat?Ask the people committing the crimes.



This is murder. Pure and simple.
That is your opinion based on more concern for the criminals than the victims.

[Bob Riebe]

Ok steak knives are useful. What about butcher knives? If you're not a butcher, why would you have one? And cars are useful, but why do you need one that goes 200mph, or a big SUV? Those just end up killing people. We should outlaw them too.

I tell you, the thought of being shot does not send willies down my spine, but when I see some of the "assault" knives out there, being stabbed by one of them gives me the shivers.

[Daniel]

I tell you, the thought of being shot does not send willies down my spine, but when I see some of teh "assault" knives out there, being stabbed by one of them gives me the shivers.

Then why not just comply? My Uncle in South Africa was carjacked. He gave them the keys and they drove away. If he'd tried to reach for a gun he would most likely have been shot and killed, for what? A Mercedes Benz which was insured and replaced by the insurance company?

No one wants to be robbed, but I have even less of a desire to be shot, stabbed or beaten.

[Bob Riebe]

Those who decide the speed limits, for example. Cars could be controlled by GPS positioning so that they can't drive faster than the speed limit on that particular position.
Oh that is right you are a person who believes other persons are so superior to you, infallible- that you are subservient to their every wish.

Hot damn, the DNC loves people like you.

[Bob Riebe]

I think you meant to say in the back.......

Obviously if someone punched me in the face I wouldn't be happy but when he started to run away I wouldn't keep on shooting.

Why not?

[Daniel]

A very reasonable and intelligent post.

I can't help asking though, why is it that most of these threads are started by residents of countries were guns are limited or banned completely? I don't tell those folks how their country should be run, why do they feel they have any say in how mine is run?

Perhaps an outside opinion of gun ownership is just as valid as that of a US citizen?

We're constantly getting told that we're OK with people breaking into our houses and raping our pets and so on when in reality this is that this sort of thing is so uncommon that if it does happen it's usually on the news.

[Daniel]

Why not?

It doesn't work like that. You have to justify why you feel the need to take the life of someone who is running away from you and henceforth is little threat to you.

[Bob Riebe]

:?:

The design of a semi-automatic pistol, with a multi-round magazine, equipped with a laser targeter, firing .45 cal. hollow-point ammunition is for target shooting? :mark:

Yes, in IPSC shooting matches incredibly expensive firearms were made obsolete because arms with higher round capacity gave those shooters an easier task at a higher score.

[Bob Riebe]

Will real world evidence work for you?

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
...
The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.
...
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
How many mass shooting took place in Australia?

[Bob Riebe]

Then again, I'm not a rooting, tooting cowboy that hides behind a Gun rather than dealing with issues like a man: through dialogue, through intuition and by using violence when all else fails.

Come over here, stand before the families of murdered loved ones, and tell them pathetic diatribe.

[schmenke]

Sure, why not? I'm not going to argue with you about the fact that a gun can be used to kill people. That's a silly argument. The fact remains that there are other uses for guns than outright murder. The fact also remains that people are killed by other "innocent" means as well. So let's outlaw knives, bows-and-arrows, cars, stairs, ladders, electricity, ice, and anything else one might deem dangerous.

The only use for a firearm such as a .45 cal. semi-automatic pistol, that for which it is specifically designed, is to kill another human being as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is a weapon.

Target and skeet shooting can be accomplished by the use of specifically designed smaller caliber, one-shot firearms. Hunting: bolt-action rifles or bow-and-arrows.

Cars, stairs, etc. are not offensive weapons.

It's still a very poor analogy.

[Daniel]

Possesions are paid for with part of your life. Unless you were born very wealthy, you had to invest many hours of your life doing tasks that you otherwise would never have done to acquire the trade goods (money) used to obtain those things. Every TV, stereo, computer, ring, necklace, etc. in your house represents a (small) portion of your life traded to acquire it. The thief that makes off with a bag of your things has stolen more than just the things. They've stolen the part of your life you invested in getting those things. The reason they stole it is because they didn't want to make the same investment themselves. So you have ceded part of your life to them.

Why bother having a police force at all? Just give everyone a gun when they come out of the womb.......

Do you not have house and contents insurance? :confused: I somehow doubt that a thief is going to steal anything truly irreplacable.....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Bob Riebe]

The only use for a firearm such as a .45 cal. semi-automatic pistol, that for which it is specifically designed, is to kill another human being as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is a weapon.

Target and skeet shooting can be accomplished by the use of specifically designed smaller caliber, one-shot firearms. Hunting: bolt-action rifles or bow-and-arrows.

Cars, stairs, etc. are not offensive weapons.

It's still a very poor analogy.
The Browning/Colt Government Model 1911, Caliber .45,designed for the U.S. Army, is probably the most highly produced and used target firearm is the world.

It is also one hundred years old this year.
Happy Birthday Model 1911.

[Eki]

Come over here, stand before the families of murdered loved ones, and tell them pathetic diatribe.
How many of those families you know personally?

[Daniel]

The Browning/Colt Government Model 1911, Caliber .45,designed for the U.S. Army, is probably the most highly produced and used target firearm is the world.

And if people want to shoot targets with an appropriate weapon then they should be able to do so and have the guns stored securely at a shooting range/gallery. I've fired guns before and enjoy it but I wouldn't want to have a gun around the house.

[schmenke]

The Browning/Colt Government Model 1911, Caliber .45,designed for the U.S. Army, is probably the most highly produced and used target firearm is the world....

Why is a .45 pistol, with a multi-round magazine, required for target shooting? Why won't a single-shot .22 caliber do?

[Bob Riebe]

Why bother having a police force at all? Just give everyone a gun when they come out of the womb.......

Do you not have house and contents insurance? :confused: I somehow doubt that a thief is going to steal anything truly irreplacable.....

Two wrongs don't make a right.
But only one wrong is committed, the one by the criminal.

I have no insurance on property. For several decades I had an MV Agusta in my garage, uninsured after I quit riding it.
I finally sold it for 28,000 dollars.
If any had ever tried to break into the garage while I was home, it probalby would have been the last crime he/they ever committed.

If a criminal sets a house on fire, does fire insurance cover that?

[Bob Riebe]

Why is a .45 pistol, with a multi-round magazine, required for target shooting? Why won't a single-shot .22 caliber do?
Why is javelin throwing still part of track and field?
Why do runners run marathons and not simply 100 yard dashes?
Why does the hammer-throw still exist?

[Jag_Warrior]

More and more states are passing "castle doctrines" and laws like what Florida has. As our society becomes more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, seeking to prey on the weak and (seemingly ;) ) defenseless, legislatures are (finally) making sure that decent people don't have to hide under their beds at night, while criminals walk around as if they own the world.



No they are not. Laws enacted like the ones in Florida are only knee-jerk, band-aid solutions that exasperate the larger social problems. It's short-term, narrow-minded thinking that results in the attitude "To counter the abundance of criminals in society we’ll arm the citizens.”
Is anyone not asking “Why has our society become more and more infected by a predatory criminal element, and what can be done to alleviate it?”

Uh, YES, they are. As of March, 28, 2010, there were only six states in the U.S. that did not have some form of "castle doctrine" legislation. Unfortunately, my state is one of those six, but I expect that to be corrected during the next legislative session.

Don't fall into bifurcation, Schmenke. In a post that has now fallen back many pages, I already said that I find it most unfortunate that we have a generation of people who do not respect themselves, and of course, they have no respect for others or the property of others. But every civilization, from Rome forward, has asked the same question that we have both asked here. Thus far, I'm not aware that the question has been answered very well.

My position on this is that the adult individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions. The sad fact that someone may have had a bad childhood, does not obligate me to assume that they will not fatally harm me or mine if they break into my home, punch me in the face during a robbery attempt or try to car-jack me. My assumption is just the opposite, since they have already shown a taste for violence.

Here are some things I can state as fact: I will never be shot, stabbed or beaten to a pulp while breaking into someone else's home. How do I know this? Because I will not be breaking into someone else's home. See how easy that is? If we apply the same to car-jacking and strong-armed robbery, we can see that my concerns about being dealt with in a violent fashion are nonexistent... since I would not be doing anything that would require someone to deal with me in a violent fashion.

I do agree with you that we have a "people problem" though. One must also ask the question, why is it that the per capita gun ownership rate is likely many times higher where I live now than in say New York or Washington, D.C., yet the per capita murder rate (by firearm or other means) is but a fraction of what it is in these places. The per capita rape, assault and robbery rate is also lower here. Why? I don't really know. But we now know why I live here and no longer in certain other places.

Anyway, I hope that it gets better before it gets worse. But here in my little corner of the world, the rights of the working citizen (armed or not) trump those of the criminal... castle doctrine or not.

[Bob Riebe]

How many of those families you know personally?
Why?
How many armed robbers have you met?

The father of three of my nephews and nieces spent time in Federal prison for armed robbery.
The FBI came to my father's house looking for him.

Do you have any other asinine questions you wish to ask?

[Daniel]

Valid where you live. Your opinion on this subject has no standing whatsoever here.

Come over, apply for citizenship, pay taxes here and then you get a vote.

Says you. I'll happily comment on your strange customs thankyouverymuch :laugh:

Bob, I can understand why you'd want to protect your property, I really can. But what if said criminal knows that you're packing heat and shoots you first? Your bike could be replaced by insurance and you'd be no worse off? I'm not saying that it should be free season on everyone's posessions but to take someone's life just because they're trying to steal a posession of yours seems quite over the top.

[chuck34]

Cars, stairs, etc. are not offensive weapons.

If I buy a gun for defensive purposes it is not an offensive weapon either.


It's still a very poor analogy.

Because you say so?

[Eki]

Why?
How many armed robbers have you met?

None, and I doubt I ever will. Just like you probably ever will.

Are you as concerned about people getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as you are about people in where you live?

[Daniel]

If I buy a gun for defensive purposes it is not an offensive weapon either.

But no one's ever killed their partner after a lovers tiff with one staircase to the head...

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, I can understand why you'd want to protect your property, I really can. But what if said criminal knows that you're packing heat and shoots you first?
That is a valid statement, and yes one is taking a calculated risk.

A gun shop that was robbed in the Twin Cities twenty some years ago, in the middle of a high income neighbor hood, the criminal walked and as shot the armed owner before he could even reach for his weapon.

After this an armed private citizen drove up to a gun shop and saw it was being robbed.
He engaged the criminals in a shootout, including he being shot, till police arrived.
This brought to an end, a string of gun shop robberies being committed by an Asian gang.

[Daniel]

Not too sure... Perhaps they feel its the way forward?? I don't particularly care really as long as guns aren't in circulation in my country I'm happy.. If you guys are happy having guns and that works for you then great.. :)

Just watch out Henners, we'll be seeing MP's attacked with staircases outside the local Aldi with half a dozen deaths any day now......

[Bob Riebe]

None, and I doubt I ever will.

Are you as concerned about people getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as you are about people in where you live?
No.
I have great sympathy for the families of those killed and empathy for those crippled.
Having several minor, for lack of a better term, crippling injuries, I am very, very sad for those who suffer life altering injuries.

[chuck34]

But no one's ever killed their partner after a lovers tiff with one staircase to the head...

I'm sure I could find a case of a jilted lover pushing another down a flight of stairs, if I could be bothered to look.

Same goes for stabbings (OJ anyone?), chokings, bat to the head, on and on. Do you really have a point?

[Bob Riebe]

But no one's ever killed their partner after a lovers tiff with one staircase to the head...
But people have been killed with golf clubs, and I do not mean the Great White Shark at the Masters.

[Daniel]

I'm sure I could find a case of a jilted lover pushing another down a flight of stairs, if I could be bothered to look.

Same goes for stabbings (OJ anyone?), chokings, bat to the head, on and on. Do you really have a point?

