# Yep, here it comes - gun control lies front and center



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

I figured this would be oozing out of the woodwork following the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Once again, it's the evil gun to blame.  And if it's not the gun itself, it's the fact that if you pick up a gun, it forces you to become a cold-blooded killer, seeking someone to use it on.  It's impossible for you to own a gun and not want to kill someone with it.   Ask any gun-grabber.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...n-gun-rights-debate?google_editors_picks=true



> Trayvon Martin shooting: a turning point in gun rights debate?
> 
> For years, gun laws had grown less restrictive. But some gun rights advocacy has been curtailed after the Trayvon Martin shooting, which has provided ammunition for gun control groups.
> ...
> At some point, the progressives have got to stand their ground against the NRA, says Philip Cook, a sociologist who studies gun policy and crime at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. I think otherwise the NRA will continue to push for a broader interpretation of their understanding of what the Second Amendment right is, to the point where everybody pretty much can carry a gun, concealed or openly, all the time in any circumstance, and *do with it what they want.*



This is the usual anti-gun BS.  As the gun laws in the US have become more reflective of the intent of the Founders, gun violence has dropped.  Crime is down by huge amounts as well.  No one can claim this is entirely due to more citizens being armed, but it also cannot be claimed that the predicted bloodbaths happened either.  As more citizens have armed themselves, they have not become bloodthirsty savages, shooting first and asking questions later.

The statement above is reflective of the lies perpetuated by the anti-gun people, however.  _"...and do with it what they want."_ LIES!  Since when has that been true?  Since when?



> Gun control advocacy groups say the Trayvon shooting has given a lot of Americans pause about the expansion of concealed-carry rights  as many as 10 million Americans now have concealed carry permits, compared to a few hundred thousand a decade ago  and about the growing numbers of places where Americans can carry guns, including, in some states, restaurants, statehouses, even city parks.



Ten million Americans legally armed with concealed carry licenses.  Where is the carnage?  Where is the massive disregard for human life?   Oh, they're not committing any crimes?  Well, they are BAD PEOPLE anyway and they must be stopped!  It's important that they be unarmed victims of whatever criminal happens to want to prey upon them, don't you get that?



> The fact is that the exact scenarios that [gun rights] advocacy groups said would never happen do happen  that concealed carry handgun holders do kill and not just in self-defense situations, but in road rage, domestic shootings, arguments, and bar fights.



REALLY?  HOW MANY?  HOW MANY?  OUT OF 10 MILLION, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS?

I hate lies.  I really hate lies about guns by anti-gun people.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.

Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.



Do criminals have guns in your country?  They do here.



> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.



Like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure....heck, that whole freedom thing is completely overrated.


----------



## d1jinx (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.
> 
> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.



you cant appreciate what you never had.  you never grew up shooting or hunting.  you never participating in a shooting contest.  you never had a rifle or handgun past down to you from your father/grandfather etc.  you never had any of these things but then again you are not an american.  It was written into our constitution that our country is based on and it was the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT thing they wrote.

you cant understand that because you are not from here so its easy for you to assume its a "self indulgence".


----------



## d1jinx (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I figured this would be oozing out of the woodwork following the Trayvon Martin shooting. Once again, it's the evil gun to blame. And if it's not the gun itself, it's the fact that if you pick up a gun, it forces you to become a cold-blooded killer, seeking someone to use it on. It's impossible for you to own a gun and not want to kill someone with it. Ask any gun-grabber.
> ...I hate lies. I really hate lies about guns by anti-gun people.



Like anything, the "_I want to tell you how to live your life and cry about something I think is right_" will lay in the bushes waiting for another chance to stand up and say how right they are.

I can just as easily say Look how many automobiles killed inocent people and we need to ban all privately owned vehicles because they are dangerous. 

look for anything and you can find an excuse to BAN it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

Where is it you're from, Robin?  It'll help contextualise your stance.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Where is it you're from, Robin? It'll help contextualise your stance.



Maybe. This is a stance that could be contextuali*z*ed:



RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country [.where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.



There is no context for this though, since guns *aren't* any of those things, here in the U.S:



RobinTKD said:


> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.



It's simply uninformed and judgemental.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.
> 
> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.



You're coming from one cultural background; we're in a very different one.  As much diversity as there is within the UK -- it is still a largely homogenous culture.  The USA is probably at least 8 regional cultures alone (North East, Mid Atlantic, "Northern" Southern, Deep South, Southwest, Central/Heartland, Northwest, California).  That's without getting into things like racial/ethnic breakdowns...  Guns have been a part of US culture since the Colonial Era.  They were vital tools for survival, as well as protection.  Trying to control and take them away was one of the Intolerable Acts; it made the colonists controlled Subjects

But even simpler than any cultural issue is practicality.  We've got guns.  In some places (NYC, Chicago), the only people with guns are the law breakers.  Guess what?  All the gun control laws in the world won't make their guns go away.  There's a whole lot of truth in the old saw that "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."  Cops do their best -- but we don't have a police state.  Cops can't be everywhere, and we respect the right of the individual to secure their own safety, within reasonable bounds of law.


----------



## Wo Fat (Apr 20, 2012)

Nothing wrong with owning a gun(s).  And there's nothing wrong with using one to protect yourself in a real, mortally combative situation that you did not cause.

The problem isn't necessarily the gun itself.  The problem is the paranoia-induced proliferation and flooding the country with them.  From straw purchases, to sales to unstable individuals, to street purchases, to easy criminal access.


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2012)

What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped?  I don't know.  I remember when Congresswoman Giffords was shot in AZ, one of the guys who subdued the shooter had a CCW permit.  He didn't draw his gun and shoot into the crowd, and at the time I thought that it was good press for gun owners.  But in the context of this discussion, his gun was really a non-issue.  I mean, it didn't in any way help him or anyone else.   That he was armed was irrelevant to subduing the bad guy.  

