Discussions
Gun Nuts scare me
Posted by BernieSandwich • 3/28/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: guns, legal, nuts, Police, scare, violence
I just can't see the sense of every one having a gun.
Then there are the 'enthusiasts'. Bigger, longer,n fatter, lighter, heavier, faster, louder than yours.
Madness?
User Comments
-
I'm not the sort who sits around reading gun-porn, but to each their own.
-
that's cleaner than my first thought... -
There's actually a restaurant/bar in Atlanta called the Vortex that has large images of scantilly clad biker girls holding 45 pistols while looking absolutely gorgeous.
-
-
I don't consider myself to be a gun nut. However, I do own a couple of guns for protection only. Not so much for the protection from human predators, but from animal predators. I live in an extremely remote desert location in Arizona where mountain lions, bears, rattlesnakes, wild burros and javelina have been known to stalk, attack and/or kill humans. You may consider me a nut, but when it comes down to protecting myself from a wild animal attack, I believe I'm only being prepared and sensible. -
I'm not sure that someone who describes herself as MadMadMargo should be the one who decides who or what she should shoot at.
Are your guns just simple guns or the fastest best automatics that can spray a million bullets and kill an elephant at a mile?-
And you should make that decision without knowledge of where someone called madmadmargo lives, or what kind of environment she lives in, or how responsible/good with a gun she is?
I'm not a "gun nut" but we also own guns - for hunting and home protection. If you don't want to own guns - then don't. No one is forcing you to buy or use a gun. But don't judge others for owning and using guns responsibly.
All of that said however, counties, states, and other countries with high levels of legal gun ownership have lower rates of crime, and gun deaths (murders, drive-byes etc...).
Coincidence? I think not. But if you're not convinced, do an experiment. Have your neighbor put up a sign in his/her window stating that the premise is protected by a gun owner, and put a sign in your window stating 'proudly gun free". Invite a criminal over, and see which house is chosen. -
The type of guns I own is irrelevant, as is my blogger ID. If it eases your mind any, I have attended gun safety courses offered by the state of Arizona, plus my guns are registered. I am a responsible gun owner; I am not, in any way, a hunter.
-
I live in the some conditions in southern utah. i've won several national match competitions in two different age groups :). .I'm probably ten times more dangerous then Mad Margo. my name is Saint Seanzy..
My question and point really is.. Where do you get off assuming things? I really don't know why I even considered posting this let alone actually posting. This is one of those peanut galley topics with no end.. You should post a quantum physics post next! -
You are aware that automatic weapons are prohibited for private gun owners? Anyone who has one certainly wouldn't be bragging about it here. -
What a rude response. The nickname this blogger uses for blogging has no relationship at all to the state of her mind or her mental condition. She's a humor blogger but you sure as heck aren't funny at all. The very fact that you leap to the conclusion that the two are related give me pause to wonder where your head is at.
I hope that you are not yet another new member who tries to secure blog hits by creating threads on controversial topics, and who has a pattern of attacking those who do respond to them openly and honestly.
The reason I hope that isn't the case is because we just endured a week of two members posting threads to this forum, who made their debuts here at BC by affecting similar behaviors, and who quickly became personas non-grata.
-
-
There is a high level of irritation in your post. So easily irritated and you own guns.
-
I'm irritated because you attacked another poster who answered your question honestly because of her screenname, and questioned her ability to make reasonable judgment with regards to protecting herself in the wild rather than addressing the validity of her gun ownership.
Then again, I don't know when it was that you were last face to face with a bear, or other large, dangerous wild animal - so there you have it.
And yes - I own guns, and yes your post irritates me. Amazingly enough, I have the ability to be irritated and not go on a shooting spree. Wow.
When you are irritated, do you drive your car into crowds of unsuspecting people? Because more people are killed by cars and irritated irresponsible drivers than guns. -
I'm irritated by the stereotyping.. I'm an individual.. I should not be punished by you or my government based on the actions of people :). I'm not a "Gun nut". I can field strip a .45 blindfolded hanging up side down.. You wont find gun and ammo in my house... I don't hunt.. I've never pulled a gun on a person to "Feel good"
Nor do i think any "supporter" in this thread has :\. But yet you still are going to pretty much be set that "I" and "Them" are irritated scary gun owning people.
-
-
I am with Anok. Your attitude and attack on Margo was irritating...and totally uninformed.
Yes, I am pro-gun ownership. No, I don't own any.
At least not anymore. -
I recently had dinner with atheists and one of them bragged that he was carrying a concealed weapon!-
What does their religion have to do with it?
-
What does one have to do with the other?
My father carries a concealed weapon...he's a Catholic. So what? -
I don't understand the atheist connection, but most states allow you to carry a concealed weapon provided you have the proper license. I have known many business owners to have such permits because they often are carry large amounts of cash to and from the bank.
-
Maybe he meant another type of concealed weapon.
*runs* -
God + Guns = Irrelevant!!
-
we gotta make sure that we drag the 1st and 2nd amendment into the same thread. neato!
-
no god + guns = irrelevant
-
-
I have no problem with people owning guns ... as long as they're responsible. I don't own a gun, but if I felt the need to have one (say I lived in a shady community or something) I would take classes and get one for protection. Sometimes just owning a gun can make a person feel safe. As for gun enthusiasts, some people just think they're cool It's a hobby, just like any other. Some people think rocks are cool, so they collect them. What I'm interested in is the outcry over the feds and the public having an accessible list to who owns a gun. That would be interesting to follow and see how that turns out. -
Gun nuts terrify me.
How do you think the rest of the world carries on. We manage to live our lives without concealed weapons.
A little more thought and less testosterone might result in a better world.-
How does the rest of the world carry on?
You are aware that the rest of the world is filled with gun owners? You are aware that countries like Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership and the lowest rate of crime?
Don't be ignorant.
Gun owners are not "nuts", and if someone else owning a gun terrifies you, maybe you ought to take a look at why you are terrified of other responsible people, weapon or no weapon.
Are you terrified of irresponsible drivers driving a two ton weapon every single day? DO you drive one? Does it terrify you? -
then it isn't the guns you want removed.
I live in hunting country. People hunt and teach their children to hunt. From an early age their children are taught guns and gun safety. If you go to remove guns from all homes you'd be including removing them from the majority of homes like the ones I live near, responsible, respectful, decent, hardworking people who hunt.
-
-
I don't drive a concealed one. Bloody good arguments to carry things that you point at people on purpose to kill them.
Not quite the same as car driving and puerile to suggest it is.-
No, but you drive it - you drive it when you're tired, you drive it when you're angry, you drive it when you have a cold or on medication or have had a drink or two...
But you aren't terrified of that, because that behavior is OK.
But keeping a gun in one's home for home defense (not even bringing it out in public or using it on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis) or hunting (to be used under only the best of conditions - no drinking, or cold medications impairing your judgment) is "terrifying".
Cops carrying guns doesn't terrify you - but a solid citizen with more training than a cop could dream of, and no history of abusing power and hiding behind a blue shield carrying one "terrifies" you.
Utter nonsense. -
Police are the most mentally stable people in the world...
NOT
BTW, I didn't know Ninjas used guns
-
-
Whoa. Whats this hiding it at home and having confidence just because its there stuff. What happened to concealed weapons, responsible ownership, stripping a .45b blindfolded (Why would you want to) killing dangerous wild animals etc.
The car driving analogy is a red herring and total bollox in my humble opinion.
Nice to know that all gun owners are reasonable, mentally strong and never kill anyone but other people who are armed -with guns and not just attitude.-
I have guns for hunting, and home protection - I do NOT have a license to carry a concealed weapon - and not one person here has said that they do.
My argument is not a red herring - your argument is uninformed.
-
-
What is your attitude to people that carry knives or baseball bats when out shopping?
At this point, not wanting to deflect from the topic, should you wish to know more about me and my values, you may wish to have a look at my blogg.
Cheers
Bernie-
I carry a knife regularly, and, when a rapist was loose in my neighborhood, I carried my Kendo stick.
I am PRO self defense on all counts. I do not and cannot rely on corrupt and inept police to protect me, or my child from being raped, assaulted or killed.
I've been raped, molested and sexually assaulted/stalked over 5 times from the age of 12 to the age of 25. I have no patience for idiots who don't value self defense.
People who carry a concealed weapon are licensed to do so - many of whom are well trained in gun ownership. My husband - a Veteran whose job was to teach troops how to use their weapons - carries a gun.
But maybe you think he's unqualified to do that - maybe you think he's a "nut".
-
-
I'm for gun control. We should ban all governments from having them. Look what happens when government has guns and the people don't:
R. J. Rummel a University of Hawaii political science professor authored the book "Death by Government" published in 1994. A result of 10 years of research, it showed that an average citizen is twice as likely to be killed by there own government as by foreign forces.
The mega-murdering states of the 20th century have been:
Soviet Union(1917-1987), 61,911,000;
Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000;
Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000;
Nationalist China (1928-1949), 10,076,000.
These are followed by the "lesser" mega-murdering states:
Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000;
Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000;
Turkey (1909-1918 ), 1,883,000;
Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000;
North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000;
Poland (1945-1948 ), 1,585,000;
Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000;
Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000;
Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000;
Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000
According to Rummel's research the Soviet Union and Communist China have been the super mass-murdering states of the century, but they have not been the most lethally dangerous, relative to the populations over which they have ruled.
During the 70-year period of Soviet history analyzed by Professor Rummel, the state killed the equivalent of 29.64 percent of the U.S.S.R.'s population, while the Communist Chinese (because of the vastness of China's population) only killed, during the 38 years in his study, the equivalent of 4.49 percent of the people of China.
The Nazis killed about 6.46 percent of the peoples under their control in Europe between 1933-1945. On the other hand, during the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge government killed about 31.25 percent of the entire Cambodian population.
The leading motivations for these governments, their followers and agents to commit murder on this scale have been :
Ideology, the making of a new socialist man.
Race, the purifying of or domination by a "superior" racial group.
Wealth, plundering the most prosperous for the benefit of a select group.
Plain cruelty, the imposing of fear and terror to gain control over and obedience from others.
According to Professor Rummel the lesson from his research is:
Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.
He argues that all the historical evidence shows that "as the arbitrary power of a regime increases, that is, as we move from democratic through authoritarian to totalitarian regimes, the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples.
The conclusion is this: The way to end war and virtually eliminate democide appears to be through restricting and checking Power, through fostering individual liberty; limited, constitutional government; and social tolerance of difference and diversity among the peoples in a society.
This is the lesson that unfortunately too many people never learn. We continue to give more and more power to government. The more power you give to government, the more power it has over you. The more it can do to you.-
Nice post -not relevant unless you are suggesting we all carry guns to kill politicians. Which brings us back to scary gun toting people.
-
His post IS relevant.
The real scary people are the ones who regulate guns and weapons of self defense so that responsible, reasonable people can't own them - but he criminals and governments do.
You should take away education along with that right to self defense. I mean, so long as we're allowing unreasonable people dictate what reasonable people do. -
This is a compelling comment...
In a world with guns, a disarmed people are only a step away from powerless.
Compare the numbers of people killed by governments vs the numbers killed by private citizens...
That should show anyone who is confused how misplaced their fear is. -
Oh it is sooo relevant. Governments bans individuals from owning guns. Then the government oppresses or kills them.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Ghandi
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did."
--James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and author of the Second Amendment.
The United States was founded by a populace that owned guns and used them to overthrow their oppressive British rulers. -
Now now, don't go and confuse people with facts and such.
-
-
What is your attitude to people that carry knives or baseball bats when out shopping? Can you be a responsible knife carrying adult. Are there restrictions on the carrying and use of flame throwers? There is probably no problem is you are licensed and only use it on bears. Are wild animals frightened of blank rounds or flares? I don't know.
At this point, not wanting to deflect from the topic, should you wish to know more about me and my values, you may wish to have a look at my blogg.
Cheers
Bernie-
I carry a knife regularly, and when a rapist was loose in my neighborhood, I carried my kendo stick.
Flame throwers make poor self defense weapons.
I am perfectly comfortable with people carrying weapons for self defense.
-
-
anti-gun nuts that become agitated and confrontational towards pro gun people scare me. Reminds me of the whole "never bring a knife to a gun fight" saying... -
Why be scared of people with no guns when you have one.
What does it say about you??
Maybe they are scared of gun toting people - seems reasonable to me. Guns are scary. They kill people - sensible to be scared of them really.-
cause you might have them as your probation officer... judging you!
-
sadly, the sarcasm of my post was lost. What it says about me is that I worry about the mental capacity of someone, like the anti-gun guy in my town that attacked a hunter who had a loaded gun. It seems like those types of anti-gun folk must have been dropped on their heads.... you know since we're all judging everyone and whatnot anyway.
-
what did he attack WITH?
-
he was rather dumb, okay here is what happend. There was an anti-gun protest outside of a gun show, a hunter bought some ammo, went out side to the targets and loaded his weapon, one of the protesters quoted off the wall facts, and the hunter said something about "guns dont kill people, people kill people". As the hunter is looking down range, the idiot dude screached "Guns kill children" and pushed the hunter from behind (I believe), so in short the moron ran at a dude with a loaded gun empty handed. If the hunter would have shot him, the idiot would have been a martyr, since he didn't get shot, he is just an idiot.
-
Good gawd! What a fool.
-
We aren't scared of the people themselves - but what kind of twisted facts they present, and what kind of danger they can put us in when they rally up for government's to take away our rights.
-
well said.
-
-
Well I'm going to bed now. No gun, knife, grenade, flame thrower or baseball bat.
Good night -
Guns are scary. They kill people - sensible to be scared of them really.