Do any of us really have a point?

The fact is that a gun in the home serves absolutely no purpose other than to make it more likely that a criminal is going to kill you. A knife can cut food into bits which are quicker to cook. Stairs also make the first story of your house FAR more accessible.

P.S I agree that golf clubs are pointless :wave:

[Daniel]

If stairs, golf clubs and butter knives are really the hidden enemies of mankind can someone tell me the last time someone went through a school commiting mass murder with a knife or golf clubs? Sure these things are deadly but with these weapons you have to chase down your prey and they've got a fighting chance. With a gun you can do whatever you want and kill large numbers of people in no time at all.

[chuck34]

The fact is that a gun in the home serves absolutely no purpose other than to make it more likely that a criminal is going to kill you.

NO. There are many purposes to have a gun in the home. Target shooting, self defense, antiques collection just to name a few. No one has a gun so that a criminal can kill them.

[Eki]

I'm sure I could find a case of a jilted lover pushing another down a flight of stairs, if I could be bothered to look.

Same goes for stabbings (OJ anyone?), chokings, bat to the head, on and on. Do you really have a point?
If you had four options:

1) Shooting somebody
2) Stabbing somebody
3) Choking somebody
4) Batting somebody to the head

which one would you choose?

[chuck34]

If stairs, golf clubs and butter knives are really the hidden enemies of mankind can someone tell me the last time someone went through a school commiting mass murder with a knife or golf clubs? Sure these things are deadly but with these weapons you have to chase down your prey and they've got a fighting chance. With a gun you can do whatever you want and kill large numbers of people in no time at all.

Again, the whole reason I brought up those other things was in response to someone asserting that if you have a gun in the house there is a chance of an accident, or it being used against you, therefore we must outlaw all guns.

Accidents: people fall down stairs, and off ladders
Used against you: people are beaten, choked, stabbed.

So if your argument for outlawing guns is to protect against accidents and/or misuse, then logically you must be for outlawing stairs, ladders, clubs, bats, knives, even hands. Just trying to think about things logically, and follow your arguments through to the end.

[chuck34]

If you had four options:

1) Shooting somebody
2) Stabbing somebody
3) Choking somebody
4) Batting somebody to the head

which one would you choose?

Stupid question with no context.

[Eki]

NO. There are many purposes to have a gun in the home. Target shooting, self defense, antiques collection just to name a few. No one has a gun so that a criminal can kill them.
To name a few:

- Target shooting: can be done with a rubber band
- Self defense: rarely needed
- Antiques collection: the weapons can be deactivated, or at least doesn't require ammunition

[schmenke]

Uh, YES, they are. As of March, 28, 2010, there were only six states in the U.S. that did not have some form of "castle doctrine" legislation. ....

Sorry Jag, I think you may have misunderstood my response to your post, or more likely, I didn't make myself clear.
I was responding to your remark "...legislatures are (finally) making sure that decent people don't have to hide under their beds at night, while criminals walk around as if they own the world..."

Legislation is addressing the concern for an individual's self-protection but does not address the larger social issues plaging society, in fact, it may contribute to it.

[Daniel]

To name a few:

- Target shooting: can be done with a rubber band

Eki stop being so damn silly.

[Daniel]

NO. There are many purposes to have a gun in the home. Target shooting, self defense, antiques collection just to name a few. No one has a gun so that a criminal can kill them.

Target shooting, as I said the guns could be stored at the range just fine and gun collectors could have deactivated guns.

[Eki]

Eki stop being so damn silly.
OK, dart throwing then.

[Bob Riebe]

Target shooting, as I said the guns could be stored at the range just fine and gun collectors could have deactivated guns.
Why at the range?
What makes keeping them there better than in the house.
Of course at the range criminal would know where to get a lot of guns in one robbery.
As I wrote, criminals here have robbed-attacked gun shops, they have also done the same at gun ranges where the range has its own guns for rent.

A deactivated gun, is nothing. While most collectors do not shoot their prize guns often, they still can and do at times.
The point of having a gun is to shoot it.

Now collecting cartridges, there you are damned if you do, and frustrated by curiosity if you don't.

[chuck34]

Target shooting, as I said the guns could be stored at the range just fine and gun collectors could have deactivated guns.

And some people do just that (store guns at the range, and have deactivated guns). So what? Why does that mean those choices should be made manditory?

[schmenke]

Stupid question with no context.

It's not a stupid question and has a valid context.

A gun has far more lethal potential to kill.

Someone with the intent to kill will far more likely to opt for a gun as a weapon than say, a knife, or going through the trouble of ripping out a staircase from his house to use as a rather cumbersome blunt instrument.

There is a psychological effect that makes the use of a gun as a weapon far easier to use than a knife or a club. The gun is less personal as it provides distance from the victim, with no physical contact in the act of killing. In essence, it’s the gun that is killing, not the assailant. In contrast, approaching a victim to arms length and using one’s own strength to penetrate a knife into the victim is a psychological barrier that is far more difficult for the assailant to cross.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think this thread shows the vast difference in societies around the world...
Very true henners :up: Opinions aren't likely to change but there has been some reasonable discussion here, which is what a discussion forum is all about :s mokin:

[chuck34]

It's not a stupid question and has a valid context.

A gun has far more lethal potential to kill.

Someone with the intent to kill will far more likely to opt for a gun as a weapon than say, a knife, or going through the trouble of ripping out a staircase from his house to use as a rather cumbersome blunt instrument.

There is a psychological effect that makes the use of a gun as a weapon far easier to use than a knife or a club. The gun is less personal as it provides distance from the victim, with no physical contact in the act of killing. In essence, it’s the gun that is killing, not the assailant. In contrast, approaching a victim to arms length and using one’s own strength to penetrate a knife into the victim is a psychological barrier that is far more difficult for the assailant to cross.

No the context I was refering to was what's happening that I need to defend myself. Have I been punched in the face while on a jog? Are a group of big dudes raping my wife? Am I at my home, or somewhere else? Situations and situational awareness count for everything.

[Eki]

Why at the range?
What makes keeping them there better than in the house.

Do you sleep at the range? Does your family sleep at the range?

[schmenke]

Again, the whole reason I brought up those other things was in response to someone asserting that if you have a gun in the house there is a chance of an accident, or it being used against you, therefore we must outlaw all guns....

Sorry, chuck, I didn't realise that is the reason for your posts. Perhaps I did misunderstand the context (far too many frequent posts right now that I can't keep up :crazy: )

[Eki]

It's not a stupid question and has a valid context.

A gun has far more lethal potential to kill.

Someone with the intent to kill will far more likely to opt for a gun as a weapon than say, a knife, or going through the trouble of ripping out a staircase from his house to use as a rather cumbersome blunt instrument.

There is a psychological effect that makes the use of a gun as a weapon far easier to use than a knife or a club. The gun is less personal as it provides distance from the victim, with no physical contact in the act of killing. In essence, it’s the gun that is killing, not the assailant. In contrast, approaching a victim to arms length and using one’s own strength to penetrate a knife into the victim is a psychological barrier that is far more difficult for the assailant to cross.
My point exactly. You shouldn't make it too easy for a potential killer.

[Bob Riebe]

In essence, it’s the gun that is killing, not the assailant.
Come on, that hackneyed anthropomorphic escapism is so illogical, it is hard to believe anyone still drags it out.


In contrast, approaching a victim to arms length and using one’s own strength to penetrate a knife into the victim is a psychological barrier that is far more difficult for the assailant to cross.

You mean like the shooter in Arizona who was just a couple of feet away from his targets.

[Bob Riebe]

Do you sleep at the range? Does your family sleep at the range?
What is your point?

[schmenke]

To add a bit of contrast between laws in Canada and the U.S....

My neighbour works in the law-enforcement agency (he works for the city Sherrif's department) and owns and operates a shooting range as a side-business.
By law, he is not permitted to bring any firearms home, either from the Sherrif's office or from the range (I know, I asked). The only firearms permited at the range must be single-shot only. These must be kept under lock and key at all times, and the ammunition stored in a seperate locked area.

[chuck34]

Sorry, chuck, I didn't realise that is the reason for your posts. Perhaps I did misunderstand the context (far too many frequent posts right now that I can't keep up :crazy: )

No problem, it is getting hard to keep all this straight. :)

[Bob Riebe]

My point exactly. You shouldn't make it too easy for a potential killer.
That is why carry a weapon makes it harder for criminals to kill their victims.

[Daniel]

I fully agree Daniel... If someone jumps me in an alley with a knife and demands my wallet and phone, they're not going to get any trivia from me... They can have it.. :)

You must have seen a difference here in the UK in comparison to countries like SA and Australia where there are different gun laws?

Well in Australia the laws are much the same as here in terms of un ownership.

The actions of people don't change though, if they have a brain they almost always hand over their belongings.

[Daniel]

That is why carry a weapon makes it harder for criminals to kill their victims.

Carrying a weapon only makes it more necessary for a criminal to kill you.

[schmenke]

You mean like the shooter in Arizona who was just a couple of feet away from his targets.

Yep, the same fellow who had a semi-auto with a 30-round clip.
I question how many would have been killed that day if he was armed with a knife (or a staircase).

[Daniel]

Legislation is addressing the concern for an individual's self-protection but does not address the larger social issues plaging society, in fact, it may contribute to it.

Agreed. If you make it legal for someone to kill someone who's come into their home armed or unarmed then all you do is make the criminals bring more weapons into the home....

[Eki]

That is why carry a weapon makes it harder for criminals to kill their victims.
If you're asleep or otherwise caught by surprise by criminals, a weapon is no use for you, unless it's used against you.

[anthonyvop]

Agreed. If you make it legal for someone to kill someone who's come into their home armed or unarmed then all you do is make the criminals bring more weapons into the home....

.........and yet the facts goes against your convoluted logic.

[Rollo]

That is why carry a weapon makes it harder for criminals to kill their victims.

Is having a gun really going to protect you if the attacker shoots first? Dead people even with a gun can not protect anyone.

[Bob Riebe]

Carrying a weapon only makes it more necessary for a criminal to kill you.
That is only if one assumes what the criminal is doing is necessary.

Also why "unarmed" criminals are shot dead. It is foolish to wait to see if the criminal is armed.

[Bob Riebe]

Yep, the same fellow who had a semi-auto with a 30-round clip.
I question how many would have been killed that day if he was armed with a knife (or a staircase).
With a knife probably on the Congresswoman.
The 30 round magazine is irrelevant.

When politicians start highlighting the weapon and not the criminal, they are grabbing at straws for an agenda.

[Bob Riebe]

Agreed. If you make it legal for someone to kill someone who's come into their home armed or unarmed then all you do is make the criminals bring more weapons into the home....
No talk to criminals and I have. The last thing they want is to confront an armed victim.
They try to avoid such places.

[Bob Riebe]

If you're asleep or otherwise caught by surprise by criminals, a weapon is no use for you, unless it's used against you.

That is a sky-is-falling scenario.

If that were a problem, the anti-gunner people would be floating that statistic ad nauseam.

[Bob Riebe]

Is having a gun really going to protect you if the attacker shoots first? Dead people even with a gun can not protect anyone.
There is no perfect world.
Armed non-criminals die.
More non-armed victims die.

[Eki]

No talk to criminals and I have. The last thing they want is to confront an armed victim.
They try to avoid such places.
What if there aren't any unarmed victims? Then they'd try to confront armed victims by being better armed and by surprise. Shoot first, ask for weapons later, and all that.

[Bob Riebe]

What if there aren't any unarmed victims? Then they'd try to confront armed victims by being better armed and by surprise.
This profound statement is based on what proof?

Studies in the U.S. have shown in areas where concealed carry laws were made less strict, crime has gone down.

[Eki]

This profound statement is based on what proof?