Guns do NOT kill people. People kill people. You are more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident than you are by gunshot.-
hahahaha
-
darn edits
I actually agree 1000% -
Ahhh well ... I thought it was in my best interest
not to refer to being all out of troll food.
-
Hey... Bernie might be right, actually. I was driving through the east side of town (why is it always the "east side"?), and I saw a pack of wild guns, mostly pistols, but there was a rifle that looked like it was leading the pack, and a derringer, chasing a poor white kid.
I think those guns were gonna kill that kid.
-
-
sweet dreams
-
BOOO!!!! -
I was talking with an offender the other day who had just returned from court on charges of carrying an offensive weapon - a golf club (left handed)!
I'll leave you to oil and polish the bit about you that makes you feel big and hard.
Toad sticker? You could be making a really valid point but its passed me by.-
So if a criminal has used a golf club as a weapon - shouldn't you be terrified of golf clubs being carried around, too? Maybe we should restrict non criminals from carrying golf clubs, because it's a weapon.
(It doesn't matter that the criminals can still get their hands on the golf clubs, and not care about the laws restricting them from using it...but lets' restrict the rights of people who do obey the law...yeah). -
@Bernie: I am confused as to who is being responded to.
-
I was seeing if I scared you.
I wasn't booing you.
TS
-
-
Gun nuts scare me. Responsible gun owners do not. The two are not mutually inclusive, BernieSandwich, dear. -
As I said above, I'm ok, as long as the gun owner is not a Manchurian candidate.
(minus the problem-reaction-solution Dees illustration - ?) -
Honestly... I can see why you would be afraid. There have been way too many people taking guns and going on killing sprees...lately. But... for the amount of gun owners that there is... there are a lot less deaths then what could be if it were assumed that all gun owners were people killers.
As far as I can see gun ownership is a freedom that should not be taken away, because there are a few people in this world who have no respect for life...
Being fearful of gun toting people doesn't make sense, unless you have had a bad experience with one. and if that is the case you should get some counseling to help you get past it and live freely.
But requiring that everyone else get rid of what is causing a fear in you is unreasonable.
There are a lot of collector's out there, and if they brag about their collection so what... I haven't yet seen a gun collector go crazy and kill anything breathing just because he/she can. Where I live guns are necessary to protect life and limb from the wild animals that don't really care if you have one or not, and will eat you! -
www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/
wizbangblog.com/content/2009/02/15/the-gun-enthusiasts-ultimate-weapon.php
???????????????????????????????? -
Thanks articulates for attempting a reasoned response. I can understand having a basic gun for life preservation against wild animals but people go a whole hog too far. its just an excuse to tool up.
-
So your attack of me, Margo, and two others who are pro-ownership but do not own guns was an attack against unreasonable explanations of gun ownership?
Because my hunting, and margo's use of guns against wild animals aren't reasonable?
-
-
legbamel
Gun nuts scare me. Responsible gun owners do not. The two are not mutually inclusive, BernieSandwich, dear.
What is a responsible gun owner? Who decides?
Would you allow a person with a past criminal record to carry a gun? Would you have a person that was a heroin addict to carry a gun? if a person had been the victim of a violent crime would you think they were objective enough to be carrying guns? If a person is going through a relationship break up -should their license be temp revoked?
Have you ever misunderstood a situation. Where is the gun kept when you are not carrying it. Who could have access - what about your kids??-
every single gun owner I personally know has a gun case or gun safe. Your arguement says to me that it's the gun user you have issue with, not the guns.
-
A responsible gun owner is one who takes care to properly (legally) obtain fire arms, properly keep firearms, properly train for firearms safety, and one who uses guns responsibly.
Who gets to decide? Carrying a concealed weapon requires licensing - so if you don't pass the requirements - you don't get to have a gun. Firearms for hunting and home defense also have purchasing requirements.
Convicted criminals are not allowed to carry concealed weapons, or purchase firearms of any sort.
Your issues with gun ownership are obviously driven by some sort of irrational fear of anyone who may be (according to you) "unstable" for any number of reasons whether they are actually competent or not.
But again, it brings me back to this - you are terrified of people whom you deem incompetent or dangerous to own guns - but not to do anything else that endangers the lives of others.
But perhaps the next time a mentally unstable individual gets behind the wheel of a car, and causes a ten car pile up on the freeway because they used the car as a two ton unguided missile, killing multiple men, women and children you'll think about "who gets to decide who is a responsible driver?" And "Why are these weapons allowed on the road?".
Or maybe you won't. Maybe you won't even notice because the thought of it doesn't terrify you.
-
-
-
they fire gumballs
-
-
Fear can be replaced by knowledge...
But only for those who are seeking knowledge.
I might own a gun, and I might not... anyone who breaks into my home will have the pleasure of finding out...
In martial arts, we learn to fear/respect our opponent... not his fist, his knife, his gun, or his h-bomb.
The greatest generals and strategists of all time controlled their opponents... lead their thoughts... and thus their actions... and therefore the use of their tools.
A gun is just a tool!
People have been killed with hammers as well...
Would it frighten anyone to know that I'm a hammer-nut with a stockpile of hammers in my basement (no really, I used to be a carpenter's apprentice)?
On the other hand, if I'm not aware of what the hammer can do, I can wreck windows, smash my thumb, or even hurt/kill someone.
On one extreme we have total ignorance, on the other end we have complete fear... somewhere in the middle is what I like to refer to as 'respect' or 'caution'... informed but not fearful.
There is always a balance... I encourage those who are here to learn... to seek that balance.
keep smiling,
Ben-
a petition to outlaw hammers may needed. Hate the hammer not the hammer user!
-
You'll have to pry my hammers from my cold, dead fingers!
-
-
Personally I blame Stephen Colbert for spreading the gun hate
-
Wow, this should be put as sticky, teaching other people what a "troll thread" is.. -
It's the British made L115A3 Long Range Rifle and it kills from a mile away. Too freaking cool if you ask me:
British Army snipers call it 'the Silent Assassin' and it is the weapon the Taliban fear the most.
It is the British-made L115A3 Long Range Rifle which, in recent weeks, has killed scores of enemy fighters in Afghanistan.
In a new initiative on the front line, the Army is using sniper platoons to target the Taliban and 'The Long', as the snipers call it, can take out insurgents from a mile away.
Many of the elite marksmen who use the rifle make their own extraordinary suits of camouflage to stay hidden from the Taliban.
Some have been known to go 'under cover' for two days while they pick off the enemy.
Last week Army snipers were training with the rifle and full camouflage on the snow-covered ranges of the Support Weapons School at the Land Warfare Centre at Warminster, Wiltshire...
The L115A3 Long Range Sniper Rifle - based on a weapon used by the British Olympic shooting team - weighs 15lbs, fires 8.59mm rounds and has a range of 1,100-1,500 yards.
wizbangblog.com/content/2009/02/15/the-gun-enthusiasts-ultimate-weapon.php
Just like a hammer - you lot get off on these things and dress it up as safety.-
Uhm - did you miss the part about that rifle being in the hands of the MILITARY?
-
No. Its the saddos that get off reading about them I'm highlighting. Check the site.
-
They may like it - like little boys like tanks.
They are not allowed to own them. Stop being so paranoid.
And besides, is there something wrong with appreciating something that is well made? Loads of people love race cars - they'll never drive one.
Why? Because they are too dangerous. -
us lot?
you seem to be looking to borrow trouble instead of discuss an issue. I'll take my hammer and go watch WKRP reruns.
-
-
My last post on this ( I think). A gun is designed with the intent to hurt/kill animals and people. Whether they are used responsibly is down to the user.
I am not buying in to this image of lots of responsible gun owners having their guns locked away. Do they get them out because they have a premonition of being attacked or threatened? They have to be available for use for you to feel secure or you might as well not have a gun at all. They are available.
You buy a car that is designed to take you from A to B and it can be used irresponsibly and endanger other people. That is a lot different from buying a gun that is designed to kill. That is its purpose.
Who is the biggest wimp? Me - scared of people with guns or you scared of living without them.
There are lots of webs and bloggs that read as though the gun is the interest and not safety. Again this has been distorted by posters on here.
Thanks for the debate and company. I've enjoyed it.
There has been some low profile accusations of trolling against me. That isn't my intention. If you want to see where I am coming from, please feel free to have a look at my blogg.-
Most locks are easy for adults (with the combination/key) to get into quickly for the purpose of safety, but still keep the gun out of the hands of children or guests, and are kept safely locked away.
Most people - like me and my husband - use guns to kill animals. Yep - we KILL animals, and then we eat them. Are you a vegan? Do you support factory farms who KILL animals at a rate faster than you could imagine?
Do you drive your car under the influence of cold medication? When you haven't gotten enough sleep? Studies show that those activities are just as bad as driving under the influence of alcohol - and yet people constantly do it - without being called "terrifying nuts".
And you, my dear, are the scared one. You seem to be frightened of the military using weapons, of hunters shooting animals, of collectors collecting guns that will never be shot, of people carrying knives, golf clubs, baseball bats, legal hand guns, or keeping a gun in their home for their own protection.
I don't know what world you live in - but many of us live in areas that are violent, or laden with dangerous animals. We have a reason to carry a weapon - and we are not stupid enough to think we could outrun a bear, outfight a wolf or coyote or boar, or out smart a carjacker, rapist or pretend like the police will make everything better and prevent someone from entering our home or injuring our person.
I've suffered more than my fair share of physical attacks growing up - I do not have any delusions that the world is a safe place that I can roam freely, without care or with thoughts of blissful ignorance, calmly ignoring my surroundings.
One thing I'm NOT afraid of, is someone legally owning a gun.
-
-
I can't say I am a big fan of knowing my neighbor has enough weapons to wipe out the North Side of Chicago. He looks kind of shifty and he never says hello when he sees me in the hallway. I swear I can hear him cleaning his guns at night.
I don't think he likes Asians...or cats. -
I say the more private guns the merrier. With the Mexican revolution about to spill over umpteen million more illegal aliens into the U.S. than ever before, and with Al Queda about to test Obama with a shoot out in American cities, can we have enough guns to protect ourselves? Really?
Maybe some folks are naive enough to think that law enforcemrnt authorities in our many "Sanctuary Cities" are enough to protect us.-
OMG! The end is coming! Run for your lives! The RNC is the only thing that is going to protect us!
-
-
I am scared of the gun nuts too! The ones in uniforms that live outside of the laws that they try to impose on everyone else. I live in one of the worst states as far as gun ownership is concerned, Illinois. Every time I turn around there is some whack job trying to find more effective ways to strip people of their right to bear arms. But amazingly the people that enforce the laws around here have no problem getting funds to stock up on AR-15's. -
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.
-
This is classic... and true!
We can all feel safe in the knowledge that professionals will be cleaning us up off the floor shortly after we're murdered... -
No, sir. I live 45 minutes down a rocky road off the closest highway. It would take an additional 45 minutes to an hour for the police to reach my home from the nearest sub-station.
Not everyone is a suburban rat.
-
-
Several years ago my house was robbed while I and my maid were in it. I saw them coming. I had enough time to get out my gun and meet them at the kitchen door...unfortunately, I no longer have a gun due to draconian gun restrictions here. So, as a result, they took knives from my kitchen knife block, beat and stabbed us (I took 7) and stole $25,000 worth of jewellery, cash and electronics, including irreplaceable heirlooms that were in the safe they pried out of the wall.
If I had had a gun, the minute they touched that knife block, both of them would have had large bloody holes in themselves instead of me. And don't think for one minute I would not have shot them once their intent to do bodily harm to me or the maid became clear.
Don't give me any sh*t about responsible citizens owning guns: your sniveling irrational paranoia should not be the guideline as to whether or not I can defend myself against home invasion robbers. Guns are just inanimate objects and, left untouched, are absolutely harmless. It is the intent of the user, not the inanimate object, that renders the object...for the moment...dangerous or not. Hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives, guns...they all have legitimate uses that do not include assaulting the innocent. If we ban one because some miscreant decides to use it for ill, then logically we should ban them all.-
On this post I would question whether you are rational enough to possess or be in control of a gun.
Did I touch a nerve? Please note this is cyberspace and not your life. have you heard of debate. "your sniveling irrational paranoia" - I'll use that. -
And again with the personal attacks?
When you voice an opinion, and generalize an entire group of people into being "nuts" and make personal attacks about their character based on nothing - you can't possibly expect to get happy polite responses.
SV just explained to you how she was nearly stabbed to death in a home invasion, and how had she not been subject to excessive and restrictive gun laws she could have protected herself, and another woman - and you are calling her irrational?
Really?
Coming from a person who wants to play nice with convicted criminals so their feelings don't get hurt AND so that they can be released back into society - that's freaking rich. -
So you don't think there are gun nuts or is it that you associate my comments about gun nuts with you.
if I call all car drivers car nuts will you go off on one. Is your response reasonable - I think it isn't. You are big on protecting your supporters without looking and commenting at the abuse they use on me.
Rive - if you took every gun out of america it wouldn't make a difference to m99.9999% of peoples lives. You take the car out of the USA or anywhere else in the world and the world stops turning. Another nonsense stat. But nice try.
Bernie -
wow, Bernie dear, this made me think of you
-
Attacks on you?
BUwahahahahahahaha
You have labeled everyone on here as a "gun nut" regardless of how sensible, responsible and reasonable our responses have been.
But what should I expect when Person is more comfortable rehabilitating criminals to be released back into public, than with law abiding citizens who would like to protect themselves from the very criminals who wound up in jail for hurting unarmed, unprotected people.
You know, every now and again I find that I actually agree with - and understand what the far right is talking about when they accuse the far left of being sympathizers to criminals who care more about the criminals than the law abiding citizens, but want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, because apparently, we're scary and not to be trusted.