Studies in the U.S. have shown in areas where concealed carry laws were made less strict, crime has gone down.
Do you think this Palestinian had saved his life if he had been armed? No, the Israelis shot him before he could even have reacted (even if he could):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12133918



Israeli troops have shot dead a 67-year-old Palestinian man by mistake in an operation to arrest members of the Islamist militant organisation, Hamas.

The pre-dawn raid happened in Hebron, in the West Bank, a day after six supporters of Hamas had been released from jail by the Palestinian Authority.

The man who died was a neighbour of one of the Hamas men.

Hamas has said it holds the Palestinian Authority and Israel responsible.

Reports from the scene of the shooting said it took place in a bedroom on the building's first floor.

The Reuters news agency has reported that the man, Amr Qawasme, was shot and killed in his bed when soldiers broke into his home before dawn.

His wife, Sobheye, said she heard several shots fired and later saw her husband lying in a pool of blood.

"I was praying when they entered. I do not know how they opened the door. They put their hand to my mouth and a rifle to my head," she told Reuters.

"I was shocked. They did not allow me to talk. I asked them, "What did you do?" They asked me to shut up."

[Daniel]

.........and yet the facts goes against your convoluted logic.

So why is it that in places where ownership of guns is heavily restricted that the rates of gun violent are lower? :dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

Do you think this Palestinian had saved his life if he had been armed? No, the Israelis shot him before he could even have reacted (even if he could):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12133918
Stay on topic.
This thread is about U.S. gun laws.

You trying to turn this into another thread attacking the Israelis is silly at best, and desperate at worst.

[Rollo]

There is no perfect world.
Armed non-criminals die.
More non-armed victims die.

And if you removed the instruments for people to commit murder in the first place, then less people would die.

[Bob Riebe]

So why is it that in places where ownership of guns is heavily restricted that the rates of gun violent are lower? :dozey:
Not in the U.S..

[Bob Riebe]

And if you removed the instruments for people to commit murder in the first place, then less people would die.
When you find the magic pill to disarm the criminals, let us know.

[anthonyvop]

So why is it that in places where ownership of guns is heavily restricted that the rates of gun violent are lower? :dozey:


Yea...Right...Like Brazil......Oh.....Woops!!!


Brazil’s murder rate is more than four times higher than that of the U.S. Rates for other crimes are similarly high. The majority of crimes are not solved.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1072.html#safety

Or Venezuela?

Or 23 other countries that have a higher per capita murder rate and yet have stricter gun control laws.


Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
# 3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
# 4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
# 5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
# 7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
# 9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
# 10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# 11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
# 12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# 13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# 14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# 15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# 16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# 17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# 18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
# 19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
# 20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# 21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
# 22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
# 23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Try again!

[Rollo]

Or 23 other countries that have a higher per capita murder rate and yet have stricter gun control laws.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Try again!

Of those 23 countries, just how many of them are in the First World? I wager that it's a perfectly round number.

[anthonyvop]

Of those 23 countries, just how many of them are in the First World? I wager that it's a perfectly round number.

How dare I use FACTS to support my argument!!!

Give up. You are wrong!

[airshifter]

Shazbot,

In answer to your early question of too many gun related deaths in the US, I agree. However statistics show that the very large majority take place when a person not a legal owner of the gun kills someone. It is very rare that a legal gun owner takes another life, and some statistics supports that more justified killings in self defense take place yearly.


This is not meant to be an inflammatory question, but if you had to use your gun and shot dead another human I wonder how you (I/we) would feel in the immediate aftermath and long term. Is it too easy to simply justify it as an inevitability in that situation? Would any remorse surface? Should I or Shouldn't I have fired? I guess it depends on our individual psychological make up. Maybe sit back for a minute a think about it. If I had a gun and I had to protect my family then of course I would. I wouldn't feel good about it. Not for one moment.

All studies I have read show that the vast majority of those that kill another feel remorse and regret. Even in a situation that completely justifies the action most humans would rather not take another human life for any reason. But studies also show that often the people are more troubled by societies reaction to what they did. In a case that is gray area that may make sense, but society often condemns people that acted entirely in defense of themselves or others when they were deemed in serious peril of life threatening bodily harm.





As for the "Castle Laws" and other such things being discussed, they vary from state to state. But this image that some are projecting that anyone in the US can kill someone for looking at you wrong is completely wrong. In most states there must be evidence of a reasonable and well founded fear that the person is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

The notion that every person in the US would in fact shoot someone first is also grossly incorrect. Though it's hard to pin down exacts it is estimated that the use of a gun as a deterrent without ever firing it take place hundreds of times more often than a person actually firing the gun. The cases deemed as justified homicide in the US usually range about 200-250 a year.

[Rollo]

I'm not disputing the facts, I'm disputing the use of them.

What you have in effect done is likened the USA to some countries with deep rooted corruption problems, or countries with problems of tribal violence. That's fine, if you don't mind admitting that the USA is not a model to be followed; that rather defeats the purpose of your comparison.

[Daniel]

Yea...Right...Like Brazil......Oh.....Woops!!!


http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1072.html#safety

Or Venezuela?

Or 23 other countries that have a higher per capita murder rate and yet have stricter gun control laws.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Try again!
Wow. What an honour to be in the bottom 10% and only being better than 3rd world countries......

[airshifter]

Both of the above fail to address the point made by Vop. If stricter gun laws are the answer, then why do many countries with strict gun control laws have so many problems?

[markabilly]

I'm not disputing the facts, I'm disputing the use of them.

What you have in effect done is likened the USA to some countries with deep rooted corruption problems, or countries with problems of tribal violence. That's fine, if you don't mind admitting that the USA is not a model to be followed; that rather defeats the purpose of your comparison.
In my early years, I did not know one single person who had his house broken into or was the victim of a violent crime.
Beginng in the 1960's, the USA became more "civilized: like the brit whiners would like, evryone worrying more for the scum than the victim.

No longer could a murderer who was caught face the death penalty automatically--indeed, the number of executions tumbled down while the murder rate started climbing

Immigrants brought new styles of gang warfare, drugs and worse........


In 1978, I was witness to two serious incidents of violent criminal behavior. My first experience with violent crime. Before that, I knew of no one who had been a victim of any crime.

In the late 1980's I knew two people who were killed by scum. One was out on parole after murdering his parents, having been rehabbed in minnesota. Within a year, he violated paraole, and then killed 4 more people.

From 1984 to 2000, every year someone I knew sufferred crimes ranging from murder, rape, armed robbery, theft.

In 1995, Texas passed the concealed handgun law, and about the same time started executing scum albeit after the long and lengthy appeals.

In 2010, the total number of murders is less than they were in the 1969 and the rate of murder is lower than it was in the early 1960's.

Other crimes against the person have dropped as well.

If it continues, the rates will fall below many of your european countries, whose people live at the mercy of others.

It has been ten years since someone i knew was the victim of a criminal scum bag.

But it has not been the use of a weapon, it has been threat that someone attacked might have a pistol and use it, that has caused this drop in murder and other such acts, esp. rape and nightime burgularies.

If it contnues, it will drop to a level below britain while the number of concealed weapon permits continue to skyrocket in texas, a state that is the border with mexico and the gateway to the entire eastern USA for use by many mexican drug cartels as of the last ten years.

In texas, there are now more than 500,000 holders of the permit, increasing at a rate close to 100k per year

The sheep are fighting back, much to the discomfort of the wolves.

[markabilly]

And is the swiss with extrmely high rate of gun ownership, a population actively armed by its government with machine guns, explosives and so forth, the murder rate and violent crim is nothing compared to scotland, ireland england and France :eek: :eek: :D

[markabilly]

and speaking of crimes and lack of courage, I found this gallup poll to be interesting as far more people in GB are afraid of walking around at night, and while the murder rate is higher, the overal crime rate is LOWER than the USA

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime-Rate-Lower-United-States-Canada-Than-Britain.aspx

And if I wanted, I could play the race card, and throw out of the stats the numbers of murders committed by certain ethnic minorities in the usa, use the numbers of whites committting murder....and the murder rate drops below the GB rate.......... :eek: oh opps we don't want to go there now do we... :eek: .opps opps :eek: opps :eek:

Oh my, calculate with the same percentages of ethnic minorities in GB and USA on a regression scale....and OPPSSS :eek:

you white guys in great britain are a nasty bunch of boys

Reminds me of what the former minister of Obama said about FBI study that said the typical killer in the USA is a young black male and the typical victim tends to be black. He said, it is because we need to move to the suburbs so we can find more whites to shoot......

[Rollo]

And is the swiss with extrmely high rate of gun ownership, a population actively armed by its government with machine guns, explosives and so forth, the murder rate and violent crim is nothing compared to scotland, ireland england and France :eek: :eek: :D

Switzerland requires that every who buys a gun from a commercial premises has a weapon acquisition permit, that every gun is marked with a serial number, that written contracts for the purchase of weapons be kept for ten years and also forbids the sale of automatic weapons.

It also has the highest rate of suicide in Europe:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid =8301804
Here’s one record the Swiss may not be so enthusiastic about holding: more suicides are committed here using guns per capita than anywhere else in Europe.
...
The Zurich University study found that suicides by firearm dropped sharply in countries – including Britain, Canada and Australia - where gun control legislation reduced the number of weapons kept at home. Could the same thing work in Switzerland? Or would people simply resort to other methods?

[markabilly]

Switzerland requires that every who buys a gun from a commercial premises has a weapon acquisition permit, that every gun is marked with a serial number, that written contracts for the purchase of weapons be kept for ten years and also forbids the sale of automatic weapons.

It also has the highest rate of suicide in Europe:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid =8301804
Here’s one record the Swiss may not be so enthusiastic about holding: more suicides are committed here using guns per capita than anywhere else in Europe.
...
The Zurich University study found that suicides by firearm dropped sharply in countries – including Britain, Canada and Australia - where gun control legislation reduced the number of weapons kept at home. Could the same thing work in Switzerland? Or would people simply resort to other methods?
Other methods would be best...personally i think if someone wants to go, that is their business. Just as long as I do not catch a stray bullet or get splatterred with brains...

However, most would do much better by other methods than using a gun. The worst thing one might do is put a gun to the side of the head, get the shakes and blow thier jaw off instead of their brains...then we all got to pick up the medical tab


A classic method of determining suicide rather than a murder, is not powder residue on the hand holding the gun and pulling the trigger. It is the other hand, as usually people end up grabbing the end of the barrel with the non-trigger hand to keep the gun from shaking and missing....

as to record keeping and such in Switzerland for private purchases, that is little different than the USA, except the government does not issue all of our citizens automatic weapons for keeping at home....Swiss got no need to buy, they get it for free

But you are right about one thing. the decline. This country starting peaking in world war II, and it continued through the 1990's. I think the economic and technological fundamentals are becoming weaker and weaker ....pretty soon, the USA just will not have what it takes to be keeping the rest of the world safe, no more.

Countries rise and fall

Sic transit gloria

Many of you need to start learning russian and/or chinese and practicing crawling on your knees before much longer....

[markabilly]

I think I will go take a nap....so in saying nightie night night, i leave you with the immortal words of Chairman Mao: "All power comes out of the barrel of a gun, especially when the peasants have all been disarmed"

Mao should know as, at his direction, 2 to 15 million were executed and 45 million starved, but that was all over with 40 years ago. Today the chinese commie party is more concerned with F1 and buying out america...

[glauistean]

So why is it that in places where ownership of guns is heavily restricted that the rates of gun violent are lower? :dozey:

Read all of it.

Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states. However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself.
For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said "The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates." What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate.
Another difficulty in his figures is population motion. For example, he claims that Florida's violent crime rate dropped dramatically after the passing of CCW laws, but he does not take into account the enormous migration of the elderly and retirees into that state during his examination period. Such an influx of elderly citizens (not usually violent criminals!) would certainly push the crime rate down, as the population of law abiding citizens rose dramatically.
Furthermore, they admit right in their study that "Using county level data has some drawbacks. Frequently, because of the low crime rates in many low population counties, it is quite common to find huge variations in the arrest and conviction rates between years." So, their solution is "to limit the sample to only counties with large populations. For counties with a large numbers of crimes, these waves have a significantly smoother flow of arrests and convictions relative to offense." Thus, the limited sample also limits the accuracy of their study. They say that "an alternative solution is to take a moving average of the arrest or conviction rates over several years," but then go on to say that this "reduces the length of the usable sample period, depending upon how many years are used to compute this average. Furthermore, the moving average solution does nothing to alleviate the effect of multiple suspects being arrested for a single crime."

[555-04Q2]

Will real world evidence work for you?

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
...
The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.
...
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

I beg to differ. In the last 5 years, over 2.5 million guns have been handed in to our South African Police Services for destruction as most people are unable to re-register their firearm licences due to our new strict gun laws.

But our crime rate and murders by guns has increased. Why? Because criminals don't register their guns, they buy them on the black market. They know most people are unarmed now, and act with impunity against the law abiding citizen often shooting people without warning just for their cellular phone.

[555-04Q2]

If you're asleep or otherwise caught by surprise by criminals, a weapon is no use for you, unless it's used against you.

Incorrect. I was woken up with a gun against my head, one against my wifes head and 6 fu@kers in my house. My gun was in my safe. After the *******s had finished telling me what they were going to do to me and my family that night, they asked me to first open my safe. I complied, grabbed my gun and my family and I survived.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I beg to differ. In the last 5 years, over 2.5 million guns have been handed in to our South African Police Services for destruction as most people are unable to re-register their firearm licences due to our new strict gun laws.

But our crime rate and murders by guns has increased. Why? Because criminals don't register their guns, they buy them on the black market. They know most people are unarmed now, and act with impunity against the law abiding citizen often shooting people without warning just for their cellular phone.

Which is why in a society where the genie is out of the bottle, and you have economic disparity, you don't take guns away from law abiding citizens.

In the US, it isn't quite the same dire situation as it can be in South Africa, but again, in a nation full of arms, disarming the innocent is recipe for a field day by criminals...

[Retro Formula 1]

Come over here, stand before the families of murdered loved ones, and tell them pathetic diatribe.

You are justifying my opinion.

If it wasn't for your gun policy, there would be a lot less of these tragadies. As I said earlier, there is <1% chance of being a victim of a gun Homicide in the UK that there is in the US. In the UK, if a couple of boys get involved with a confrontation with a jogger and someone gets a bloody nose, the police get involved, the courts decide who was in the wrong, punishment is dished out and hopefully the perpetrator learns a lesson.

Importantly, they all get on with their life.

With this lynch-mob attitude, where an individual decideds that there may be a threat, he can immediatly become judge, jury and executioner in one bullet and nobody gives a toss apart from yet another family who are a victim of gun crime.

You think this is acceptable whereas I don't but I promise you one thing, if it was you in a dark alley and a vunerable woman murders you because she "believes" you posed a threat, no matter what your intentions, I hope your family respect your views on this thread.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ;)

[Hawkmoon]

Which is why in a society where the genie is out of the bottle, and you have economic disparity, you don't take guns away from law abiding citizens.

In the US, it isn't quite the same dire situation as it can be in South Africa, but again, in a nation full of arms, disarming the innocent is recipe for a field day by criminals...

Surely it can be done in small stages? Get rid of the military firearms first as there is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have an assault rifle as as they aren't designed for hunting.

That will leave people with hunting rifles and shotguns, both of which can be used for self defense if folk feel the need.

After that, get rid of the high-capacity automatic pistols. Folks can still have their revolvers for self defense.

With all the military hardware out of the system it will mean that less of them will find their way onto the black market and into nefarious hands. With no ability to sell them the gun manufacturers will stop making them so their numbers have to decline. The only ones available will be those taken or stolen from the military or law enforcement.

If, after a few years, gun crime has dropped you can start to get rid of all hand guns as well as they only have one purpose - killing people.

[markabilly]

You are justifying my opinion.

If it wasn't for your gun policy, there would be a lot less of these tragadies. As I said earlier, there is <1% chance of being a victim of a gun Homicide in the UK that there is in the US. In the UK, if a couple of boys get involved with a confrontation with a jogger and someone gets a bloody nose, the police get involved, the courts decide who was in the wrong, punishment is dished out and hopefully the perpetrator learns a lesson.

Importantly, they all get on with their life.



;)

"Importantly they all get on with their life" Yeah the criminal scum goes on down the road doing his criminal acts to victims

1% is complete inaccurate. Totally.

In 2001, overall violent crime in Great Britain and in Australia was higher than the USA
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902




although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban [semi-automatic assault rifles]promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

[i]Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
Assaults are up 8.6 percent. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. [/*:m:clzhdwoe]
Read more: Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ) http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ)

At the same time, 6 years after the concealed weapons permit law was passed in Texas in 1995, violent crime was rapidly dropping.....despite the border activities involving Mexican drug trade


the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."


And from the BBC



The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm


And then there is the problem of violent crime in Great Britian being under reported or not reported at all.
Example, homocides are counted based on CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER in GB. Terorist killings are not murders. A person is killed, but no one is convicted, it counts as nothing. Armed robberies are often reported as vandalism---saves the cops much paper work and makes the stats better for the government.

A person killed by any act of another, is always reported as a homicide, , even self defense deaths, in the USA. Except in auto accidents, but if someone is accussed of manslaughter for being careless and causing the death of another while driving or doing something else, that becomes a homicide in the usa, but not GB.

Unlike what skc says, the homocide rate is over reported in the USA, and under reported in Great britain, but the rate is that of 25% of the USA. Report the results on a more accurate comparative basis and the results become a very close between the two countries.

See also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222138/Crime-figures-One-violent-incidents-classified-police-crime.html


Some vicious street attacks and wife-beatings are not being included in police figures because officers wrongly fail to count them as a crime, it emerged yesterday.
One in three decisions taken by officers to dismiss a report of a serious violent attack is wrong, the police inspectorate found.
If the findings are repeated across all forces, it would mean more than 6,000 victims of violence being ignored by the police, as officers record the incidents in a category called 'no crime'.


see Report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary on reporting crime
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222138/Crime-figures-One-violent-incidents-classified-police-crime.html#ixzz1B16vJm29

[markabilly]

Incorrect. I was woken up with a gun against my head, one against my wifes head and 6 fu@kers in my house. My gun was in my safe. After the *******s had finished telling me what they were going to do to me and my family that night, they asked me to first open my safe. I complied, grabbed my gun and my family and I survived.
:up:
that takes the willingness to stand up, which so many around here, admit they do not have.

Surprized skc and some others are not calling you a murderer for not letting them have their way....so afterwards, the 6 could go back to their "normal life" :rolleyes:

Be glad you were not in Great Britain

[555-04Q2]

We have the opposite problem here. Most people don't even report crime to the police. Unless I need a case number for insurance purposes or someone is seriously injured, I also don't report crimes to our police.

[555-04Q2]

:up:
that takes the willingness to stand up, which so many around here, admit they do not have.

Surprized skc and some others are not calling you a murderer for not letting them have their way....so afterwards, the 6 could go back to their "normal life" :rolleyes:

Be glad you were not in Great Britain

Scary part is the two that got away were never found. I looked over my shoulder every day for the first year after that. Thankfully, they never came back for revenge.

[555-04Q2]

Not always. Revenge killings against citizens here who have harmed an accomplice sometimes happen. In one case in Gauteng a few years ago, two thugs attacked a family in their home. The father managed to take out one of the thugs with his bare hands - dead as a doornail - and overpowered the second one even though he had been stabbed three times in the chest and called the police. The second thug was sentenced to 3-5 years in jail as it was his first offense, was released early and returned that same day he was released and killed the father in revenge for his accomplice. Sad.

[Bob Riebe]

You are justifying my opinion.

If it wasn't for your gun policy, there would be a lot less of these tragadies. As I said earlier, there is <1% chance of being a victim of a gun Homicide in the UK that there is in the US. In the UK, if a couple of boys get involved with a confrontation with a jogger and someone gets a bloody nose, the police get involved, the courts decide who was in the wrong, punishment is dished out and hopefully the perpetrator learns a lesson.

Importantly, they all get on with their life.

With this lynch-mob attitude, where an individual decideds that there may be a threat, he can immediatly become judge, jury and executioner in one bullet and nobody gives a toss apart from yet another family who are a victim of gun crime.

You think this is acceptable whereas I don't but I promise you one thing, if it was you in a dark alley and a vunerable woman murders you because she "believes" you posed a threat, no matter what your intentions, I hope your family respect your views on this thread.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ;)
No your point falls apart because you are stating armed people are incapable of logical thought and react with some panic stricken impulse without thought.

If walked up to a vulneralbe woman in a dark alley and struck her in the face she has every right to kill me, period.

[Bob Riebe]

Surely it can be done in small stages? Get rid of the military firearms first as there is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have an assault rifle as as they aren't designed for hunting.

That will leave people with hunting rifles and shotguns, both of which can be used for self defense if folk feel the need.

After that, get rid of the high-capacity automatic pistols. Folks can still have their revolvers for self defense.

With all the military hardware out of the system it will mean that less of them will find their way onto the black market and into nefarious hands. With no ability to sell them the gun manufacturers will stop making them so their numbers have to decline. The only ones available will be those taken or stolen from the military or law enforcement.

If, after a few years, gun crime has dropped you can start to get rid of all hand guns as well as they only have one purpose - killing people.
Surely?
Based on what other than happy thought?

People do not have military guns and do not drag out that dishonest diatribe about "assault" weapons that the liberal press tries to scam the public with continually.

Your rhetoruc is either false or naive.

[Roamy]

Incorrect. I was woken up with a gun against my head, one against my wifes head and 6 fu@kers in my house. My gun was in my safe. After the *******s had finished telling me what they were going to do to me and my family that night, they asked me to first open my safe. I complied, grabbed my gun and my family and I survived.

I would say you are very fortunate. Early warning is imperative when living in area where home intrusion is common.

[DonJippo]

In 2001, overall violent crime in Great Britain and in Australia was higher than the USA

2002 murders with firearms by country

1. South Africa 31918
.
.
4. United States 9369
.
.
25. Australia 59
.
.
39. United Kingdom 14

Source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

[markabilly]

2002 murders with firearms by country

1. South Africa 31918
.
.
4. United States 9369
.
.
25. Australia 59
.
.
39. United Kingdom 14

Source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Yep, it sure makes a difference as to how you get killed.
Gun: bad
Knife: Okay
:rolleyes:
Of course in United kingdom, they don't count a killing unless someone is convicted of murder......unlike the USA

And where I live, that city had ZERO!!!
Not one incident that could be called a murder from any source.

And more guns than you can count in a day.

Has not had one murder in 15 years from anything.

There were a series of some break ins in the evening when people were home, but those stopped after several of the criminals decided to surrender to the homeowner when confronted with looking down the barrel of a gun.

Word got out.

A few miles away, there are several killings everyday.

[Jag_Warrior]

Carrying a weapon only makes it more necessary for a criminal to kill you.

Possibly. As do the "3 Strikes" laws that various states have imposed on repeat felons. Generally speaking, the type of person who carries a firearm, so that he may more effectively rob or rape people, is not a first timer. For a violent felon to even be carrying a gun in my state gets him an automatic five years in prison. Add another crime in with that and he could be knocking on life in prison, which is what the "3 Strikes" law mandates. So... best that he snuff the eye witness.