And every time someone goes so far to one side of an argument that they actually make me agree with a political party whose ideologies I am almost completely at odds with, I want to scream. -
A perfect example of why people should be able to own a fire arm.
People have the right to protect their property and their lives.
I'm very sorry to hear this happened to you.
I can't even imagine what something like that would be like.
Sandwhich, you are a nasty person.
If your other post don't demonstrate that clearly enough, your reply to Sweetviolet establishes it as fact.
-
-
According to Statistics, Facts and Quotes (www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm) there were 30,694 gun-related deaths in the US in 2005 vs Fatal Car Accident (www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html) showing 43,443 vehicular fatalties that same year. Interesting-
Rive - if you took every gun out of america it wouldn't make a difference to 99.9999% of peoples lives. You take the car out of the USA or anywhere else in the world and the world stops turning. Another nonsense stat. But nice try.
Bernie -
nonsense stat?
-
And how are you going to take every gun out of america?
-
Bernie, unless you're referring to your own statistic as nonsense, you'll have to provide a source to back it up, here. I would say that far more than 0.0001% of American households have a gun in them. Hunters, alone, account for far more than that, and that's ignoring the people who keep a handgun for home protection. You can project your irrational gun fear onto everyone until you're blue in the face, but you can't convince people with specious arguments and sweeping generalizations.
-
Yeah, because the military, national guard, FBI, secret service and police force only makes up less than .00000001 percent of the country. Never mind the hunters, and gun shop owners, gun makers, and legal gun owners in the country.
FAIL.
try again.
-
-
Criminals with guns, law-abiding citizens without them scares me. -
Hey, I played with guns and tanks as a boy and it didn't effect me . . . effect me . . . effect me . . . effect me . . . .
-
If every time someone tried to go on a shooting rampage in a public place such as a school, church, post office, or mall several trained people pulled out their concealed weapons and shot them dead and few or no other people died, how often do you think there would be shooting rampages?
I often wonder.
I don't own a gun and I haven't been trained to use one. I regret that. I don't like guns and I don't like violence, but as a responsible member of society I feel obligated to do my part. At some point I may learn. I hope so.-
THe exact reason there are no mass shootings at gun-shows or NRA meetings.
However, there are plenty at colleges and schools, where the law-abiding are forbidden to carry weapons. Makes for easier targets. -
well said.
I do know how to use a gun but only because my older son hunts and had his guns in the house (locked up safely)I wanted my younger son to understand and respect the proper use of a gun so I took a safety course along with my younger son.
funny thing: earlier in this thread I kind of implied that I do not own a gun. Apparently I do. I inherited an antique rifle of my greatgrandfathers. I'd forgotten about it. I keep it as a memory and it's in pieces but I guess I qualify as a gun owner.
-
-
We own guns. My husband hunts and I (and our children) enjoy recreational shooting at the range. We have all attended classes and are responsible.
Guns aren't bad...it's the people behind them that can be. -
'Guns aren't bad...it's the people behind them that can be'
I agree - so why have them freely available with a very loose licensing system.
it is too late for America and I'm not suggesting that guns could be taken from everyone. I am suggesting that the right to bear arms is a nonsense and should be removed from the constitution. I am suggesting that you should not be proud that everyone has a right to a gun or promote it, and if the country had developed rather than was wrested from the wild etc by arms, your gun laws would be totally different.-
The Second Amendment doesn't give us our right to bear arms. We are born with our rights.
The Declaration of Independence boldly states:
"We hold these Truths to be self_evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness _ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."
This was a radical notion then and still is considered radical by many today. This radical declaration is the foundation of American political thought and has inspired millions around the world in the 225 years since it was written by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, one of the greatest advocates of individual liberty of all time, was turning the British idea of liberty on its head. Jefferson was rejecting the British view that rights were granted by the government to the people. Instead Jefferson declared there is a higher law, "unalienable Rights", that every human has by their mere existence. Government only has those powers granted to it by the people, to protect these natural rights.
Unfortunately today we often hear commentators talking about our "constitutional rights", as if the government was granting us our rights through the Constitution. However, the Preamble of the Constitution makes clear once again that people are born with natural rights and that they establish and grant certain powers to government in order to protect these rights:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Further the Ninth Amendment declares:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -
The right to hold weapons - be they guns, knives, swords or sharpened sticks - is an extension of the right to defend oneself and provide for oneself.
That is a basic human right, I'm sorry you are terrified by humans and human rights.
-
-
Sandwhich,
I had thought from the way you began the thread you were seeking opinions. It seems obvious you were seeking first - to find agreement, second - to rip those who disagree with you.
Your consideration of the Second amendment leads me to believe that you consider yourself to be smarter than the founders of this nation.
My wife and I own several guns, in fact we just purchased a Kel Tec 911 for her to use when she gets her conceal carry.
You show a complete ignorance of gun owners and guns.
Are you by chance a Nazi?
No offense meant, I just wonder because you share a similar thought process concerning guns with that guy Hitler.
While many of the quotes attributed to Hitler so far as gun control goes are false, it is true that he wanted to disarm the citizens. He ended up disarming only the Jews because the German citizens were not having any of it and were determined to not give up their guns to the government.
One of the reasons Hitler found France so easy to invade was because of gun control in France.
In Zimbabwe gun control has been a great tool in assisting Mugabe in the murder of scores of people.
While gun nuts scare you, gun control nuts scare me.
See nuts like you scare because I know, by way of reading history, that an unarmed citizenry is an easy target for a government.
The founding fathers also understood that. At that time the concern was that a citizenery should be able to protect itself against its own government if needed as well as protect itself against invading armies of other governments if need be.
My concern is that I should be able to protect my family against anyone or anything that poses a risk to them. A gun gives me a little advantage, though surely does not assure the safety of my family, should a situation ever arise where I might have to protect my family from physical harm by another person or considering the area we live in, an animal.
Who, may I ask, the hell are you to question my right to defend myself or my family?
If you don't like guns, don't own one.
As far as being scared of those of us who legally own guns, very little need.
Those you should worry about are those who illegaly have guns. Such person are commonly known as criminals and they have no good intentions towards you.
I assure you I will not hold your ignorant post against you and that should you and I ever happen to be walking down the same street and a criminal attempts to assualt you with their gun; I will, despite your post, make use of my conceal carry, practice gun control with a firm grip and steady aim, a take the criminal down.-
30,694 gun-related deaths in the US in 2005. All criminals?
please don't shoot the criminal who is about to assault me. If he is about to kill me you may. Your justice is a mite heavy handed for me. I don't question your right to protect your family. I question your suitability to own a gun and your decision making process in that you would shoot someone who assaulted me. Broken nose = bullet in the head. Not here.
Rongstad
Jefferson. I'm reading a little about him at the moment. A careful and great man. Guns did help though to allow the conquest of the west and to keep those pesky 'red indians' in check. Then again there were the British and Spanish and even a risk from the French to contend with as the USA expanded after a profit. Whoa - I nearly forgot the buffalo and the bears that could take 8 bullets to kill one. Any intelligent person with an ounce of ability to reflect on modern times and the time that the Constitution was written can see that it filled a need at the time. Do they still throw christians to lions in Rome?
Born with your rights? Why do we have laws.
I like your blog. the other guy is scary.
Again if you want to see my values and where my thoughts are at please visit my blog. -
RF - this is the second time I've agreed with you in 24 hours.
Full moon or sumthin?
And no, Bernie - not all 30k deaths were at the hands of criminals. However most of them are at the hands of criminals. Some may have been accidents, some suicides, and some self defense. But most of them were used to commit a crime, with illegally obtained guns.
It's funny, because the gun crime statistics in the UK are higher than that of the US, which has higher statistics than countries where the citizenry all own weapons - such as Switzerland - which has a phenomenally low crime rate period, never mind a gun crime rate.
But lets not let facts confuse us *rolls eyes* -
"It's funny, because the gun crime statistics in the UK are higher than that of the US"
Surely that can't be right? -
Yep, it is. Crime rates, mind you.
Even in the states, crime rates vary a great deal, and it is no surprise that areas/states that have higher (LEGAL) gun ownership have lower crime rates.
And in the US, we have higher crime rates than other countries who have less restrictive gun laws and higher (legal) gun ownership. -
Well I just looked on Wiki (I know it's wiki!) and they say 39 per cent of homicides in the US are committed with guns as opposed to 8 per cent in the UK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
And this one says about the same
www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
I don't know where you heard there was huge gun crime in the UK. -
Sorry Sandwhich,
I would shoot the person who was about to assualt you if it was apparent that your life was in danger.
I wouldn't consider pulling a gun, let alone shooting a person unless there were reason to believe a life was in danger.
Question my sutability?
Based on what?
Based on my views differing from yours?
Yes, we are born with rights. One of those rights is to protect our property and life. We have laws in order to make sure that rights are not abused, that natural boundries are not crossed. If those boundries are crossed we then punish in some manner, those who have crossed the boundries.
Laws are meant to make persons aware that boundries exist and make those boundries clear so that a person cannot claim ignorance when they do cross those boundries.
Laws, good laws anyway, are not meant to restrict freedom but to enhance freedom.
Being a nation founded upon the idea of natural law, our laws (per original intent anyway) are meant to provide us a stable frame of reference allowing us to live our lives and plan for our individual futures.
Just as I've the right to own a gun, you've the right to not own a gun. So don't own one, but don't begrudge myself or other for exercising our rights simply because you do not like the second amendment and you've an irrational fear of gun gun owners. -
If we are not born with rights, where do they come from? If they are "granted" by governments or other men, who gave them that power? If other humans grant rights, then rights change and are subject to whim.
Do blacks have an equal right to life as whites. How about gays in comparison to straights? If other humans grant rights then the only answer is it depends on what those humans say at the time.
The better answer is that rights are timeless and are posessed equally by all humans. The proper role of laws is to protect these timeless rights. When laws do anything else they are unjust.
As a libertarian I think one should always question authority. -
"...can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." Thomas Jefferson, in his book Notes on the State of Virginia
Parts of this quote are written on the Jefferson Memorial (www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html).
The point is, our rights come from God, they do not come from man. Man can acknowledge those God Given Rights with human laws, but those laws don't create those rights.
-
-
I have to confess that I do sometimes find some gun owners quite viscerally frightening. Some time ago I did a post on a book of photographs of gun owners and their guns. The book's author was among several who commented on that post and the one thing that all the commentators seemed to agree on was that the book served more than anything else as a kind of litmus test. Sadly, I see very little room for Second Amendment fans to find common ground with their gun control counterparts.
libdrone.info/2007/10/guns-friends-and-fears/ -
Anok
Would you have a link to that information?
despite concerns about levels of violent crime.
Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1...
As opposed to Illinois -2005
FACT: In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 1,019 gun deaths in the state of Illinois, a 3% INCREASE from 2004 statewide gun deaths. The 2005 Illinois gun deaths included:
•569 homicides (56% of all IL gun deaths),
•424 suicides (42% of all IL gun deaths),
•and 21 unintentional shootings, 1 legal intervention, and 4 of undetermined intent (2% of all IL gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008
www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
POPULATION - Illinois 12 million people - UK 55 million people-
Proportionately speaking - the UK has a higher rate of gun crime, because they have the lowest rate of legal gun ownership, and lower population numbers. There are over 300 million people living in the US.
Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. About 10,000 murders are committed using firearms annually,[40] while an estimated 2.5 million crimes may be thwarted through civilian use of firearms annually.
Of the 233,251 people who were homicide victims in the United States between 1988 and 1997, (That's 2,325 homicides per year) ( 68% were killed with guns, of which the large majority were handguns."[45] The ATF estimated in 1995 that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million
In the UK, gun related crime rose as stricter gun control laws were implemented:
The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since fallen back a little,[13] while the number of homicides from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade.[14]
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[33] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons
And:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.
"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.
Let's look at Switzerland, where the residents are REQUIRED to own a firearm:
Switzerland requires every male over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle (specifically SIG 550 in 5.56 cal.). In one study by David Kopel of seven countries, including the United States and Japan, Switzerland is found to be one of the safest countries in the study.[26] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[26] Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 42 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[27] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[28] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 20 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[29] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. -
Well if Dan Rather says England is more dangerous than the US it must be true! I am scared to go out now even though I know it's absolute bollocks.
I live in a city of around 250,000 people and I can't remember the last time I read about a crime in the city involving a gun.
Now I'm not against Legal gun ownership at all but to suggest England has a gun crime problem is just ridiculous. -
I never said they had a gun crime problem - I said that crime rates were higher.
Considering how many citizens of the US own guns (over 2/3 the population), and how few guns are used in homicides - it's safe to say that the UK's gun control isn't all it's cracked up to be.
-
-
You are using apples to measure pears and guessing that in truth they all add up to pinapples!!
You are ignoring a statistic of 3000 plus deaths from guns in USA and just 55 in the uk. Proportionately using your figures the USA pop is about 6x that of the uk and your deaths from guns are 60 times that in the UK.
What constitutes a robbery in the USA? How likely are you to report a crime as compared to the British. 'Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.' We report our crimes and regard the police rather highly. By the way you also lock up more criminals per 100,00 people than anywhere else on earth - 715 per 100,000 people www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita This is a lot of people and more than any other country in the world. You can't claim it all as being down to guns.-
You talk about apples and pears? and then you bring in suicide rates?
Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and they have some of the higest suicide rates. They just don't use guns.
Is your argument that a gun suicide is worse, or makes someone more dead than a jump of a high building or a truckload of pills? -
Let's take a look at the numbers again, shall we?
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094
Or, let's look at it this way...
US population, 300 million. - UK population 55 million
US gun ownership 223 million - UK gun ownership the lowest but no number, let's estimate 20% 11 million.