You may very well be right, Daniel. Is it still the case that (some) street cops in the UK don't carry firearms? If that works there, that's great. Would that work here? Well, let's present that idea to a few states or localities and see if they'd be willing to disarm their police officers. My guess is, you'd have a very difficult time recruiting anyone to be a cop... outside of Beverly Hills, maybe.

[Daniel]

2002 murders with firearms by country

1. South Africa 31918
.
.
4. United States 9369
.
.
25. Australia 59
.
.
39. United Kingdom 14

Source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

You Finns are pussies. Not even one damn murder with a firearm. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What is even more revealing is this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita look at the difference in gun related murders between the US and the UK per capita.

Anyone who argues that US citizens need to be armed after seeing that needs their head read.

[markabilly]

Its interesting when you compare the UK to Switzerland where handguns are legal. The UK has 9 times as many people as Switzerland, but Switzerland had 5 times as many gun related deaths that year. I think the stats alone support the stance that the UK never needs to legalise such weapons ever again. :)
more crud that shows nothing, as when you start counting all the killings that your coppers are willing to report.....some say as much as 35% of violent crime is NOT counted in GB....those stats go upside down on you big
time, if you start counting all killings.

.....take out the minorities, the kill ratios from guns, drops below the sweeties in GB

And as I said, take out the border counties in texas, the kill ratio drops even further

Swiss v. UK----In one country everybody got a gun and willing to use it, and in the other country, everybody is a cry baby--and sufferring far more crime. Read the quotes above about life in the safe UK, from your own bloody news media, man up and face the truth

And when some foriegn invader or internal despot comes along, well you can alwyas crawl :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

more crud that shows nothing, as when you start counting all the killings that your coppers are willing to report.....some say as much as 35% of violent crime is NOT counted in GB....those stats go upside down on you big
time, if you start counting all killings.

.....take out the minorities, the kill ratios from guns, drops below the sweeties in GB

And as I said, take out the border counties in texas, the kill ratio drops even further

Swiss v. UK----In one country everybody got a gun and willing to use it, and in the other country, everybody is a cry baby--and sufferring far more crime. Read the quotes above about life in the safe UK, from your own bloody news media, man up and face the truth

And when some foriegn invader or internal despot comes along, well you can alwyas crawl :rolleyes:

You really are not all that intelligent are you? :laugh:

"everybody is a cry baby--and sufferring far more crime. Read the quotes above about life in the safe UK"

I don't know what news you read or watch but life in the UK is very safe :laugh:

[markabilly]

You Finns are pussies. Not even one damn murder with a firearm. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What is even more revealing is this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita look at the difference in gun related murders between the US and the UK per capita.

Anyone who argues that US citizens need to be armed after seeing that needs their head read.
you need to read your own media sources and realize how your government has been lieing to you.
like I said always better to get killed with a knife under your logic....


Anyway it don't matter.
I will be safe and secure, and if not then i will not be crawling on my knees like you girlies :D :D

[Daniel]

you need to read your own media sources and realize how your government has been lieing to you.
like I said always better to get killed with a knife under your logic....


Anyway it don't matter.
I will be safe and secure, and if not then i will not be crawling on my knees like you girlies :D :D

Yes because a knife has a good chance of puncturing this blowup doll of yours.

Nobody here wants to get stabbed or shot and the rates of violence here are very low.

I'd much prefer to live in a place where I'm actually safe rather than living somewhere which isn't safe and where I have to own a gun to feel like a man or something.

[markabilly]

You really are not all that intelligent are you? :laugh:

"everybody is a cry baby--and sufferring far more crime. Read the quotes above about life in the safe UK"

I don't know what news you read or watch but life in the UK is very safe :laugh:
In 2001, overall violent crime in Great Britain and in Australia was higher than the USA
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902





Originally Posted by http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban [semi-automatic assault rifles]promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
[i]Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]
Assaults are up 8.6 percent. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. [/*:m:1bzr48d1]


Read more: Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ) http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340#ixzz1B0xLinAQ)

At the same time, 6 years after the concealed weapons permit law was passed in Texas in 1995, violent crime was rapidly dropping.....despite the border activities involving Mexican drug trade


the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."


And from the BBC




Originally Posted by http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm


And then there is the problem of violent crime in Great Britian being under reported or not reported at all.
Example, homocides are counted based on CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER in GB. Terorist killings are not murders. A person is killed, but no one is convicted, it counts as nothing. Armed robberies are often reported as vandalism---saves the cops much paper work and makes the stats better for the government.

A person killed by any act of another, is always reported as a homicide, , even self defense deaths, in the USA. Except in auto accidents, but if someone is accussed of manslaughter for being careless and causing the death of another while driving or doing something else, that becomes a homicide in the usa, but not GB.

Unlike what skc says, the homocide rate is over reported in the USA, and under reported in Great britain, but the rate is that of 25% of the USA. Report the results on a more accurate comparative basis and the results become a very close between the two countries.

See also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ice-crime.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222138/Crime-figures-One-violent-incidents-classified-police-crime.html)



Originally Posted by http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=0#post0)
Some vicious street attacks and wife-beatings are not being included in police figures because officers wrongly fail to count them as a crime, it emerged yesterday.
One in three decisions taken by officers to dismiss a report of a serious violent attack is wrong, the police inspectorate found.
If the findings are repeated across all forces, it would mean more than 6,000 victims of violence being ignored by the police, as officers record the incidents in a category called 'no crime'.



see Report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary on reporting crime
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1B16vJm29 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222138/Crime-figures-One-violent-incidents-classified-police-crime.html#ixzz1B16vJm29)

[Bob Riebe]

You Finns are pussies. Not even one damn murder with a firearm. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What is even more revealing is this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita look at the difference in gun related murders between the US and the UK per capita.

Anyone who argues that US citizens need to be armed after seeing that needs their head read.
Why?
What in these statistics says that?

[Daniel]

OK genius :laugh: How come rates of burglary are higher here and yet people aren't being raped and killed every minute?

Nice "source" though :rotflmao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Criticism

[Daniel]

Why?
What in these statistics says that?

The numbers?

[Daniel]

Possibly. As do the "3 Strikes" laws that various states have imposed on repeat felons. Generally speaking, the type of person who carries a firearm, so that he may more effectively rob or rape people, is not a first timer. For a violent felon to even be carrying a gun in my state gets him an automatic five years in prison. Add another crime in with that and he could be knocking on life in prison, which is what the "3 Strikes" law mandates. So... best that he snuff the eye witness.

You may very well be right, Daniel. Is it still the case that (some) street cops in the UK don't carry firearms? If that works there, that's great. Would that work here? Well, let's present that idea to a few states or localities and see if they'd be willing to disarm their police officers and see. My guess is, you'd have a very difficult time recruiting anyone to be a cop... outside of Beverly Hills, maybe.

I don't think that disarming police officers in the US is sensible in any way shape or form even if the public weren't legally allowed to own firearms. Police officers have to be equipped to deal with likely threats and that's why in the UK Police officers can walk around with no guns and be safe 99.99999% of the time and why Police officers in the US NEED to be armed. Police officers back in Australia carry weapons and tbh I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it.

[markabilly]

and then there is is:



Fear of Walking Alone at Night
Another major difference found among the countries is the percentage of people who live near an area where they are afraid to walk alone at night. Thirty-five percent of Canadians live within a mile of such an area, compared with 38% of Americans and 45% of Britons. Similar results were found in the multination polls conducted in 2004, with the percentages lower for the United States and Canada than for Britain.

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060208ii.gif




Confidence in Police
Given the overall higher crime rate in Britain, it is perhaps no surprise that Britons express the least amount of confidence in their police to protect them from violent crime. Just 42% of Britons say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence, compared with 53% of Americans and 67% of Canadians



The individual crime rates were calculated by determining whether the specific incidents had occurred to the interviewees or to someone else. The results show that 21% of Americans were victimized by some type of crime in the past year, compared with 21% of Canadians and 25% of Britons. Violent crime victimization among individuals is 3% in the United States, 2% in Canada, and 4% in Britain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime-Rate-Lower-United-States-Canada-Than-Britain.aspx

[markabilly]

OK genius :laugh: How come rates of burglary are higher here and yet people aren't being raped and killed every minute?

Nice "source" though :rotflmao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Criticism
Okay, (1) assualts per capita running almost dead even, despite the fact there is recognized under reporting of 35%

Drug offenses UK is number 2, USA is 41

rape victims:
first is new Zealand,
5th is australia
6 is UK
13 is USA

rapes per capita:
third is australia
9 is USA,
13th is UK

of course when armed robbery gets marked down as vandalism
and crimes against women are marked down as "no crime" in 35 % of the cases, well that explains that
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
( I doubt the accuracy of this source for several reasons,but there it is for you, Daniella)

[Eki]

You Finns are pussies. Not even one damn murder with a firearm. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Not even zero murder with a firearm, like Iceland. That's how pussies we are. Finland isn't even on that list.

[veeten]

unless you live in Belarus...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41061364/ns/world_news-weird_news/?gt1=43001 :laugh:

[Eki]

unless you live in Belarus...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41061364/ns/world_news-weird_news/?gt1=43001 :laugh:
:laugh: Poetic justice. It's not just dogs who kill people, also foxes do.

[Eki]

The police in Lappeenranta, Finland, raided the clubhouse of the local Hell's Angels last Monday and found several guns, including a Suomi submachine gun. Maybe they were antique collectors.

[Jag_Warrior]

Even though I don't believe it was Shazbot's intention, this thread, like every other like it, has devolved into an exercise of futility.

So let's try something different. Let's say the Federal government of the U.S. changes its laws and bans all firearms (or handgun) ownership. So, now we have the words on the piece of paper. What methods do you folks propose the government use to enforce this ban? Will we then have a "War on Handguns" to go along with our "War on Drugs", "War of Terror", "War on Poverty", etc.?

I am seriously looking for realistic methods that you think should be used, and would be effective (that's the big one), to accomplish your goal of ridding the U.S. of all handguns and/or firearms.

[markabilly]

After all this debate, no one has mentioned the real source of violence. It has nothing to do with owning a gun, banning guns and all that.

It is in our genectics that men want to dominate others to take from others and to keep it for themselves. the glorification of violence. Call it greed, ambition, power hungry, bully....it all comes from the y chromosome and testerone

Not merely ban, but totally destroy all guns and knives, and there will be those who will be figuring out other ways to kill their brother man and take what they can.

There will be those who will fight to keep it, and those who will give it up in fear and run for cover, regardless of whether the object of their desire be a woman, a house, a farm, land, money, power....or do it just to be damn mean to their fellow man and show they are the baddest ass around town.


Civilization will never change that. It starts very young and is shown to exist in the actions of 4 yaer old children, and some can be taught to overcome it, some will sort of overcome it, but others will never overcome.

The ONLY cure for some is when they are dead. As my grandpa said, some people's problem is that they just need a good killing to cure them of their evil ways

Early man's first tools were weapons.
Man's last tools will be weapons, no doubt nuclear or thermonuclear or worst.

Mostly a male problem, but some women have it as well

All you can do is fight it, or depend on someone else to fight it for you, or just give up and crawl on your knees like sheep.

sooo......whatever

[markabilly]

I still don't need a gun though do I? haha :dozey:
nah, not to sort of live, as long as you are crawling, with your butt in the air, the bully boys will want to keep you around for fun :D

[Bob Riebe]

The numbers?
Where?
Give proof to your claim, numbers are meaningless.

[Bob Riebe]

A gun amnesty was held in the UK in 1996 and was largely positive, although you're never going to get every gun off the streets. Some uselful links:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

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

:) We have had many of those here, only they call them buy backs.

One gunsmith I know got rid of all his non-reparable guns there. Made money on junk.