Homicides caused by guns:
US, 1581 (number of homicides * 68%) - UK 50.
Totals:
US, 52 homicides per 10 million people. UK 10 homicides per 10 million people
US, 7 homicides per gun, UK 4 homicides per gun.
In other words, homicides actually carried out in the UK with guns - under strict gun control laws - are marginally lower than homicides carried out by guns in the US, and, in the US over 5.2 million crimes have been prevented by lawful gun ownership, whereas violent crimes in the UK have risen.
In Switzerland, where the citizens are REQUIRED to own a gun - have the lowest crime rates, the lowest gun crime rates, and the lowest homicides/suicides caused by guns.
Apples to oranges? Comparing direct numbers? I think not.
I should add - that some years the homicide by gun rates in the UK go up to 100 - meaning you can go ahead and double the totals I gave for the UK above.
-
-
www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.-
Gun-control network is the most impartial source you can muster. PLEASE!
How about something a little less Biased???
World Health Organization would be a good place to start.
www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html
You may notice that Japan has a higher suicide rate of 48/100k than the U.S... of 22.2
Kinda strange if your claim were to hold true. Wouldn't you say? -
You mean like the correlation of numbers of cars on the road to the number of car accidents?
Well no duh! -
Proof positive,
Frightened people don't think straight... -
It'd also be good if the source addressed the same time span as Anok's, namely something more recent than 1993. Honestly, I don't like guns and don't "get" people's fascination with them, but I'm sure a lot of people don't "get" my interests. But, Bernie, your arguments are not at all convincing. You shouldn't have been called a Nazi (no one should) but you have repeatedly shown yourself to be closed-minded about the topic. If you aren't willing to consider opposing opinions, then why bother coming back to the thread. You've said your piece and appear to be willfully misunderstanding the responses that don't support your opinion.
Anok, I have to say that 4 homicides per gun versus 7 homicides per gun is not a marginal difference. The rate in the US is 75% higher. I don't think the numbers that you provided really supported your case. The information on Switzerland, however, was eye-opening indeed. -
I am operating on a guestimation of gun ownership in the UK - their number of homicides per gun could be much higher than that. Not to mention that while we may have 75% more crime rates, we also have 250 million more people here.
However, in the years that their homicide rates doubled (over a ten year span, the rates range from 50 per year to 100 per year, all in all making it about 75 per year on average, which is a total I did not use), it would make it 8 homicides per gun.
At 75 homicides per year average, and 11 million guns (guestimation) brings the average up to just under 7 homicides per gun. Same as the US.
It should also stand to reason, that in the US, there is a high rate of illegally own guns - which may or may not have been included in the 223 million number above - those are the guns we know about. -
"While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094"
Could you finish that sentence, and tell me over what time span they remained relatively static? If it was over the 03/04 period, then you can't logically assume the 73% increase that the rate saw from the 98/99 to the 02/03 period since that would be an increase of .01% over a year. -
It remained static until '05, according tot his, where there was a slight decrease. (I don't see how that would translate into an increase of .01% per year?)
It goes on to say (which I think I posted above) Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[33] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06.
I'm having a hard time finding simple statistics for the UK, that helps put the per capita violent crimes relative to gun ownership - it just doesn't seem to be out there like we have in the US. -
The .01% would have been an increase from 24,070 to 24,094 in a year. I focused on the crimes involving firearms because that seemed to me a better measure of how gun laws affect criminals, rather than including accidents and suicides. The injury numbers do seem to support the idea that outlawing guns also removes gun safety courses that would teach people how to most safely handle those weapons. (Edited to include whole sentences.)
-
Oh, OK LOL. I get what you're saying now.
I just found (and posted below) the number of firearms last known to be owned in the UK, which is drastically less than what I originally estimated.
Plus I found this article:
If you'll notice the dates of the serious restrictions, they correlate directly with the increase in gun violence and violent crimes.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7056245.stm
The result was the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles. Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage.
Even stricter controls were introduced after the 1996 killings in Dunblane, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school children and their teacher with four legally-held pistols.
The Conservative government drew up legislation banning handguns above .22 calibre. But following their general election victory, Labour introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well.
There is another I stumbled across, and that is the difference between UK laws, and US laws with regards to what is considered a felony crime, what is considered to be an assault etc...
Apparently the US has far stricter criminal laws than the UK - meaning what we would go after as a felony or more serious charge, in the UK would be considered a lesser crime.
Now that screws up the numbers considerably.
-
-
Increase or decrease in violent crime and especially homicide will be most related to increase or decrease in Internal Government amongst individuals. If a people are a violent people, you can take away ALL of their guns and there will still be murder. If a people are primarily self-governed they can all own guns and have virtually no murder.
Moral character is the issue in preventing murder, not gun access.
I would promote an increase in people with moral character owning guns.-
The safest countries in the world are often discussed as being Japan, Norway and Switzerland,
Japan is extremely tight on gun control
Norway is legislated, but has gun laws that permits as many as 4 handguns per person, and has a large hunting / sporting population and is considered to be gun-friendly.
The swiss has the highest concenrtation of fully automatic weapons in the world in peoples homes.
There is absolutely no correlation between access to guns and the number of crimes, The swiss prove that if nothing else.
Thirsty John has it absolutely correct, it is a cultural issue, and crimes occur based on the general notion of the value of life.
-
-
Actually I just finally found a statistic of gun ownership in the UK - about 3,000 per 100,000 people, or 1.65 million guns total, rather than the 11 million number I originally proposed (Hey, I was only 10 million or so off
).
At that rate, the number of murders per gun skyrockets. -
This is actually a really good opinion piece from '07 (take it for what it's worth) it also has some great graphs showing the rates of crimes and gun laws.
freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html
Professor Joyce Malcolm is the author of Guns & Violence: the English Experience. On the BBC web site she wrote, “violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1996 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America’s for every major violent crime except murder and rapes” But as the chart we ran in a previous article showed more and more US states have been allowing citizens to carry firearms on their person. So more guns in the general public but “plummeting” crime rates while in England fewer guns increased violent crime.
“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.” -
I have the impression that you live your lives in fear. You buy a gun to reduce that fear. I don't have that fear. I believe in gun control. You shouldn't have a gun outside of a gun club. If you carry a gun you should go to jail.
"Commenting on rising gun crime in the UK, Assistant Inspector of Constabulary Tim Hollis was adamant that "There is statistical evidence that firearms incidents are increasing, and we should not be complacent".
The most reliable data indicate that from country to country the rate of gun violence correlates with the level of gun ownership. In 2000 UK Home Office statistics calculated the firearms homicide rate per 100,000 population at 0.12.. The US Bureau of Justice, by contrast, reported a rate of 3.6 firearms homicides per 100,000 population in the US [5]."
You are talking rubbish.-
Erm - nice of you to ignore all of the articles, facts, statistics and numbers I provided.
How about the fact that Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, and no crime?
How about the fact that the UK has about 222 million less guns than we do, which puts the UK at statistically more crimes committed per gun than the US?
Get your facts straight.
And no, I'm not "scared of everything". I'm scared of criminals, rapists, and wild animals.
You know, things you're supposed to be afraid of - not inanimate objects like guns, baseball bats, knives, and golf clubs.
Talk about irrational fears...
Keep you head in the sand, eventually Darwin's theory will prove true. -
You have to compare how many of those 100,000 people own guns, legally or otherwise. The numbers don't mean anything without the context, which was the purpose of my requesting further detail from Anok, above. Whether you agree with her conclusions or not, she isn't talking rubbish. Nor is she suggesting that you should have a gun. The post you reference was pointing out that outlawing guns hasn't worked to eliminate (or, apparently, reduce) the violence for which people use them.
-
BernieSandwich wrote: "I have the impression that you live your lives in fear. You buy a gun to reduce that fear. I don't have that fear. I believe in gun control. You shouldn't have a gun outside of a gun club. If you carry a gun you should go to jail."
There is also the possibility that someone owns a gun out of a sense of responsibility to defend the innocent, take care of their family, etc. Common Sense and Wisdom are not "fear."
And Bernie, you put a dangerous amount of faith in whoever it is that is taking gun carriers to jail. On what basis will they always be good and reliable? Making someone a part of the government won't prevent them from being a criminal!
Stating that all gun carriers should be put in jail is one of the most fearful things you could say. Who is living in fear?
If responsible people don't own and responsibly use weapons, then the irresponsible ones (criminals) will remain unchecked.
-
-
Why is this troll still being fed??
-
But...but...we can reason with people, right? [sob] We can show people the error of their ways and they'll understand, won't they?
-
-
Guns don't kill, nuts with guns are the ones you should worry about.-
Catch 22?
-
-
@BernieSandwich
True! -
news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gunman-Kills-Up-To-13-Takes-40-Hostage...
13 shot dead in New York -
-
I just hung out with secessionists and they LOVE their guns. So much so that they are willing to secede from the nation for them. They were really nice people though.
-
"Friday's carnage in New York state is the latest to rock small-town America, where many fiercely defend the legal right to bear powerful firearms.
Last Sunday, a heavily-armed man burst into a North Carolina nursing home killing eight people before being shot and wounded by a policeman.
Virginia Tech aftermath
Flowers at Virginia Tech
Earlier this month, a 28-year-old unemployed man killed 10 people, including his mother and a toddler, in a shooting rampage through two counties in Alabama, the worst in the southern state's history.
In December, a man dressed as Santa Claus opened fire at a Christmas party being given by his ex-wife in Covina, California, killing nine people before shooting himself.
In October, an ex-convict opened fire with an assault rifle at a man and two children who had come to trick-or-treat at his home in Sumter, South Carolina on Halloween. A 12-year-old boy died of his wounds in that incident.
And in September, a mentally ill man shot eight people, killing six, in Alger, Washington state - just a month after being released from prison.
Friday's incident comes days before the second anniversary of a massacre at Virginia Tech and weeks before the 10th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting."
Sky news feed
God bless to all involved-
All these people seem greatly troubled, but I haven't heard of any adults who have gone on these rampages, who were also gun enthusiasts. Enthusiasts tend to find that what they are enthusiastic about gives them joy. Whereas these unfortunate souls seem not to know such an emotion.
-
No, the UK doesn't have any crazed homicidal maniacs and rapists because they have gun control laws! No homicidal people who stab, burn, shoot or otherwise maim and rape...like these guys!:
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=New...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/7981006.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7981961.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/7981876.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7970607.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7972878.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1969681.stm
And that's just in the last four days. People in glass houses shouldn't toss rocks.
You know, after all of the reading I've been doing in the UK news area, what I've found is that the UK is having such a hard time handling the violence and violent crimes that they are actively restricting, heavily taxing, and changing laws and the way violent crimes are counted on a regular basis.
For example:
Changing how crimes are counted and withholding numbers:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079927/Violent-crime-22-Home-Office-admit...
Critics may claim this provided an incentive for officers to downplay the gravity of assaults where - while the intent was grave - the actual injuries suffered were minimal.
In a sign of the chaos the Metropolitan Police yesterday took the unprecedented step of halting publication of its violent crime figures to check whether they meet the guidelines.
Where a thug tries to smash a bottle in a victim's face but causes only a nosebleed, for example, police should recorded the incident as GBH.
It now transpires many officers had been downgrading such incidents to lesser charges of actual bodily harm or common assault - which fall outside the Home Office's definition of 'most serious violence against the person'.
In the latest quarterly figures published yesterday the category of 'most serious violence against the person' had leapt by 22 per cent year on year.
Taxing video games to curb knife violence:
yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/176207&from=rss
"The Prime Minister of the UK is being urged to impose high taxes on violent video games in an effort to reduce the number of knife-related crime. The request comes from Richard Taylor, who argues that young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.' He doesn't have a definitive number on how much to tax on the offensive video games, but says that they should be 'very high.' Rap music is also voiced to be a concern due to the alleged negativity and language. Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
Blaming toys as a recruitment for kids and violence:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7978848.stm
Money raised from the sale of the toys will be reinvested in other public relations exercises to showcase the armed forces.
A commando in a canoe
The new figures are inspired by the recently defunct Action Man
But with ever growing anxiety about gun crime, not everyone is comfortable with the idea of children playing with military action figures.
"The problem is they contribute to the idea that guns are normal in our society, and also that they are glamorous and desirable instead of being lethal machines that are designed to kill human beings," says Louise Rimmer, from the International Action Network on Small Arms.
"So if you encourage a child to experience guns in this way, you are storing up problems for later when the child is an adolescent, and may well encounter a real firearm. In which case the consequences can be devastating."
Lockouts and staggered pub closings being considered to curb after pub violence:
www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/violence-throws-spotlight-on-pub-club-opening-ho...
"What's needed is staggered finishing hours - this lessens the critical mass of troublemakers emerging at the one time and eases the load on transport,” he said.
The Court Hotel co-owner Bree Maddox said more venues would actually help to tackle violence on the streets.
“I think more venues and later trading hours would actually work better because people are then not out on the streets causing trouble," she said.
"We also need to fix public transport. It’s a massive issue. In Northbridge there are just not enough taxis”.
Training children to beat youth crime:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7976715.stm
Mayor Boris Johnson has announced £23m will go towards training young people in a bid to tackle youth crime.
The programme will provide skills and employment training for young offenders before and after they are released.
Invasion of privacy through invasive vido recordings and image taking:
www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21...
In the United Kingdom, where more than 4 million closed-circuit video surveillance cameras watch public spaces around the clock, it's Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s gaze rather than the government's that causes people to recoil.
Though less than a month old in the United Kingdom, Google Maps Street View is already a flash point for privacy issues.
Oh, and by teh way - what they man did in NY was ILLEGAL. In case you hadn't noticed, what he did was against gun control regulations.
Gun control doesn't control criminals, or the criminally insane because they don't give a shit if it's against the law. -
if only those people had some way to defend themselves... but what, what could a person keep on their person to fend off would be assailants. Someday we will make such a technological discovery. until then, woe to the meek.
*shakes head* -
I know, staple guns! We could use staple guns!
No, better not. They'll get classified as the next assault weapon to be banned, and then how will I get my proposals to stay together? Tape? It's no good! -
WHISTLES! They could use them to get ahold of the always attentive law-enforcement officers. Bully right!
-
Perfect example of when seconds count, police are only minutes away. If you had a few armed citizens in this builing they could have limited the damage done by this creep. Instead the people were unarmed sitting ducks. Just as the students at both Columbine and Virginia Tech were unarmed sitting ducks in their "gun free school zones".
See:
rongstad.blogspot.com/2008/11/suzanna-gratia-hupp-on-rtkba.html
rongstad.blogspot.com/2008/04/conceal-carry-on-campus.html
-
-
Perfect example of too easy access to guns and a culture of shooting problems.
Or am I being too simplistic-
You are being too simplistic.
-
-
find all this all very entertaining. comparng statistics from all over the globe and all jist "gibberish"" I saw no mention of drugs or alcohols effect on these incidents, yet a huge percentage is involved. so, how many here are "social" drinkers or users but yu "got it in control". Seems we like to 'skirt' socially excepted 'Diseases" cuz t comes to close to home.
There is an element out there in society that doesn't like YOU. If 911 did not make that clear then your hopeless.
I'm 62 yrs old, my record is clear. I've never shot anything above a deer for food. and i have no need to threaten anyone. There are two loaed hand guns stratigically placed in my home. I've made a good attempt to make them safe to my grandkids.
But to one of those who would decide to invade my private space just because he thinks He/she can. or, to a Government who thinks they know better whats best for me,, beware. deep principles live here.-
Many years ago my brother in law wasn't thinking too clearly and mistakenly walked in the house two doors down from us. The door was unlocked and he walked straight in. he asked a few questions and they all laughed at his mistake.
A friend was in bed with his wife and she woke him. There is someone walking up the stairs. He went on the landing and hit the man down the stairs. he ran off and they phoned the police. The police investigated and told him that his door had been left un locked. They believed that the intruder was actually looking for an adjacent house and he had mistakenly entered the wrong property. One of the neighbours encouraged male friends as callers.
Here we have one bruised ego and one black eye for a pair of mistakes that anyone could make but we rarely do. What would the outcomes have been if either house had a couple of strategically placed guns in the household? -
lesson learned, if you have strategically place guns, lock your doors! o_O
-
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding United States citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
How many lives are lost because of gun control?
How many more lives would be lost with even more gun control? -
Bernie you are operating on yet another false assumption that people who own guns shoot first and ask questions later.
This is not a Western movie, this is not Hollywood - there are real consequences to shooting a gun and any responsible gun owner knows that you do NOT point a gun at another human being unless you intend to pull the trigger, and that means you've killed a person and most people don't want that.
You take all precautions and preventative measures, and shooting someone is the LAST resort.
Pull your head out of your ass, and listen to what people are telling you.
-
-
You can trust me: I don't have a gun. So, if I go mad, I won't shoot you.-
AnEnglishManAbroad, if you go mad, please don't stab me, run me over with a car, push me off a building, poison me, hit me with a sledge hammer or an axe, or impale me on a pitchfork either.
:-)
-
-
-
what is your solution?
-
-
I haven't a solution. The first step is admitting there is a problem. Our 'gun nuts' on here think everything is hunky-dory and any problem regarding guns can be solved by more guns. Guns in schools, guns in civic buildings and guns in every home. I think that is a nonsense as you are increasing the likelihood of further massacres by making guns even more available.
Try equating the gun manufacturer and enthusiasts arguments with those of the smoking lobby as regards smoking and it is all strangely familiar. We deny it is bad for you, we say it is good for you and it is our god given right to do it.-
I think you're focusing too much on the word "gun" and not enough on the word "nut". I'm not a gun fancier, I do own an antique rifle though. But I do support a persons right to own one. Many of the crimes we read about are commited by unbalanced people or people using illegal guns. In my mind a legal gun owner is not a threat and the sales of nonregistered or illegal weaponry is the bigger issue as is them ental stability of the persons commiting the crimes. Outlawing all guns is not the solution.
I guess that makes me a gun nut too. I've been called worse -
Bernie,
Kids used to carry their guns to school every day in the rural US for gun classes. Guns used to be allowed on commercial planes. Violence is not due to an inanimate object, it is due the actions, attitudes and yes morals of humans.
How many people could have been saved if just one law abiding, concealed carry user had been aboard any of the hijacked planes on 9/11/2001 with their gun and been able to take out the box cutter nuts?
Perhaps we should have box cutter control? -
Excellent points, Rongstad...in fact, my high school had a shooting range and a stock of .22 match rifles for practice. I was on the Girl's Rifle Team!
Unfortunately, the person you are arguing with is not open to any information that does not support her own point of view, and is all-to-willing engage in ad hominem attacks upon those who hold a different point of view.
If you read the entire thread you will see that the OP obviously does not want a debate or discussion, simply to cudgel others into agreement and stir up a lot of drama with those how refuse to cave in. Save your breath...I've known more reasonable, rational brick walls. -
Oh all the crazy gun nuts on here OMG! Run away!!!!
Get a freaking clue, lady. I've never shot a human being with a gun - and yet we've had guns, and I have shot guns since I was a child.
OMG NUT RUUUUNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The next time you come face to face with a bear - well, if you don't have a gun or someone with a gun doesn't come and save your ass, you'll be dead - so the point is moot anyway. Never mind.
You don't have to deal with wild animals - and you would rather not hurt a criminal intending to harm you or your loved ones. That's fine for you - don't own a gun.
I am not that suicidal - I have a will to live and a will to protect my loved ones from REAL threats - like bears, like coyotes, like rapists and sick people.
There was a family here a few years ago - whose home was broken into by three intruders. They managed to get control of the mother and father easily - then the two little girls. The family had no guns, no way to defend themselves - not even a baseball b at.
The intruders raped and tortured the mother and two baby girls for hours. Then they burned them alive.
The criminals are still at large today because the cops couldn't get there before they fled the scene of the crime.
Oh, and the criminals DIDN'T have guns. Amazingly enough if sick people want to do harm, they don't need a gun to do it - but you will need a gun to stop it. Had that family had a gun - they would have stood a chance of not been raped, tortured, and burned alive. This was in MY town.
But if you want that for yourself - you go on ahead and do it.
-
-
Too many guns out there. Too many places selling them and too cheaply. Not enough control on who gets them. Too much money being made making and selling them.
Why do people need high powered rifles? Don't say hunting. They managed well enough in the 1800s to hunt. Marketing is the driver behind gun development.
What has to happen for you to think enough is enough?-
*sigh*
Did you not read what Rongstad wrote?
Eh, why bother...any person who cannot accept that I should have had the right to have a gun in my possession the day my house was broken into and my maid and I were beaten and stabbed is not likely to be moved by the potential for saving 3000+ lives by shooting the box cutter boys on board those planes.
Just so long as the weapons aren't guns, you don't care how many die or are maimed, do you? -
BernieSandwich,
Too much sugar out there. Too many places selling it and too cheaply. Not enough control on who gets it. Too much money being made making and selling it.
Why do people need sugar? Don't say it tastes good. Stuff tastes good without sugar. Marketing is the driver behind sugar development.
What has to happen for you to think enough is enough?
-
-
Have you seen his politics? Nice bloke and I would love to have a pint of beer with him but would you want him advising on .... anything. There are fascist dictators who wouldn't have scored as right wing as him -joke
SV - in that situation I would want an automatic shot gun and a shit load of cartridges, clear firing zones, good light and the army as back up. May be I would rather have not been home.
"Hard cases make bad law."
There were 3 policemen killed by a person with a gun today. Ok some people are not meant to live. You seem OK with that. How many people are to be killed by people with guns before you cry "stop".-
Um, it maybe a joke, but I can't let it pass. I am about as far away from fascist as you can get. I'm a libertarian who believes in the supremacy of the individual over the government.
Fascists believe in the supremacy of the government over the individual. Fascist governments have gun control. -
BernieSandwich,
There were many people killed by persons with cars today. Ok some people are not meant to live. You seem OK with that. How many people are to be killed by people with cars before you cry "stop"?
So, Bernie, no car for you. You have to walk.
:-)
Join the crusade to ban cars.
-
-
I am in favour of air marshalls - great idea.
-
As long as they do not have guns, I'd wager.
-
-
Because guns are murder weapons, it is unfortunate that anyone would need to have one, just in case they can move faster than a bullet to get to their gun.
Few people are that fast.
The reason that GOOD people are killed by guns is that BAD people decide who they wish to kill and when to walk up and pull their triggers.
If a crook suspects that someone might have gun then they will kill them first and then check their pockets.-
You know... it comes down to this. While it would be nice if the world were one big happy place, where you could leave your doors unlocked and not worry about bad people... That is not the case. There are bad people in the world.
If someone breaks in my house, they will get one warning to retreat... failing that, short of them being falling down drunk or otherwise incapacitated, which if they actually got INTO my house at night, I would doubt. The next warning will be that of a 45 slug into their motor cortex. It will save the court system from having to process him, the tax payers from having to pay for a trial and potential NEXT person that he (or she) might rob when they are out.
Yes... in a perfect world, if someone broke into your house, you would make a call, and a bunch of stumbling bobbies would run into your house and haul the slightly dimwitted, mustachioed bad guy in the cloak and black hat away. Day saved, you and the wife would smile at each other and go back to bed. That is not how the world works.
All the gun control laws in the world, short of mandatory execution for illegal possession (that might not be a bad idea), will not prevent a criminal who really wants a gun, from getting one. I do not care WHERE in the world you are. I had a buddy when I was in the Marines that was shot while on leave in Bristol (sorry to blow the cover off the Utopian UK that Bernie is painting.) My Friend lived, only to be killed by a scud in the first gulf war.
There is a little thing called deterrence... Granted... a bad guy might be more willing to shoot first if he does not know you have a gun. But it does not stop there. Statistically, unless you live in Fresno, Ca. The ratio of bad guys to good guys in always in favor of the good. The thing the bad guy now has to consider is not only is if "Mark A" carrying, but also if the others around him or any by-standers are carrying. People are more likely to help a victim if they have the means to do it...
Another great example of this is back in the 70s... there was a person who went into a bank in Scottsdale, Az... I think it was Scottsdale... anyway... he pulled a revolver and yelled that this was a robbery. About five people in the bank all pulled guns out and detained the person until the police came. No shots fired except for what may have been in the robber's pants, and from his colon. And no... it was not a bank that was used by police... it was actually a merchants bank.
There are ALWAYS going to be cases that point out the potential evil of guns. But you name one thing that does not have a potential for evil... I have even heard of a person killed with a yarmulke. Even the Bible has been wielded as a weapon, figuratively, at times and has caused great pain and death. There are more lives saved with guns than taken when you really think about it. I was trained in several types of weapon. I know how to use them all, even though it has been more than 20 years since I was out of the Marines. I respect weapons, I respect people that know how to use them properly. I fear people who fear weapons, because THEY are the ones that will act carelessly before I do, and get themselves or others killed. I fear people that feel that their rights to not be threatened but those of us who know how to use weapons and gain access to them legally, supersede mine, when all you are doing is making it that much easier for me to be a victim of the guy that was STILL able to buy a weapon ILLEGALLY.
OK... I am done. You Brits can go back to your training to prevent attacks from people wielding fruit, now. (I only guess that some of you are old enough to know what that is from.) -
BeyondBeliefs,
Because knives are murder weapons, it is unfortunate that anyone would need to have one.
The reason that GOOD people are killed by knives is that BAD people decide who they wish to kill and when to walk up and stab them.
If a crook suspects that someone might have a knife then they will kill them first and then check their pockets.
So, Beyond, we better not catch you cutting your steak with a knife! You knife nut.
:-) -
I'm told that no one can defend against a maniac weilding a banana.
-
ThirstyJon ,
To use a kitchen knife, you have to come close and risk DEATH.
That is why criminals want guns. There is NOTHING you can do to save yourself, UNLESS you are FASTER than a BULLET. -
SWSamurai
Anyone who breaks into our house is ALREADY SUICIDAL.
When someone can stop the intruder with their gun then it makes HEADLINES. It is the rare exception because most crooks prefer to live.
Anyone who is fool enough to break into a house without making sure the occupants can be easily killed deserves to be shot.
When you are home, then you need a LOUD DOG, if you want to improve your chances for survival. -
Beyond Beliefs,
You wrote "To use a kitchen knife, you have to come close and risk DEATH. That is why criminals want guns. There is NOTHING you can do to save yourself, UNLESS you are FASTER than a BULLET."
That is precisely why we need more responsible people to have guns and know how to use them, so that the criminal DOES risk death when they pull out whatever weapon they have.
-
-
Thankfully, it appears that the trend in American thought is away from that of BernieSandwich:
cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/08/poll-fewer-american-support-stricter-gun-c... -
Of course, it can't care at all....who has power they are getting safe and others are not.............
-
I have a smelly dog instead of a gun -
I am afraid of "gun nuts" but believe we do have the right to own guns. It is assault weapons that should be banned. In my city three police officers were gunned down this week by a "nut" who thought they were coming to take his guns away. In fact, they were answering a domestice disturbance call from his mother. The nut used an assault rifle and killed the first three officers who got to his door. There are a lot of crazies out there. Should they have access to assault rifles? By the way, he bought his weapons on the Internet.-
I do believe Air Marshals should have guns. Sort trained people who carry a gun that will not go through the victim and kill a row.