[Bob Riebe]

Yep.
Guns are a weapon designed to kill, and the only people who really need them as far as I am concerned are police officers, farmers, and Army personel. The world has nutters in every society and if they want to kill, they probably will but I fancy my chances more against someone threatening me with a knife should they break into my home rather than if they were carrying a gun.

Unless you live in a hugely dangerous society like the example from SA, you shouldn't need a firearm for protection. The fact that people on here are suggesting burglars are likely to come armed with guns just reinforces the stance that this is more likely if guns are legal in their society. Most of the smack head burglars in the UK are breaking into homes simply to feed their habit and guns are just too expensive and hard to get hold of. The other mainstream burglar breaks into your home for your car keys. If you live in the UK and you are that paranoid, just fit an alarm to your house and keep a baseball bat under your bed.

If you do not need it then it sits in a gun case or cabinet, till it is needed.
So why do people similar to you try to disarm innocent civilians?

[Bob Riebe]

Here it was just a case of the government passing a law that made all handguns illegal and all registered owners were forced to hand them in at police stations.
You just listed the number one reason gun registration here is DOA, and most politicians are no longer stupid enough to mention it.

[Eki]

If you do not need it then it sits in a gun case or cabinet, till it is needed.
So why do people similar to you try to disarm innocent civilians?
"Till it is needed"? Why are you so sure it will ever be needed?

[beachgirl]

If you do not need it then it sits in a gun case or cabinet, till it is needed.


"Excuse me, pondscum criminal, while I go over to my gun case or cabinet, unlock it, and shoot you now. Just stay put, I'll be right back."

[Daniel]

"Excuse me, pondscum criminal, while I go over to my gun case or cabinet, unlock it, and shoot you now. Just stay put, I'll be right back."
:laugh:

[Bob Riebe]

"Excuse me, pondscum criminal, while I go over to my gun case or cabinet, unlock it, and shoot you now. Just stay put, I'll be right back."
Well, I was trying to be politically correct.

Mine is next to the bed, but I did not want to stir up some "but what if one of a visitor's rug-rats wanders into the bedroom and shoots himself in the head- twice."

[Bob Riebe]

"Till it is needed"? Why are you so sure it will ever be needed?
An old mechanic once told me, better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

[Eki]

An old mechanic once told me, better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Depends on the cost, I'd assume. I wouldn't buy a $500 dollar tool I most likely never needed.

[Bob Riebe]

Depends on the cost, I'd assume. I wouldn't buy a $500 dollar tool I most likely never needed.
Yeah I used to say that, till one day twenty years ago, while working on a truck I needed a single socket, for a wrench, that cost sixty bucks.
Used it once and still have it.

Can't get the same socket for only sixty dollars anymore either.
Oh yes I could have had the socket as part of a fully complete tool set fifteen years earlier, while in school, at jobber prices. Didn"t think I would ever need it.

"Most likely" is one of those coulda, woulda, shoulda items.

[Bob Riebe]

Seriously Bob violence coming into our homes here is so rare you just wouldn't need them. Having them in the home is also just something else for a burglar to steal should they ever break in and then they are in the wrong hands anyway.

So serious question now, do you guys think it would be a good idea to introduce guns into a country that has a relatively low level of gun crime? To arm innocent law abiding civilians just in case someone happens to break into our homes?
The same lawful citizens who used to have guns could have them again.

The criminals would be rather unhappy, but what is wrong with that?
=========================

As an aside, at a revolver forum, where I post on occasion, and have sold guns to members, many there have five-shooters, that are powerful enough to take down an elephant or Cape Buffalo. It has been done.

Some have multiples, into double figures.
An absolute bargain for a used one is one thousand dollars; new ones can go for over four thousand.

At a symposium put on by one of the builders of these firearms, I met some fine people. (at the down-town restaurant where we dined the final day of the meeting, many wore their firearms into the restaurant while eating.)

One fellow I met has a nerve problem, from a work injury, that makes shooting for him difficult and painful. (I saw him shoot once,and it takes some time for him to work through the shakes for bullseye shooting, but any criminal, even at 25 yards that thought this shaky old man is a push-over would be worm food.)

Disarming these gents, and women, (it is interesting to see a little woman, the top of whose head is almost lower than the bottom one's chin, shoot a very potent firearm, well, that many men are afraid to shoot due to the recoil) would serve what purpose?

[Tazio]

Although symbolically a song about Sex, Shooting Heroin, and an actual firearm, here is my best shot at getting this thread closed. :s mokin:

xTU2Y0VFH0E.

“My best friend would be the man who gave me a pistol that I might blow out my brains.”

Eddie Poe to his doctor on his death bed.

http://www.eapoe.org/balt/poechh.htm

[Jag_Warrior]

A gun amnesty was held in the UK in 1996 and was largely positive, although you're never going to get every gun off the streets. Some uselful links:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

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

:)

I appreciate that, Henners. I believe most major American cities have held firearms "turn in" programs (no questions asked) for quite a few years. When I lived near Washington, D.C., they held one every year... I think around Christmas time. People could get gift certificates or something for each gun that was turned in. And yet, when I left that area, it had the highest murder rate in the U.S.

While passive collection programs are nice, I have not seen that they're effective here. In the same way that a Jew would not willingly eat pork, an American, who sees firearms ownership as part of his birthright, is not going to willingly turn in his firearms.

So back to my original question: what lengths and what methods would people here be in favor of, in order to enforce this ban? And as you give an answer, consider the resulting aftermath of those actions.

[Hawkmoon]

I am seriously looking for realistic methods that you think should be used, and would be effective (that's the big one), to accomplish your goal of ridding the U.S. of all handguns and/or firearms.

If handguns were banned then they could no longer be sold. The gun manufacturers would either dramatically decrease their production (only producing for the military/law enforcement) or stop all together. Throw in a gun buy-back scheme and the amount of handguns in the country has to diminish over time.

Unfortunately that will never happen because American politicians don't have the will and/or resolve to pass such a law. You can't really blame them because it would seem to be political suicide in the US.

What's needed is a change in American culture that sees guns as a common, if not necessary, household item. The UK and Australia didn't/don't have that culture so it was easy for our politicians to pass such laws.

[Hawkmoon]

Surely?
Based on what other than happy thought?

People do not have military guns and do not drag out that dishonest diatribe about "assault" weapons that the liberal press tries to scam the public with continually.

Your rhetoruc is either false or naive.


The vast majority of (legal) gun owners in the US do not have military type weapons or high capacity weapons. They have sporting firearms and/or ordinary hand guns. Sure, some do have those weapons, but not anything close to 10% of gun owners.

By military I'm talking about anything more than a bolt-action rifle with a capacity of no more than 6 rounds. That means no semi-automatic or automatic rifles, no pump action shotguns etc. I know that's not strictly speaking military but it's what we have in Australia and I believe it works. Shooters still get to indulge in their favourite passtime and farmers still get a tool for vermin control. They just don't get to do it with guns that can kill large amounts of people in a short space of time.

So, Bob, are you trying to tell me that you can't buy an assault rifle in the US? 30 seconds on the Internet and I have an AK47 in my shopping cart from a dealer in Utah. Here's the link: http://www.impactguns.com/store/896187002070.html

It's not rhetoric when it's true.

[Jag_Warrior]

If handguns were banned then they could no longer be sold. The gun manufacturers would either dramatically decrease their production (only producing for the military/law enforcement) or stop all together. Throw in a gun buy-back scheme and the amount of handguns in the country has to diminish over time.

Unfortunately that will never happen because American politicians don't have the will and/or resolve to pass such a law. You can't really blame them because it would seem to be political suicide in the US.

What's needed is a change in American culture that sees guns as a common, if not necessary, household item. The UK and Australia didn't/don't have that culture so it was easy for our politicians to pass such laws.

Cocaine and heroin are banned (controlled) substances, but I think they are widely available here. I understand that you mean that guns could no longer be "legally" sold. But if the demand is still there, a reduction in supply just means higher prices. No different than drugs, prostitutes... or widgets bought at Walmart.

As for snuffing out production, that would only apply to the U.S. Just like we get most of our coke from South America, by way of Mexico, and an increasing number of the illegal (controlled) fully automatic weapons come from Israel, China and Russia, it would be no biggie to get a pistol or even a rifle. All you'd need is more money than you needed before.

And the reason that politicians (outside of New York and California) won't go down this road is because it is, as you said, political suicide. We elect representatives, not dictators. And whether the rest of the world thinks we're right or wrong in how we feel, it is how we feel. Our culture may be similar to certain others, but it is not the same. And we're just going to have to accept that we may not see certain issues the same way.

In my family, there are firearms and blades from the Civil War, the Indian wars, WWI, WWII and Vietnam. Now, before anyone breaks in my house (and gets shot :D ), they're not necessarily all in my possession. Different family members have different items. My point is simply that more than a few of us (especially in the south) link ourselves to our ancestors and different historical periods through firearms.

I don't know if there are any other members here or not. But I am and have been an NRA Life Member for many, many years. And yet, if you look back at this thread, not once have I taken the bait about reasons for feeling that I "need" a gun. I don't "need" a gun... or most of the other items that I own. The only things I need are food, shelter and basic clothes to keep me warm. So why? Because firearms ownership is a choice that I have made. Simple as that.

[Hawkmoon]

Cocaine and heroin are banned (controlled) substances, but I think they are widely available here. I understand that you mean that guns could no longer be "legally" sold. But if the demand is still there, a reduction of supply just means higher prices. No different than drugs, prostitutes, etc.

As for snuffing out production, that would only apply to the U.S. Just like we get most of our coke from South America, by way of Mexico, and an increasing number of the illegal (controlled) fully automatic weapons from Israel, China and Russia, it would be no biggie to get a pistol or even a rifle.

And the reason that politicians (outside of New York and California) won't go down this road is because it is, as you said, political suicide. We elect representatives, not dictators. And whether the rest of the world thinks we're right or wrong in how we feel, it is how we feel. Our culture may be similar to certain others, but it is not the same. And we're just going to have to accept that we may not see certain issues the same way.

In my family, there are firearms and blades from the Civil War, the Indian wars, WWI, WWII and Vietnam. Now, before anyone breaks in my house (and gets shot :D ), they're not necessarily all in my possession. Different family members have different items. My point is simply that more than a few of us (especially in the south) link ourselves to our ancestors and different historical periods through firearms.

I don't know if there are any other members here or not. But I am and have been an NRA Life Member for many, many years. And yet, if you look back at this thread, not once have I taken the bait about reasons for feeling that I "need" a gun. I don't "need" a gun... or most of the other items that I own. The only things I need are food, shelter and basic clothes to keep me warm. So why? Because it is a choice that I have made. Simple as that.

It's not a simple solution and I'm not trying to suggest that it is. But the only way to decrease the amount of guns is to decrease their supply. The first step in that direction is to stop producing them locally. If you can't sell them then you can't import them either. Even with an increase in illegal imports the amount of guns in the country has to decline.

This is going to sound weird and probably hypocritical but I don't hate guns. I would love to have a collection of WWII small arms. They'd be non-functioning replicas or deactivated originals as I have no desire to actually fire them. I have an interest in WWII history the weapons used to wage that war are part of that history. So I know what you mean about firearms being more than just tools.

[markabilly]

You Finns are pussies. Not even one damn murder with a firearm. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What is even more revealing is this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita look at the difference in gun related murders between the US and the UK per capita.

Anyone who argues that US citizens need to be armed after seeing that needs their head read.
more murders more you ned a gun to protect yourself

[markabilly]

nah, not to sort of live, as long as you are crawling, with your butt in the air, the bully boys will want to keep you around for fun :D


What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting I'm a whimp because I don't want to own a gun? Surely not haha
yep, some would rathercrawl and be a pussy...I have always found it interesting how the prisoners in those concentration camps outnumbered the guards by the thousands

not only did they act as sheep, they supervised, pushed and shut the doors to the gas chambers on their fellow men, women and children and then drug the bodies to the ovens.