Woman murder son at a firing range.
news.aol.com/article/gun-range-murder/418055?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%...
SW Samurai
You wouldn't get a gun for failing the mental suitability test. You would love to shoot an intruder. -
I am pretty sure that the Air Marshals these days are carrying low velocity ceramic or ferro-ceramic shells. Pretty much break up with they hit anything real sturdy.
As for the last comment, Bernie... I am not sure a follow.
"SW Samurai
You wouldn't get a gun for failing the mental suitability test. You would love to shoot an intruder."
So... are you saying that I am mentally unstable for saying that I would give them the warning to retreat, and if they do not and still present a threat, then shooting them. Or was I supposed to hand over my weapon to them and let them take what they need and leave, in the hopes that they would be kind and not hurt me or my family?
Yes... if someone enters my house against my will, I will act to defend myself and my family. I was trained that you never discharge a weapon with the intent to "hurt or maim", you discharge it to kill. If it came to that, I would. Yes, more than likely would I have remorse, I am sure that there would be some, but can you tell me that you would not chose your family over the criminal?
I understand that you seem to have issues with guns... you are also one of those people that thinks that by virtue of your fears, your rights override the rights of others to "keep and bear arms." My wife is also afraid of guns, but because there is a gun in the house, I took her down and had her take a course. I also told her, as did the police officer who hosted the course, that you should not shoot to injure, you should shoot to kill.
So... if you are challenging my knowledge of weapons or training... I got some news for you, I learned from the best. I am still a little curious about your comment on the mental suitability. If that is an attack... it was rather poorly executed. If it was your professional opinion... then I am curious about your qualifications to make such a diagnosis over a forum posting, when usually it requires a visit of some sorts.
This will always be an interesting argument. The pacifists out there that think all guns should be banned unless they are in the hands of the military or police, then the people that go overboard in the other direction and think that they should have ANY type of gun they want, regardless of the size. I have fired a sixty before... they are not an easy gun to haul around and an RPG does not fit in the pocket without causing some chaffing.
The problem is that no one will win this, and the only thing that we can resort to is standing our ground or calling each other names. I do not think I have made an attack on anyone here, but I stand my ground on the issue that, as long as you have no criminal history, you should be allowed to legally purchase and own a weapon. If you have cause, you should be allowed to have a CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit). If you choose not to own a weapon, that is your right, but being that as it may, why should I NOT be allowed because YOU do not like me to have it?
People like Bernie (for example, not an attack), are always going to stand in the defense of their rights to not be offended by people like me that "carry". But if you, Bernie, were ever being attacked in an ally, and I happened along and presented my weapon and scared off the person attacking you... I seriously doubt that you would call the police on me for helping you out. That IS the kind of person I am...
I know that nothing I have said will change any of you who are so intent that my weapon being taken away from me. But there will always be guns. There will always be "Bad Guys" out there. Taking away the right to buy guns legally will not make it any harder for them (the bad guys) to get them. If they really want one, they will find a way to get one. -
This is actually more amusing that anything else. OK... What if they are also a Left-handed, black, Norwegian, Jewish, lesbian, hermaphrodite with halitosis, a chronic drooling problem, club feet and have not bathed since the Who was on tour with the Quadrophenia album?
You started this post with "Gun Nuts scare me". Fear is, typically, an irrational response to something that you either do not understand or something that you have, in some way or another, been traumatized by. Based on everything you have said throughout this post, you entered into it looking for an argument, not ideas or opinions.
You say I have rigid thinking... yes, if that means that I refuse to change the way I think to match your idealism. I have not said, though, that you were wrong in your choice not to own a weapon, I have said that your desire to NOT own one should not prevent me from owning one.
You say that I will struggle to process what I will do if in a situation where I might need to use a weapon. Tell me one person, who is qualified to own a weapon, and that is about to discharge it in the name of the defense of others or their own self-defense, who will not, for that moment, think of the alternatives.
When I was in Scout/Sniper school, our instructor used to tell us something that I still keep in mind... and you will probably criticise this as well... "Be prepared for one thing. Every life you take, you will carry with you for the rest of YOUR life. If you cannot do that, then you need reconsider your chosen path."
Tell me... how often have you taken a weapon and used it? How many field training simulations have you been on? What qualifications, besides talking to parolees or detainees, have you to judge those around you, and especially those that are chatting on the internet?
Sniveling? No... Not hardly. Irrational? Only when fielding Help Desk calls from people that should not be allowed to use PCs in the first place... don't worry, I do not shoot them. Paranoid? No... Cautious, yes. Observant, Yes. Do I question things a little too much? Maybe, but only insofar as to protect the interest of those that might be affected by whatever the topic might be.
I really do not expect you to understand. It is obvious that you will not and more than likely will not try. I was brought up around guns, I was taught to respect them, I was taught that you never shoot an animal unless you are threatened by it and have no other recourse or are going to eat said animal... and for that I prefer a compound bow and arrow. As a former member of the armed forced, Recon, I have been trained in several weapons as well as hand-to-hand... so please do not assume that you know more than I do about how I will respond in a situation that might require the use of deadly force... you would be mistaken.
Lastly... Have I already made the decision... I made the decision many years ago that I would protect my life, and the life and well being of my family. If losing my life would save that of my wife, then so be it. I will not allow a person to invade my home without a challenge. If that challenge requires me to kill the person, then so be it. If that challenge requires me to attack the person with my hands to disable, neutralize or kill that person, then so be it. Since I have training that they might not, can I assume that you would think that I have an unfair advantage there as well?
As I said before... you will have your opinion, and I do, in spite of your comment to the contrary, respect that. But these opinions are like shoes and underwear... what fits you, might not always fit me... so please don't try and make me wear them.
-
-
SW Samauri
What if the person is confused, deaf, having an insulin reaction, suffering from dementia? Of you go, acting in the great cause of self defence and of course, even better you have given your self permission through your comfy stories to actually use the gun on a person.
There will be some back slapping at the saloon that night.
Name calling - your snivelling irrational paranoia - . Now thats name calling
Your mental state - I am not suggesting you are mentally unfit.More you have very narrow rigid thinking. You will struggle to process the various channels of information quickly enough to arrive at the best solution when holding a gun.
In fact, from your post, I think you have already made the decision.
Bernie -
Depends where you live Bernie, I have never felt the need to carry any sort of weapon. I would never want to get used to carrying a gun or get used to killing. But lets face it the world is not a box of chocolates. If you are living in an area where your own life and your families life is under serious threat and its not possible to move somewhere safer I can see then there is a need for it.-
I would not consider the place in which I live to be under constant threat of violence. That being said, there have been two "Strong arm" robberies within five miles of my house and one "Home invasion" down the street, within the last two months. There are places that I am sure are worse than this, then there are others where crime is almost unheard of. I grew up in a small town and I can remember that we did not even HAVE a lock on the front door.
-
-
I have had crime in my area too, a few murders, rapes, drug busts and muggings over the last few years. As bad as that is, it is still a very rare occurrence. I would not consider the area to be dangerous. More guns being freely available means that killing becomes more acceptable, more easy. I see nothing good about that.
Some people have self control when they become angry, irritated, depressed but some people don't if they own a gun it could be tragedy waiting to happen.-
You made the key comment there... "freely available", guns should not be easy to get, but if you are qualified and have no criminal history, then you should be able to, if you want. But I know there are people and place that you can go to buy a gun "off the grid", so to say. THOSE are the places and people that need to be controlled. Those are the places that will still sell you a gun regardless of the laws that are in place to keep the LAW BIDING in check.
This is something that I think is misunderstood by many. People with a documented history of violence are not going to go down to the local gun shop and buy a piece, if the shop is working legitimately. Why do you (in general, not you specifically) think that many guns used in armed robberies are stolen or have the serials filed off? -
Tonyboy,
You said "More guns being freely available means that killing becomes more acceptable, more easy."
What about "More nail guns being freely available means that killing becomes more acceptable, easier." ???
How about "More steak knives being freely available means that killing becomes more acceptable, easier." ???
I think I would like this one: "More trained people of reliable character with quality guns and the willingness to use them to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors would make killing way less acceptable and way more difficult." -
Here here.
-
-
BLOOD thirsty john
-
What scares me is people like you Bernie.
People who think that a raped and murdered woman somehow is morally superior or at the very least a more desireable outcome than an alive woman with a dead would be rapist at her feet. -
BernieSandwich, Is that the best you've got? A play on words about screen name? Pretty Lame. I'm not impressed. That kind of approach adds nothing to any discussion.
Besides that, you spelled my screen name wrong.
:-(
-
-
Lets not stop at guns. if you are so afraid we should all live in walled compounds with barbed wire, dogs and search lights. While we are at it, a couple of heads on poles wouldn't be amiss, just to warn people that we are really truly scared shitless and may do some crazy stuff.
You can't live your life in total fear of what if..... You would never get on a plane, visit anywhere different or meet new friends.-
actually Bernie, you seem to be the one with the fears and the bias. I've seen several well written replies to you, with points that you've chosen to overlook or address. If you want people to respect your words and try to understand them, perhaps you should do the same.
-
-
ThirstyJon
Nail guns are for putting nails in wood
steak knives are for cutting steak with
That is their primary purpose.
The purpose of a hand gun is to kill.
Its not to cut steak with.
Its not for putting nails into wood with.
I would prefer for society to be a place where people don't feel the need to carry guns or shoot innocent people indiscriminately because they are depressed.-
But as long as there are people out there that will use guns, knives, baseball bats, meat cleavers, lead pipes, etc. for evil purposes, there will be a need to defend yourself.
Police are not able to show up at your door in seconds... a person robbing your house is not always going to leave you alone if you present no danger to them. There are many stories of people who comply with an assailant, only to be beaten, raped, tortured or killed.
Are you going to tell me that if someone breaks into your home you would not do everything you could, to reduce the chances of any of the above from happening?
To all of you that object with me on this, but I do not think it makes me an irresponsible gun owner or an "irrational" person, to want to protect my family. If someone is threatening my family, and I have the means to defend and protect them, even if it meant injury to myself, then I would do so.
Maybe, one day, we will live in an Utopian society where war is a thing of the past and there are no crimes. At that time, we can worry about beating out swords back into plowshares. But for now, there are bad people out there and some of us wish to own weapons, and there are those that will not, like Bernie and a few others of you out there that do not. I respect both decisions, but I am not telling you to go out and buy one, so why do you feel the need to tell me I should not own one.
I need to stop writing so much. I doubt half of you are reading all of my posts. -
Tonyboy,
So... All I have to do to persuade you to change your mind is show another purpose for a gun than to kill?
You said that you "would prefer for society to be a place where people don't feel the need to carry guns or shoot innocent people indiscriminately because they are depressed."
Tonyboy, "feeling the need to carry guns" does not even belong in the same sentence as "shoot innocent people indiscriminately because they are depressed."
As for me? I would prefer a world where people do not drink and drive. I would prefer a world where the strong don't take advantage of the weak. I would prefer a world where love is the rule. I would prefer society to be a place where every time someone tried to rape, kill, harm, kidnap, or abuse the innocent, a strong man of good character with a gun that he was well trained to use happened to be nearby to shoot the perpetrator and defend the innocent.
:-)
-
-
More people die in car wrecks every year then from guns. I don't see the sense of any one owing a car. Seriously how can one blame the gun when it's not the problem. Here in the USA, in one year twice as many people died from car accidents then from gun shot wounds. Additionally more people died from Falls, Drowning, other unspecified accidents, or complications from Surgery then from accidental gun shots. In fact death by gunshot did not even make the top ten most common reasons for death.
Top 10 Causes of Death - US
1. Diseases of Heart 28.5%
2. Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3. Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
5. Accidents 4.4%
* Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
* Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
* Fall (15% of all accidents)
6. Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
7. Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
8. Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
9. Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
Finally you do realize that the banning of guns in many countries has caused a significant rise in gun crime? In countries where only the criminals have guns, the most gun crime occurs. In countries where anyone might have a gun, gun crimes are not as prevalent.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
... Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
... China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
... Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
... Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------------------------
... Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.-
@dunappy
Don't give Bernie the satisfaction. If it has not come to anyone's attention yet, this entire thread is nothing more than Bernie's effort to get people's ire up. I am sure that even if someone came into this post and agreed with him wholeheartedly, they too would be taken apart for some reason.
Nothing anyone say is going to get anything more than a negative retort or rebuttal from him.
The fact remains that gun ownership is fine for those that are able to own a gun responsibly. I would not trust Bernie with a weapon for the mere fact that his attitude through this post implies a person that is afraid either of guns or people who own them. This makes him the most dangerous type of person to own one or use one, let alone to decide WHO should own or keep one.
That being said, I can only base my opinion on his posts, since there is little that we truly know about him and I can only offer my opinion on how he treats anyone who supports gun ownership.
@Bernie - I would still like to know what your professional qualifications are to decide who is and is not qualified to own a gun. -
Excellent Dunappy!
-
*****Accidental DUPLICATE deleted by the author*****
-
Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death among children, and high on the list for soldiers.
-
Cars and diseases are NOT murder weapons.
We work hard to CONTROL highways, diseases and medicines. -
@Beyond...
Anything can be a weapon in the hands of someone that chooses to use it that way. It is a matter of choice.
If a person gets in a car with the intent to kill others, it is a weapon. If a person holds you down and shoves a banana down your throat to suffocate you, then that too is a weapon. I have heard of people being killed with mundane little things like pens, ice picks, a toaster, and with hands alone.