The SS did the watching, but the actual killing and burning were done by other prisioners even though they knew in a few weeks they would be next, as the nazis rotated a new crew in. All because they were too afraid to stand up and their reward was not a trip to the chambers, but a bullet in the back of the head. :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

Once again, i repeat myself, but I will say something else. Unlike Jag, i am no longer capable of taking someone on, and delivering a karate kick to the neck
engaging in knife fights, and dodging clubs....if i ever were

but as the saying goes, God made man, but colonel Colt made them all equal



After all this debate, no one has mentioned the real source of violence. It has nothing to do with owning a gun, banning guns and all that.

It is in our genectics that men want to dominate others to take from others and to keep it for themselves. the glorification of violence. Call it greed, ambition, power hungry, bully....it all comes from the y chromosome and testerone

Not merely ban, but totally destroy all guns and knives, and there will be those who will be figuring out other ways to kill their brother man and take what they can.

There will be those who will fight to keep it, and those who will give it up in fear and run for cover, regardless of whether the object of their desire be a woman, a house, a farm, land, money, power....or do it just to be damn mean to their fellow man and show they are the baddest ass around town.


Civilization will never change that. It starts very young and is shown to exist in the actions of 4 yaer old children, and some can be taught to overcome it, some will sort of overcome it, but others will never overcome.

The ONLY cure for some is when they are dead. As my grandpa said, some people's problem is that they just need a good killing to cure them of their evil ways

Early man's first tools were weapons.
Man's last tools will be weapons, no doubt nuclear or thermonuclear or worst.

Mostly a male problem, but some women have it as well

All you can do is fight it, or depend on someone else to fight it for you, or just give up and crawl on your knees like sheep.

sooo......whatever

[Roamy]

Once again, i repeat myself, but I will say something else. Unlike Jag, i am no longer capable of taking someone on, and delivering a karate kick to the neck
engaging in knife fights, and dodging clubs....if i ever were

but as the saying goes, God made man, but colonel Colt made them all equal

amen brother

[Bob Riebe]

By military I'm talking about anything more than a bolt-action rifle with a capacity of no more than 6 rounds. That means no semi-automatic or automatic rifles, no pump action shotguns etc. I know that's not strictly speaking military but it's what we have in Australia and I believe it works. Shooters still get to indulge in their favourite passtime and farmers still get a tool for vermin control. They just don't get to do it with guns that can kill large amounts of people in a short space of time.

So, Bob, are you trying to tell me that you can't buy an assault rifle in the US? 30 seconds on the Internet and I have an AK47 in my shopping cart from a dealer in Utah. Here's the link: http://www.impactguns.com/store/896187002070.html

It's not rhetoric when it's true.
If it is not fully automatic it is not an assault rifle only the liberal press through ignorance of paranoia call them that.
One can buy the same east block rifles that are called "assault" rifles by the ignorant with rather attractive wooden stocks, if one wants to spend the extra cost.

Amazingly, the largest caliber bolt-action "hunting" rifle ever for sale was made, and is still sold, by an Australian, still in Australia. It is a little over .73 caliber.
God help him if the paranoid gun haters ever actually read gun journals, of course then their ignorance might be compromised, they will probably have to change their shorts twice after that.

[Bob Riebe]

If handguns were banned then they could no longer be sold. The gun manufacturers would either dramatically decrease their production (only producing for the military/law enforcement) or stop all together. Throw in a gun buy-back scheme and the amount of handguns in the country has to diminish over time.

Unfortunately that will never happen because American politicians don't have the will and/or resolve to pass such a law. You can't really blame them because it would seem to be political suicide in the US.

What's needed is a change in American culture that sees guns as a common, if not necessary, household item. The UK and Australia didn't/don't have that culture so it was easy for our politicians to pass such laws.
Oh so you are saying what is needed is a little mind control, because some opinions do not like the way the Founding Fathers of the U.S. wrote the Constitution. (to protect the citizenry from said same opinions)

It is amazing how so many act as if governments and police are some sort of infallible group who do no harm.
Germany before WWII passed the first federal gun laws.

The U.S. was set-up so there could be no police state, and as much as the liberals would love to undo that, that is still the status quo.
What you want is a changing of the Constitution so an armed police state could be set up.

Amazing, fear of firearms causes odd thought patterns.
---------------------
'This is going to sound weird and probably hypocritical but I don't hate guns. I would love to have a collection of WWII small arms. They'd be non-functioning replicas or deactivated originals as I have no desire to actually fire them. I have an interest in WWII history the weapons used to wage that war are part of that history. So I know what you mean about firearms being more than just tools'

A tool that does not function is broken, an object that imitates a tool and cannot be made to function, is a fools folly.

Many criminals in the U.S. are as dumb as a pail of rocks, sadly not enough, but thought that if they committed a crime with a fake firearm they would not be charged with armed robbery.
Law makers in moment of brilliance where there was even a chance of that, made sure that now, real or fake, you got something that looks like a gun, commit a crime. You get the same time as the boys who use the real thing; a bright side is that some of the morons using fake guns have been shot dead.

[Rollo]

Germany before WWII passed the first federal gun laws.


Er...

The Gun Licence Act 1870, Pistols Act 1903, Firearms Act 1920, Firearms Act 1937, all existed in the UK before Germany passed its Weapons Act in 1938.

[Bob Riebe]

Er...

The Gun Licence Act 1870, Pistols Act 1903, Firearms Act 1920, Firearms Act 1937, all existed in the UK before Germany passed its Weapons Act in 1938.
Germany's disarmed a section of the populace. I should have been more clear. It was not gun control it was confiscation and disarmament by the State, which is what some posters here want.

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

[airshifter]

And yet, if you look back at this thread, not once have I taken the bait about reasons for feeling that I "need" a gun. I don't "need" a gun... or most of the other items that I own. The only things I need are food, shelter and basic clothes to keep me warm. So why? Because firearms ownership is a choice that I have made. Simple as that.

Based on this thread and the view expressed by most of the people in Europe, that's just impossible Jag. As gun owners we must be waiting for a chance to gun someone down in our living room, even if it's a 80 lb woman that comes through our door some night. I know personally I have been anxious to expose my daughter to an event as traumatic as me pumping some lead through someone in the entryway of our home. :eek:


On a realistic note I've never felt a need to own a gun. But if I had more free time and a place to set up a good reloading rig and equipment, I'd own more of them and they would be much more capable than what I own now. I'd love to have time to set up a nice distance rifle and get out and do some 800+ shooting.

[Eki]

In the US, firearms are classified into the same category as alcohol and tobacco. Funnily it doesn't cause as much uproar when they try to control the use of alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs as when they try to control the use of firearms.

http://www.atf.gov/

[Hawkmoon]

If it is not fully automatic it is not an assault rifle only the liberal press through ignorance of paranoia call them that.
One can buy the same east block rifles that are called "assault" rifles by the ignorant with rather attractive wooden stocks, if one wants to spend the extra cost.

Amazingly, the largest caliber bolt-action "hunting" rifle ever for sale was made, and is still sold, by an Australian, still in Australia. It is a little over .73 caliber.
God help him if the paranoid gun haters ever actually read gun journals, of course then their ignorance might be compromised, they will probably have to change their shorts twice after that.

Semantics. A semi-automatic rifle such as that with a 30 round magazine is just as dangerous and just as unnecessary for anything other than killing people.

The calibre of the weapon is irrelevant. It's the speed at which it can fire and the capacity that are the issue. Semi-automatic, high capacity weapons are designed for one thing, killing people. They have no place in society.


Oh so you are saying what is needed is a little mind control, because some opinions do not like the way the Founding Fathers of the U.S. wrote the Constitution. (to protect the citizenry from said same opinions)

The old "it's in the constitution" argument. I'm sorry but I call bull**** on that one. The intent was to give "militia" the right to bear arms as I'm sure you now. It was also written in 1791. I figure we've moved on a bit in the last 200+ years.


It is amazing how so many act as if governments and police are some sort of infallible group who do no harm.
Germany before WWII passed the first federal gun laws.

The U.S. was set-up so there could be no police state, and as much as the liberals would love to undo that, that is still the status quo.
What you want is a changing of the Constitution so an armed police state could be set up.

Do you honestly believe that the only thing preventing America from becoming a "police state" is the fact that the citizens can carry guns? An armed group of citizens wouldn't last 30 seconds against trained soldiers despite what Hollywood would have us believe.


Amazing, fear of firearms causes odd thought patterns.
---------------------
'This is going to sound weird and probably hypocritical but I don't hate guns. I would love to have a collection of WWII small arms. They'd be non-functioning replicas or deactivated originals as I have no desire to actually fire them. I have an interest in WWII history the weapons used to wage that war are part of that history. So I know what you mean about firearms being more than just tools'

A tool that does not function is broken, an object that imitates a tool and cannot be made to function, is a fools folly.

Firstly, I don't fear firearms. I don't have to because I'm unlikely to ever meet the wrong end of one in Australia. Secondly, taking a dangerous item and making it safe is hardly folly. More like common sense.

[Bob Riebe]

Semantics. A semi-automatic rifle such as that with a 30 round magazine is just as dangerous and just as unnecessary for anything other than killing people.

The calibre of the weapon is irrelevant. It's the speed at which it can fire and the capacity that are the issue. Semi-automatic, high capacity weapons are designed for one thing, killing people. They have no place in society.

NO that is just your, and your types paranoia. The first semi-automatic hunting arm was made commercially available over one hundred years ago.
You are chasing shadows.

The old "it's in the constitution" argument. I'm sorry but I call bull**** on that one. The intent was to give "militia" the right to bear arms as I'm sure you now. It was also written in 1791. I figure we've moved on a bit in the last 200+ years.
Another- truth hurts, to hell with the facts rant- followed by bs about what the constitution says. Reality and the Supreme Court of the U.S. say you are wrong but if repeating your fallacy makes you feel better so be itl

Do you honestly believe that the only thing preventing America from becoming a "police state" is the fact that the citizens can carry guns? An armed group of citizens wouldn't last 30 seconds against trained soldiers despite what Hollywood would have us believe.
Fortunately U.S. soldiers do not follow orders from Washington like little toy robots.
The National Guard is a form of the civilian militia you trotted out earlier, under command of each States governor, so your scenario is paranoid bs.
It is similar to how liberals feel about firearms.

Firstly, I don't fear firearms. I don't have to because I'm unlikely to ever meet the wrong end of one in Australia. Secondly, taking a dangerous item and making it safe is hardly folly. More like common sense.
Common sense only if those saying that are afraid of ones that function. If you were not afraid of firearms you would not want to take them away or make them non-functioning worthless junk.
Your rhetoric betrays your statement.

[Bob Riebe]

In the US, firearms are classified into the same category as alcohol and tobacco. Funnily it doesn't cause as much uproar when they try to control the use of alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs as when they try to control the use of firearms.

http://www.atf.gov/
Not the same category- are under the same jurisdiction as you listed. Big difference.

Many have wondered why, but it has been that way so long, no one really cares.

[airshifter]

I don't really want to be told that I suddenly need a gun though. I don't feel I need one now and introducing guns back into the UK is just not realistic as I have pointed out several times that the chances of getting robbed at gun point right now are one in several million.



I've never been told I "need" a gun either. It's just that as a law abiding citizen I have a right to own one if I want to.

I've yet to see any gun laws that changed the overall trends of violent crimes in any nation. It changes only the trend of crimes committed with guns. If the murder rate remains stable, nothing has been accomplished IMHO.