It is all a matter of intent. -
SWSamurai ,
Sure... Anything many things can be used to kill.. killing is easy.. even a small child can pull a trigger... it requires no intelligence, in fact it requires the absence of intelligence.
Killing is easy. Keeping Life Alive is the hard part.
I can construct WMD, I can even kill a family with a canister of carbon monoxide.
So whats your point ?
Do you think that we should we give everyone murder weapons so that only the murders are left to procreate ?
Good people would rather EDUCATE the children, than to promote their murder. -
Simply,
Our Murder Weapons are designed to kill people, and they are VERY EFFECTIVE. ( see newspaper : it takes an army of cops to stop a murderer, and a crew to bury all the bodies. )
The harder we make it for murderers to have guns the few bodies we have to bury. -
BeyondBeliefs,
You said that "Cars and diseases are NOT murder weapons."
Uhh. Yes, they can be used that way, and have been. -
Beyond Beliefs,
You said "Good people would rather EDUCATE the children, than to promote their murder."
Who is promoting the murder of children?
Their will be fewer murders of children if more responsible people have the knowledge, ability, and gun to defend them. -
SWSamurai,
You wrote: "It is all a matter of intent."
AMEN. You understand. -
Beyondbeliefs,
You wrote "The harder we make it for murderers to have guns the few bodies we have to bury."
I agree, murderers should not be allowed to have guns.
Who is proposing that murderers should be supplied with guns? -
@Beyond...
At what point did I ever say that we should give everyone weapons? I think I said that responsible people should have the right to have a weapon if they choose. Why is that so hard to understand?
Murder weapons? Interesting wording. You see, murder is a matter of how you look at it as well. When the Tate/LaBianca murders were taking place, Charley Manson was certain that what he was doing was beneficial, so in his eyes, it was not murder.
When Hitler was commiting Genocide, he was convinced that he was doing a civic good deed, not committing a crime.
If someone breaks into the house of a person with the intent of stealing, and in the process gets killed, the person pulling the trigger sees this as doing right. The family of the killed person sees it as murder, even though the law was being broken.
Unless there are signed that you went a little overboard, like shooting the guy/gal in the extremities first, then killed them, which would count as torture, then there is a crime committed.
The opinion here is polarized sharply. In the Bernie/Beyond camp, you have people that would believe that if a person breaks into your house, if you are kind to them, let them have what they want, maybe offer them a little Darjeling or Earl Grey, then they will leave you alone, thank you for all the neat stuff and be on their way.
In reality, the cases where a person breaks into a house, treats the owners politely and goes about their business is rare. Cases against the elderly are good examples of this.
You want a world where the only people who have guns are the police and the military. There are also example of how that has gone seriously wrong as well. So... what do you do... Seriously?
Is the circular diatribe that we are going through right here accomplishing anything? Bernie is espousing his opinions concerning an area that he is not an expert on, in a country that his only experience with has been through the new reports. I am no expert either, but I have experience in gun safety, so I would like to think I know what I am talking about.
Kids... Kids killing kids and adults killing kids... There is no excuse. But again, this in not something that banning the sale of guns will answer. Education. My father taught me about taking care of a gun when I was very young. I have never NOT respected the power of a gun. If you understand that you hold the power of life and death in your hands when you hold a gun, then you are less apt to have "accidents".
-
-
Simply, the REASON that we MANAGE the distribution of prescriptions, explosives, inspections and registrations for automobiles and their drivers, is to save the MILLIONS who would be killed if controls were not in place.
It is the RESTRICTIONS on our Highways that save the most lives, not the cars, but the REGULATIONS restricting careless users from using them.-
BeyondBeliefs,
Actually, it is NOT the restrictions and regulations that save lives. It is the internal government of the folks who agree to and follow the very-common-sense laws and principles that saves lives. Murderers, Criminals, and Violent People, Irresponsible People, Drink-and-Drivers, and the like kill people with cars in spite of the management, restrictions, and regulations.
But nobody that I know is proposing that we ban cars or over-regulate who can have them.
We do expect (in most states) the drivers of cars to be trained in the operation and safety standards that are needed. We do punish those who use their cars in a dangerous way. In fact, if someone kills someone with a car and killing was their intent they can and will be charged with murder! The car would be the murder weapon!
-
-
So. What in the world is going on with everything being in bold now? Very irritating. I am not coding my comments to be in all bold.
BeyondBelief, did you forget to close a bold tag in your comment above? It is the first one all in bold.-
See... you start us all yelling now. Darned you and your evil use of the bold!!!
:-) -
:-)
-
-
Maybe this will get rid of the bold
-
Looks like it worked!
:-) -
Bernie, I blog crime stories where people are murdered, raped, molested and beaten senseless every single day....
Guess what...
A tiny fraction of those deaths involve a gun...
I have about 70 news threads set up with hundreds of news sources... If it happened, I almost always see it...
Gun incidence is extremely low as compared to MANY other abuses that result in death.
Drunk driving, beatings, stun gun, poisoning, starving, assaults, stabbings..... These crimes are resulting in more deaths than gun-related deaths by a long shot.
Want to be afraid of something?
Be afraid of your neighbor down the street who is abusing his/her daughter.. and getting away with it because there is no loud bang. The damage happens in the quiet of her bedroom.
There is no loud noise to attract attention - and so it goes on and on until someone cares enough to notice.
Enter a debate with me on the real danger of guns, and you'll get arms full of facts, details and real world examples....
Not hyperbolic assumptions, accusations and stereotyping
You are whining about an anthill, and ignoring the mountain.
Go do some serious research and we'll talk...
Or drop by sometime if you want to see the hundred ways people hurt each other every day without a gun.
The numbers are HEAVILY tilted out of your favor. -
Here's a pop quiz for Bernie.
Which one of the following three choices results in the highest murder rate?
1. Gun
2. Knife
3. No weapon
Gun, by the way is a distant 3rd. No weapon is an overwhelming first.
Strangulation, starvation, and blunt force trauma (including fist) VASTLY overwhelm the number of crimes committed by a gun or knife.
Oh, and Bernie. This of course excludes the hundreds of ways people murder themselves by clogging their arteries, speeding, and drunk driving....etc etc etc...
Also, Bernie... If someone were going to hurt you, why would they be more likely to use a weapon that attracted attention and provides police a dozen different ways to identify you as the suspect?
More deaths of children result from parents accidentally backing over their children with a car... than accidental deaths of guns being in the home.
So now you can worry about a lot of other things that present a far bigger danger than a gun... -
You just love those guns.
You can't justify gun deaths by saying that people have heart attacks so its ok!!
Accidental deaths from car driving do not justify a gun death!!!
Try getting your head out from up your barrel and thinking about what you are posting. Lets take the guns out and we may cut murders by a third!! We could definitely save some kids in colleges. Oh I forget - the answer to that problem is more guns.-
What part of Banning guns only increases crime do you NOT get? Plain and simple it's been shown over and over and over again that gun control CAUSES an increase in the crime rate. There is not one single study that shows a decrease in gun crime after a gun ban.
Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
Since You are from the UK you should know this little fact of life:
The cure is worse than the disease
In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.
Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.
The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.
And this fact
[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed....
Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety....
In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century....
A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime....
-
-
-
As I mention in the bottom, if you live in the UK, you'd know that stabbings and blunt force trauma alone account for far far far far more murders in Britain than gun related deaths. I know those facts mean nothing to you because you're bent on ignoring problems in lieu of spouting your own political views.
I don't think you're afraid at all... I think you are simply trying to annoy people who don't share your view.
If you were really afraid of murder, you'd focus on the 20 different ways someone can murder you WITHOUT drawing attention to themselves.
Dont you realize that if someone wants to kill you, they want to do it as quietly as possible?
Most criminals with a gun do NOT want to discharge the gun. It draws attention to the crime. It alerts police, neighbors and anyone within a block of the incident.
It's much easier to poison, strangle or stab you.
You need to do a little research, seriously. Until you do, you're just chasing after the wind. -
Bernie... Why are you only casting people into two groups? Through all my reading of this post, you are either grouping people as:
a. Gun Owners - All are a bunch of half-crazed wackos with a wild west mentality and have no sense of responsibility because they are all out to kill anyone they can.
b. People who do not own guns - Pious kind folk who are able to get out of any problem with a smile, quick call to the police (Keystone cops in your case.) and allowing the assailant to take whatever they need.
There appears to be no middle ground with you. You are also not answering legitimate questions that are aimed at you (no pun intended per the topic at hand).
Since you seem to actually be using this more as an excuse to advertise your Blog, I think I will do the same... then I will be done with this posting. If you wish to accept that as a surrender, that is your choice.
My Closing argument: Guns are here to stay... wishing for them to go away, talking about how bad they are and taking them away from law biding citizen who wish to legally obtain them is not going to solve the problem. Criminals are not going to see people getting rid of their sidearms and say "Gee, it's safer now, I will get rid of mine too."
People like Bernie and his ilk, who are on the far left side of the fence, cannot accept that there are actually people out there that are responsible gun owners. In his mind, no one is a responsible gun owner and we are all criminals, lest we belong to the Police departments or the Military.
Are guns potentially dangerous in the hands of even the most skilled marksman? Of course... then again, there are cases of master carpenters cutting off fingers and hands, cases of master chefs (No.. not the master Chief.) burning a souffle. There are cases of police and military shooting the wrong person, race car drivers who lose control of their personal car and kill someone. I could go on all day about this.
Guns are no different in many cases that the items I listed above. We cannot go though life telling others what they can or cannot do or have because it offends us.
Lastly... I have said several times through this diatribe that I support and respect Bernie's desire not to have a weapon. I have no problem with that. If he were my neighbor, I would still keep an eye on his house while he was on vacation, just like I do my neighbors now, and they for me. The world only works well when we work together. If the people around me do not wish to own a weapon, then so be it. That is their choice, but as long as the law allows me to legally and responsibly (Yes Bernie, you can responsibly own a weapon), I will do so.
The use of a gun to prevent a crime should be the last option. Cops to not always shoot first and investigate afterward, in spite of how many Clint Eastwood movies you might have seen. But when all else fails, if you must shoot a person, you shoot to kill. Maiming only invites a law suit that, in California at least, the defender will lose.
So... that is where I stand. Beat me up all you like... I am going to go read fun stuff now.
Oh... Since Bernie was advertising his blog so much... here's mine. And I have my own domain even. ;-)
www.samuraimarineblog.com
Bernie... if you visit... you might be surprised. Very little references to guns at all.
-
-
hello Dunappy
I live in the UK and I have for over 50 years. I have worked in inner city deprived areas that have gun problems. Problems that rate at 2 on a scale of one to ten. problems that rate at 4 compared to Birmingham, Manchester and London.
Most violent crime is linked to people fighting after binge drinking. Not people with guns. Increasingly young people with knives.
The police have rapid response units with guns. We tend not to get people resolving issues by shooting their neighbour. Guns get used in robberies. Not for a few dollars but for crimes involving drug wars, cash in transit robberies and post offices.
If you want all and sundry to have access to guns we will have a lot more deaths form shootings and less black eyes and broken noses.
Trust me or have a look at our national statistics. These will be based on a population of about 55 million people. 300 million in the US.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
"
Do I feel we have an out of control gun crime problem? Do I feel that I am more likely to be shot in the UK than run over by a car?
NO
"Facts & figures
* The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 2% in 2007-08 compared to the previous year
* Firearms were involved in 455 serious or fatal injuries, compared to 468 the previous year - a drop of 3%
* Offences involving handguns effectively held steady, those involving shotguns were down 3%
* The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns effectively held steady
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2007-08) -
IF you had read my comment, you'd see that I do not own a gun
And obviously you completely dismissed fact in lieu of politics.
Gun related deaths are GREATLY insignificant to deaths that occur any number of other ways.
Strangulation deaths for example..
If you want to freak out over something, freak out over being strangled to death because statistically, you'll die that before being involved in a gun altercation.
If you want to freak out over something, freak out over someone beating you to death.... because the odds are much greater that you will be beaten to death.
If you want to freak out over something, freak out that you will be hit by a drunk driver. Because drunk driving deaths exceed the number of deaths from guns.
I can go on and on and on.....
But if you want to be political and cram your own political bias down someone else's throat.... you ignore all those facts and just continue with your insults, regardless of the facts. Regardless of the statistics and regardless of logic.
And one more think... if you live in the UK, you would know the UK's primary problem is stabbings...
I don't live in the UK, yet I know stabbing related deaths abound in Britain - far outnumbering gun deaths. It isn't even close.
So let's say no one in your country has a gun.... Do you seriously think you're going to be any safer from a murderer?
Again, you seem to be engaged in political blather, rather than focusing on what the real problem in the UK is.
I'm not surprised though.
People always squawk endlessly about things that aren't broken to detract away from the things that ARE broken. -
Danny
So at the minute I have a chance of fighting off a strangler. I have a chance of fighting off someone who wants to knife me. I could even out run them (preferred choice). I can't outrun a bullet or dodge it.
" * robbery rates decreased by 16% in 2007-08 over the previous year, and overall rates of robbery have declined 30% since 2001
* 44% of robberies recorded by police in England and Wales took place in London
* a mobile phone is stolen in half of all robberies
* in a third of all robberies, a mobile phone is the only thing taken
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2007-08)"
Would you shoot a person to save your phone? -
UK - still a great place to live.
Violence in society
"The risk of becoming a victim of any crime has fallen steadily over recent years, but although violent crime has fallen by 48% since its peak in 1995 (Crime in England and Wales 2007/08)"
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
Where is this hell hole of violence you keep promoting? Its not the UK.
bernie-probationadventure.blogspot.com/
At least I'm doing my bit to reduce crime and improve the skills of offenders to reach their goals without offending. -
ThirstyJon
I am sure a gun can be used to stir cake mixture but the main use of a gun is to kill.
feeling the need to carry guns does belong in the same sentence as shoot innocent people indiscriminately because they are depressed, because people have/do use those guns for both reasons.