The US crime rates in almost every category have dropped substantially over the years, yet this is happening with more and more states allowing concealed carry of firearms. Though I personally don't think that this alone proves guns reduce crime, it's certainly an indicator that a much larger number of things affect crime rates and that guns are not the cause of all crime.

[markabilly]

I don't really want to be told that I suddenly need a gun though. I don't feel I need one now and introducing guns back into the UK is just not realistic as I have pointed out several times that the chances of getting robbed at gun point right now are one in several million.

Law abiding citizens are great until one or two of them decide to be not so law abiding, and even criminals had clean records once upon a time. Thomas Hamilton was a law abiding citizen (not convicted, but under suspicion) with no criminal record, and a member of a reputable gun club before it all got too much and he executed 16 five year olds and their teacher one winter morning. It was just shocking how quickly he was able to end the lives of so many children. I'd just prefer these types of weapons were out of public hands and not even kept in peoples homes where criminals can gain access to them.

I guess what I'm trying to say Bob is you and I live in very different countries. If you had any experience of what it was like to live in the UK you'd know that guns just wouldn't be a welcome addition. After Dunblane the country was up in arms (no pun intended) to get weapons like this banned and I'm guessing there would be similar uproar should they be reintroduced. It just wouldn't be feasible or wise. :)

There are people who are always going to go nuts, and become the wolf among the sheep.
If it is not with a gun, it will be with a knife, sword, bomb, cub or bare hands.
it is just human nature that some have a beast inside and fail to control it.

Life in naziland, would have been far different if every jew had a gun and used it to kill off one nazi before ending up in an oven....my guess is there would have been very little left of nazis and many lives saved.

Inglorious basterds is the dream of what jews wished they had done, instead of what they did do-----what a fantasy that be....

[markabilly]

ignorance cotinuos




The old "it's in the constitution" argument. I'm sorry but I call bull**** on that one. The intent was to give "militia" the right to bear arms as I'm sure you now. It was also written in 1791. I figure we've moved on a bit in the last 200+ years.

Already been pointed out how ignorant you are on the subject, including what James Madision wrote, who wrote the second amendment and what he believed, that is a well armed citizens are the only dependanble defense against tryants, domestic and foreign.


Do you honestly believe that the only thing preventing America from becoming a "police state" is the fact that the citizens can carry guns? An armed group of citizens wouldn't last 30 seconds against trained soldiers despite what Hollywood would have us believe.

YES absolutely. And it would not take much before those trained soldiers decided maybe they better do some thinking more about what they are doing. In any event, as the man said, "give me liberty or give me death" And I would rather end up dead on the street rather than living on my knees afraid of my own shadow
"
Firstly, I don't fear firearms. I don't have to because I'm unlikely to ever meet the wrong end of one in Australia. Secondly, taking a dangerous item and making it safe is hardly folly. More like common sense.

You are scared, so scared, not even worth debating. indeed, were it not for the USA, you would have been speaking japanese right now, unless all you ancestors got their heads chopped of....and then you would not even be around to mumble. And some day, the USA will not be around, and the wolf will come to feast on you and your family. What are you going to do? be like 555? how, without a gun like he had..... :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Yes, I agree, you are ignorant Markabilly.

[Daniel]

There are people who are always going to go nuts, and become the wolf among the sheep.
If it is not with a gun, it will be with a knife, sword, bomb, cub or bare hands.

Using a cub?

I'll be honest and say that if someone attacks me with a cub I'm not going to be all that scared.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/2/polar-bear-cub_917.jpg

[Daniel]

Life in naziland, would have been far different if every jew had a gun and used it to kill off one nazi before ending up in an oven....my guess is there would have been very little left of nazis and many lives saved.

What dreamworld are you living in? As has been pointed out, a civillian with a handgun has little chance against an
MG42
http://www.operatorchan.org/a/src/a11875_mg42.jpg

Or an STG44/MP44
http://www.wwiiguns.com/store/images/mp44_shop2_wwii.jpg


It's quite cute that you think that having a gun makes you invincible :laugh: What if the other guy has a gun Markasilly? Are you both invincible?

[markabilly]

Yes, I agree, you are ignorant Markabilly.
yes, daniella, I am....now if I could find some sheep skin and learn to cry while crawling on my knees, I would be just like you :D

[Daniel]

yes, daniella, I am....now if I could find some sheep skin and learn to cry while crawling on my knees, I would be just like you :D

The sad thing is you actually feel this is true :laugh:

[markabilly]

What dreamworld are you living in? As has been pointed out, a civillian with a handgun has little chance against an
MG42
http://www.operatorchan.org/a/src/a11875_mg42.jpg

Or an STG44/MP44
http://www.wwiiguns.com/store/images/mp44_shop2_wwii.jpg


It's quite cute that you think that having a gun makes you invincible :laugh: What if the other guy has a gun Markasilly? Are you both invincible?


Sgt york, with a bolt action rifle, took out a whole bunch of germans who were using machine guns
as to your second comment, NO, one of us is dead. My money says it will be him, but if not, well, at least i ani't living like a sheep, bahh, bahh,

[markabilly]

The sad thing is you actually feel this is true :laugh:

Live your fantasy, pray it ain't so....but when you look in the mirror, you know that deep down inside, you feel this strong urge to go bahhh....baaahhh, bahh

Nutin I can do to help you, you just going to have to man up and grow a pair, if you want to be able to look anyone in the eye.....and not go bahh bahhhhhhhh

[Daniel]

Live your fantasy, pray it ain't so....but when you look in the mirror, you know that deep down inside, you feel this strong urge to go bahhh....baaahhh, bahh

Nutin I can do to help you, you just going to have to man up and grow a pair, if you want to be able to look anyone in the eye.....and not go bahh bahhhhhhhh

:laugh: You're either winding me up or you have some very small tackle that you're compensating for :laugh:

[Daniel]

Sgt york, with a bolt action rifle, took out a whole bunch of germans who were using machine guns
as to your second comment, NO, one of us is dead. My money says it will be him, but if not, well, at least i ani't living like a sheep, bahh, bahh,

A Sergeant? So I'll assume he wasn't a civillian? For evey person who's taken out a few machinegun nests there are hundreds of people who were gunned down without so much as wounding someone on the other side

[markabilly]

:laugh: You're either winding me up or you have some very small tackle that you're compensating for :laugh:

My gun may not always drag the ground, but atleast it still works....besides I am not the one announcing that I have no gun and don't want one to the world, daniella :D

[Daniel]

My gun may not always drag the ground, but atleast it still works....besides I am not the one announcing that I have no gun and don't want one to the world, daniella :D

:laugh: You're just so amusing :laugh:

If I put a big billboard on top of the house saying that I didn't have a gun, I wouldn't get shot so I fail to see what your point is, both in terms of in this thread and as someone who lives and breathes.

[markabilly]

A Sergeant? So I'll assume he wasn't a civillian? For evey person who's taken out a few machinegun nests there are hundreds of people who were gunned down without so much as wounding someone on the other side

no, he learned to shoot as a boy, long before joining the military....and was a private at the time. The promotion was after the fact, but that is how he is remembered.

But the point is, if you are so scared of dying that you can not really live, no point inliving is there????

[Daniel]

no, he learned to shoot as a boy, long before joining the military....and was a private at the time. The promotion was after the fact, but that is how he is remembered.

But the point is, if you are so scared of dying that you can not really live, no point inliving is there

I'm not scared of dying because I don't live in a country where every tom, dick and harry has a gun.

A lot of US air aces learnt deflection shooting from having shot on farms, but some of the more intelligent of you will know that I have no opposition to people being able to own weapons whose primary purpose is for hunting and which are largely unsuitable for going on the rampage with. I've shot guns myself and have been hunting, I don't see a problem with hunting for food at all.

[markabilly]

. I've shot guns myself and have been hunting, I don't see a problem with hunting for food at all.

:eek: OMG!!!! a real gun???? with live ammo?????

and killing little bambi or some little bunny, who could not shoot back......Wow....be careful some might think that some day you might actually stand up on your feet, and that will make you an outcast from your fellow sissies :s mokin:


as to "largely unsuitable for going on the rampage with." York had a bolt action rifle, almost identical to the ones used for hunting today, and took some 30 machine guns, killed some 30 germans and captured more than a 100....and he did not learn to shoot in the army



Imagine a million jews, armed and having learned to shoot like him, could have done to the SS and gestapo who were bullies, and like any bully, preys on the weak and runs when someone stands up to them

[Daniel]

:eek: OMG!!!! a real gun???? with live ammo?????

and killing little bambi or some little bunny, who could not shoot back......Wow....be careful some might think that some day you might actually stand up on your feet, and that will make you an outcast from your fellow sissies :s mokin:

Well the cow in the packet on the shelf in the supermarket didn't have a chance to fight back so I don't have any problems sleeping at night knowing that I killed a few wild fowl. The thing is, no one on here who is anti-gun seems to have an issue with guns themselves, just guns which are more suited to killing people than hunting. Continue on with your jibber jabbering though. It is rather funny :)

[Rollo]

Life in naziland, would have been far different if every jew had a gun and used it to kill off one nazi before ending up in an oven....my guess is there would have been very little left of nazis and many lives saved.

This is a total and utter lie.

Firstly, the Firearms and Ammunition Act or Waffengesetz was issued in 1928, the 1938 regulations mere extended it. It's interesting how you cite something which came from the Weimar Republic and not the Thrid Reich.

Secondly, the Nazis rose to power via the ballot box, not because they disarmed the population. Gun ownership was never widespread in Germany in the first place, so the idea of "disarming" the Jews is bunk. The legislation existed merely as a facade.

Thirdly, it doesn't change the fact that pogroms had been carried out against the Jews for centuries. Even Marthin Luther wrote a treatise entitled "On the Jews and Their Lies" in 1543. There was a pogrom in Poland against the Jews in 1919, and even one in Limerick in Ireland in the 1890s.

Fourthy, Kristallnacht or "Night of Broken Glass" in which 91 Jews were killed and 300,000 people were sent to concetration camps, was on the 9th of November 1938, but the "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons" which you cited, wasn't passed until the 11th. How does a regulation take force before it exists?

Jewish people in the Third Reich were exterminated with the help of a fully mobilised army, and the complicitousness of the German people.
Not only have you misrepresented the actual mechanics of the dates of history, but also centuries of anti-Semitism. Well done.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm probably not making much sense as I'm on my 4th gin and tonic and casualty is rather crap this evening lol... :)

Hmm, so you're about half-tanked, eh? Me thinks now would be a perfect time to retrieve that air rifle and let the neighborhood kids know who the Boss of the Neighborhood is! :vader:

[Eki]

I've never been told I "need" a gun either. It's just that as a law abiding citizen I have a right to own one if I want to.

I've yet to see any gun laws that changed the overall trends of violent crimes in any nation. It changes only the trend of crimes committed with guns. If the murder rate remains stable, nothing has been accomplished IMHO.

The US crime rates in almost every category have dropped substantially over the years, yet this is happening with more and more states allowing concealed carry of firearms. Though I personally don't think that this alone proves guns reduce crime, it's certainly an indicator that a much larger number of things affect crime rates and that guns are not the cause of all crime.
Define "crime". I don't doubt that shoplifting rate would drop if the shopkeeper had a gun and a license to kill, but I doubt murder and homicide rates would drop.

[Bob Riebe]

Define "crime". I don't doubt that shoplifting rate would drop if the shopkeeper had a gun and a license to kill, but I doubt murder and homicide rates would drop.Based on what?
Homicides, might go up as criminals are shot dead.
Murder rate, well, as he Latino criminals flood across the border, the number goblin killing goblin numbers may be going up, but as an actor once said, "let them die.'

[Bob Riebe]

Using a cub?

I'll be honest and say that if someone attacks me with a cub I'm not going to be all that scared.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/2/polar-bear-cub_917.jpgLOL