SWsamurai
I don't think there will be ever any utopia society. I think its all about perception. A gun might make you feel safer but are you realistically any safer than you were before you owned a gun?-
Tonyboy,
Of all the gun owners that I know, none of them have killed anybody. One of them is a former cop who carries it to use in an emergency. For most it is a hobby. Some have expressed a willingness to use the weapon in the rare situation of self defense.
I can't even make grammatical sense out of your other sentence so I am going to ignore it.
-
-
www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1740
Shooting Season Begins Early in America
April 6th, 2009 HUMOUR
by Billy Kidd
If the Government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?
PITTSBURGH - USA - This years shooting season got off to a cracking start as Americans braced themselves for a bumper session in 2009.
In true American style there has been an early start to the traditional shooting season for 2009.
"This year has started off with a bang. We're talking assault rifles, sub machine guns, 44 magnums, hell anything we can find. Yesterday I bought my 10 year old a Glock and he's already started shooting like a trooper," Stan Butz, a headteacher at Groening Highschool on the outskirts of Pittsburgh told ABC news.
The American tradition of gunplay is something that is ingrained in their culture according to historians.
"America was built on brute violence. The Wild West was exactly as the name suggests 'Wild'. I don't know why anyone would ever think that things would ever change? Just look at the illegal invasion of Iraq and how many Arab civilians were murdered in cold blood there under the premise of democracy," Charles Baudelaire, a historian for Chicago's Institute of Modern History said.
Six Shooter
The 2009 shooting season started off with a particularly violent three days across the U.S., with shootings that left 14 dead in Binghamton, N.Y., and six dead in Washington state, where a father shot five of his children, ages 7 to 16, using a rifle, and later, himself. It also follows just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001. Last month, a North Carolina man shot and killed eight people before police shot him and ended the rampage, and a 28-year-old man killed 10 people, including his mother and four other relatives, across two rural Alabama counties before killing himself.
"Our constitution was built on violence and guns. Without these things we ain't Americans. A man is not a man unless he waves his Colt around. We love the power. Without my gun, hell my dick can't even get hard. It's like what we do to defenceless countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. We invade them with all our guns, tanks and airpower so that we can feel good about ourselves. You will never see the U.S. picking fights with countries like China or Russia though because we don't like to have real wars. Hell no!" the ex vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney told Fox news before picking up a shotgun and blowing a squirrel to smithereens.
One thing is for sure, Obama's people are looking at the beginning of the shooting season and licking their lips -- this could be the excuse they always wanted to finally disarm America.-
Bernie, I think I'm cool with gun nuts now .. you're the one starting to scare me
-
Comment removed by me. Never mind.
-
-
I didn't write it but it made me smile. Come on you two -its says HUMOUR at the top.
-
I love guns, and love shooting guns. But then of course, I was in the military. -
Pussdaddy
You are an insomniac that smokes dope and you love guns. MMMmmmmm-
And you are a fearful woman with highly immature friends who brings her children to drink with her at the pub.
Your point?
-
-
A couple of assumptions there that are wrong.
-
Nope, I'm just going by what you've told everyone here at BC.
-
Bernie's a man who takes his children out to pubs, bows to peer pressure, and cannot say "no thanks mate" when offered a drink
-
-
But I only take adult children to the pub and I do say 'no mate' and very importantly I don't own or carry a gun.
Floor model - you are a strange creature. I await an apology for your piss poor assumptions and at worst your fabrications.-
I think it's excellent that you don't own or carry a gun. You aren't the type to able to use one properly, or responsibly.
-
I still want to know why Bernie thinks that a raped and murdered woman is a more desirable outcome than an alive and unhurt woman with a dead rapist at her feet.
-
I'm sorry I misread your deliberately vague statements about taking your children to pubs and your friends not liking refusals of rounds at a pub.
and I'm okay being a strange creature.
-
-
I think I am just the type who should have a gun. Someone that doesn't want one. Wouldn't want to use one to stop a person stealing my car.
csiunatc
I haven't said that.-
No, actually you strike me as the type who should NOT own one.
If you are frightened by guns, which you are, then you should not have one. In order to know how to properly use a gun, you have to use it. You have to practice with it, you have to understand the laws intimately, and understand your capacity as a human fully.
If you are carrying a gun, and find yourself in a situation that scares you enough to pull out that gun, you have either made a commitment to shoot it, or, in your case it may be a panicked mistake that will cost you your life.
Tell me, Bernie - what are the aspects of gun safety and responsible usage of guns? (From hunting to self defense to target practice protocol, tell me what you know about guns, how to use them, and what the laws are/may include (Variations of course, depending on where you live)).
When do you use a gun, and for what purpose?
What's the best prevention of accidental injury from a gun?
Do you/did you allow your children to play with water guns and toy guns? Why or why not?
-
-
Whatever point you have tried to make Bernie, has been totally lost.
If in fact you actually had a point? The only piss poor assumptions that have been made, are in fact the ones that you have made.-
crpitt - just for you
"I just can't see the sense of everyone having a gun.
Then there are the 'enthusiasts'. Bigger, longer,n fatter, lighter, heavier, faster, louder than yours.
Madness?" -
Yes I read all that.
Everyone does not have a gun, everyone does not want to have a gun.
Madness? No.
Do civil war enthusiasts want to take it to the next level and play with real bullets, kill real people, harm and maim? NO.
Also you are not qualified to diagnose any as mad, nor can you speculate or judge anyone's mental health, just because they happen to like guns.
Your talking about a world that you don't even live in, so why is this is such a thing for you?
-
-
Everyone should own one and concealed carry should be a requirement. The level of civility in this country would be greatly increased if people were worried that running their mouth could get them shot.-
Brad
Lovely humour.
-
-
anok
You are describing skills and knowledge. I could learn that. A chimp could.
I'm talking about mental suitability. The old catch 22. If people want guns, they shouldn't have one.-
so because I don't want a gun... I SHOULD have one?
*looking in yellow page for "Gun Emporium"* -
Nice attempt at dodging the question.
By your logic, the skills needed to safely operate a car could be learned by chimps, and so whoever doesn't want a car should have them whether or not they have the skills to control one, and those who do want cars, and are willing to learn the proper use and skills shouldn't have one.
Why don't you answer the question? -
Right.
And people who want gun control shouldn't have any say in the matter.
-
-
And whiskey!
No, but seriously guys, in my experience, gun ownership usually helps lower crime because most criminals don't want a chance of imminent death every single time they go to work, though crime on the street mostly - guns only work if you yourself are present. -
The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.
The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.
In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.
NUFF said-
I'm guessing Finland would also if it were included.
And beyond that, if you look within America (which is a more accurate comparison because they are filled with Americans), many of the cities with the highest crime rates also have some of the lowest gun ownership rates or even tight laws that make legal gun ownership almost impossible, like Washington, DC and Atlanta, while cities with really high gun ownership rates like Seattle often have very low crime. It's not an exact correlation (NYC [few guns, little crime] and Houston would be contradictions), but it's certainly not positive in the other direction.
Really, I think what it more comes down to is that Americans, as a people, are more sanguine in character: More fun-loving, more creative, more likely to resist and question authority, and more violent. And that will have effects throughout the country both good (high rates of business ownership) and bad (high crime rates). -
Dunnappy,
Excellent thoughts.
-
-
-
That's a disgusting comparison.
-
When a gunman walked into a church in Colorado a security guard shot him. There were, tragically, 2 people who died anyway.
Columbine was a horrid tragedy. I wish there had been some internally governed man of character in that school with a gun, or maybe a whole bunch of such men, who would have shot those two boys before they killed so many people.
It still would have been a tragedy, but there would have been less loss of life.
I don't expect you to see it this way BernieSandwich. You don't get it.
-
-
crpitt
Thanks for that crushing contribution.
Thirsty
What sort of gun did he have? Should the gun have been so freely available to a person such a disturbed person?
I take your point. But you would make the overall situation even worse.-
BernieSandwich, I think your comment "what sort of gun did he have..." etc. is referring to the story about the Colorado Church. Did I understand you correctly?
I don't know how the young man with the gun got a hold of the gun. In fact, I don't know if the guns that he used were "freely available" to him. I don't know if he stole them, bought them, or was given them. I am sure it could be found out with some time reading news articles.
However he got them, I don't have any problem with laws that make providing someone who is a known danger with a weapon (nail guns, cars, guns, swords, knives, chemicals, etc.). The problem comes when folks try to say "because a disturbed person got a gun, therefore everyone needs to give up their right to own one." Doing anything to hinder the rights of the rest of us does not follow logically, as it appears that you are suggesting throughout this post.
-
-
Thirsty
No I was talking about the Columbine school tragedy. The Link I posted mentioned possession of high powered rifles etc.
If guns were not so easily available the tragedies on this scale wouldn't happen in my opinion.
If I wanted a gun I wouldn't know how to get hold of one.
I'm unsure why it was removed but the mods had their reasons.-
It was probably removed because they were disturbed children who used guns and not your average gun enthusiast, to draw a comparison between the two is ridiculous.
-
BernieSandwich,
Because a troubled person should not have a gun doesn't give you (or me) or the government the right to take guns away from un-troubled folks.
The argument "if guns were not so easily available tragedies on this scale wouldn't happen" will not be proven. The fewer people that have guns will only make the few criminals that do more dangerous.
And people will find other ways to kill. They did successfully for the 5,000+ years of history before guns. -
The Columbine kids got their guns ILLEGALLY and then proceeded to MAKE BOMBS in their garage ILLEGALLY, and then proceeded to carry the bombs, guns, and home made weapons onto a school campus ILLEGALLY...
Are you getting the picture?
There were loads of gun and bomb laws that they broke to do what they did. Obviously, the laws didn't work.
Matter of fact, criminals don't give a shit about gun laws. Hence, their impotence.
-
-
Surely the argument develops in to gun availability, type of gun available, gun security, license schemes, where were they trained, how were they trained, what checks were carried out on their suitability through temperament, mentality etc and and where did they get them from?
That they were disturbed children who could get access to high powered weapons causes greater concern and is more relevant in my opinion. -
"ThirstyJon
BernieSandwich,
Because a troubled person should not have a gun doesn't give you (or me) or the government the right to take guns away from un-troubled folks.
The argument "if guns were not so easily available tragedies on this scale wouldn't happen" will not be proven. The fewer people that have guns will only make the few criminals that do more dangerous.
And people will find other ways to kill. They did successfully for the 5,000+ years of history before guns."
The same right that makes you and me pay taxes. The same right that ensures that health and safety is enforced at work. The same right that makes car manufacturers fit safety devices. Sure people will find ways to kill but how many ways is there for a teenager to kill so many in a school with little chance of over powering him?
Like I said earlier - Flame throwers all around.-
Amazingly enough, "flame throwers" are legal.
Gun laws don't stop criminals - or the mentally insane - from using guns, killing people, or setting a house full of people on fire, using their mother as the wick (The latest crazy guy who went on a killing spree here did exactly that).
Making guns illegal for people who a re responsible and not crazy or criminals is counter productive. -
Bernie,
??????
I don't think you know what "rights" are.
-
-
Anok
That is a shallow logic in my opinion. I wonder how many of the massacres were carried out with illegal guns?
Have a read at the site below. It is genuinely very informative and factual.
www.gunguys.com/-
"We are, as N.Y. Times columnist Bob Herbert so aptly put it, A Culture Soaked in Blood.
“Americans are as blasé as can be about this relentless slaughter that keeps the culture soaked in blood.
This blasé attitude, this willful refusal to acknowledge the scope of the horror, leaves the gun nuts free to press their crazy case for more and more guns in ever more hands. They’re committed to keeping the killing easy, and we should be committed for not stopping them.”
Leadership is defined by tackling difficult problems and creating solutions to address them. Clearly America's gun violence epidemic is a serious challenge. What we need in response is bold leadership, and that can't happen soon enough."
www.gunguys.com/ -
Many "massacres" are carried out with illegally owned guns. Many drive by shootings, columbine-esque shootings, and insane people attained their weapons of choice illegally.
Owning a gun without going through the licensing/background checks is illegal.
Owning bombs of any kind is illegal (didn't stop the Columbine kids from making them though, did it?)
The use of a weapon to kill people not in self defense is an illegal act.
The carrying of a gun, in public, without the proper license to do so is illegal.
Illegal, illegal, illegal.
The gun crimes in YOUR country are also happening regardless of the fact that they're all illegal, illegal, illegal.
The gun crime in Switzerland doesn't exist - where all the guns are legal, legal, legal.
You call the argument shallow, I call it logic.
Don't punish ME because some crazy person decided to break the law. Maybe the next time some drunken asshole plows into a group of people with his car, you'll lobby to make cars illegal for everyone, because some nut got drunk and killed people.
Stop ignoring the logical arguments because you refuse to admit you might be wrong. -
Did you have a look at the link?
-
-
The gun nuts who are technically "nuts" scare me, which is why I own a gun to protect me from said nut. It's only been needed once, it saved my family's life and that one time is all the proof I need. Besides laws against guns only hurt those of us who follow the law, criminals don't care, that's what makes them criminals.-
How nice that Bernie wasn't in charge of things. If that were the case, you and your family wouldn't have been so fortunate.
-
-
You create and perpetuate the problem and blame me.
-
Cause' you're a sandwich, so you get eaten.
-
Oh really???
I didn't break into their house, I didn't threathen his family. How did I create the problem?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