So, how often does a personal firearm help?  

And before I get jumped, I'm not saying ban guns.  I am reacting strictly to Bill's argument that guns have a negative influence on situations in very few actual instances.  I'm simply asking whether the opposite is true.  Are guns ever or often a positive influence?   

I'm also genuinely asking the question.  It's not intended to be rhetorical or imply that they never help.  Simply put, are there statistics?  If so, I've never seen them.

Oh, and I'm also talking about on the street situations, not home invasion.  Those are, in my mind, cmopletely different animals.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped? .



Lots, Steve...just, *lots*.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped?  I don't know.  I remember when Congresswoman Giffords was shot in AZ, one of the guys who subdued the shooter had a CCW permit.  He didn't draw his gun and shoot into the crowd, and at the time I thought that it was good press for gun owners.  But in the context of this discussion, his gun was really a non-issue.  I mean, it didn't in any way help him or anyone else.   That he was armed was irrelevant to subduing the bad guy.
> 
> So, how often does a personal firearm help?



How often I'm not sure but they do. You could ask Paul Janulis (hard to find these days) about his encounter on the street. He is a VERY muscular individual (at least he was an intimidating figure at the time judging from his photos) and was the recipient of an attempted assault. The situation reached a point where he reached for his handgun (this particular instance he carried it on the right side of his low back (hip/rear waistband). *when he reached for the firearm, the attackers turned and ran*

I'm in a bit of a hurry ATM, so I'll have to find the link later if you'd like.  It's a good example of a thwarted attack because of the availability of a firearm.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 20, 2012)

Interesting comments from interesting people on this subject.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one." ~ Vladimir Lenin

"Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." ~ Mao Tse-Tung

"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 Gandhi

"There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period."
- Ted Nugent

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

"An armed society is a polite society."
- Robert Heinlein

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King

"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again; poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves."
- D. H. Lawrence


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Lots, Steve...just, *lots*.


  Page not found, but I can infer that the information is out there. 

Mastercole, I'd think that including quotes from guys like Lenin, Big Mao and even Ted Nugent don't do a lot to support the cause.

Regarding Gandhi and MLK Jr, they're both on record several times as distinguishing clearly between cowardice and non-violence, and a person incapable of defending himself or his family is very different than a person _unwilling _to do so.  And I agree very much with that.  

As for Freud, everything was a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.
> 
> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.




In England they took firearms away. So people started using longer blades. Then swords were taken away. Then Machete's and farm implements/tools. Then people started using kitchen knives. They too are illegal or let us say controlled. Chef's must be aware of where they are at all times and are responsible for them. 

So How many Chef's have gone on killing spree's with their blades? I have heard of none, but not being local I will grant I am not connected with the local news.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill, we also have "_Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure", w_e also have the freedom to walk our streets without the fear of being shot, which I would say is a much nicer freedom to have. And yes some of our criminals have guns, but mostly they carry knives, knives that are easier to conceal, that don't make a loud bang when used against someone, and are easier for people to obtain. Isn't this why we train in self defence?

Culture isn't an argument _for_ guns, Christ it shouldn't be used as an argument for anything. Ever.

Yes I'm from the UK as some of you already guessed, even our police don't carry firearms, and *gasp* many of them do their job without being attacked with weapons!


----------



## billc (Apr 20, 2012)

Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/



> Bailout recipient Bank of America has severed relations with an American company because of a reported bias against their industry. McMillan Group International released an extraordinary statement on Facebook regarding the incident:
> McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an account analysis meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent five minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last five years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
> At this point I interrupted him and asked Can I possible save you some time so that you dont waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.
> ADVERTISEMENT​
> ...


----------



## billc (Apr 20, 2012)

As to gun crimes in the U.K., the author is John Stossel...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1#.T5HJJnhqOFI



> After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.
> But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.
> Might stricter gun laws result in _more_ gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.
> England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."



The following source is not unbiased but the claims should be easy to verify...

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm



> * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4



And from the BBC on gun crimes...

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



> Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
> The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
> But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?








> > It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
> > But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
> > You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
> > Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
> > When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.



More from the U.K. and the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm



> The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
> It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.
> Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
> And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.
> ...


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> As to gun crimes in the U.K., the author is John Stossel...
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1#.T5HJJnhqOFI
> 
> ...




How would introducing guns to the general public stop any of those crimes from happening? They'd only add to it.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

Understand, I'm not advocating that the UK arm everyone, or allow everyone to be armed, or have guns at all-how you conduct yourselves in your country is your business,_just as how we do things here in our country is our business._

However



RobinTKD said:


> How would introducing guns to the general public stop any of those crimes from happening? They'd only add to it.



Experience here demonstrates otherwise:



> Sitting at his kitchen table, a long-time NRA member and competitive shooter was alarmed when a masked intruder walked through the front door wielding a knife. &#8220;Who the [expletive] are you?&#8221; the NRA member demanded, but the intruder just mumbled something and progressed toward him. The NRA member grabbed for the intruder&#8217;s knife hand, receiving lacerations. He continued struggling with the intruder with his left hand, and reached into his pocket with his right, drawing a .38-cal. revolver. &#8220;Get the [expletive] out of here or I&#8217;m going to shoot you!&#8221; the NRA member shouted. The intruder backed away, saying, &#8220;I&#8217;m an alcoholic; I&#8217;m not going to get shot over this.&#8221; He fled the scene. (_Walla Walla Union-Bulletin_, Walla Walla, WA, 03/30/11) When a noise woke an 84-year-old grandmother, she noticed her hall light was on and knew something was awry. The sharp-thinking, independent woman opened a nightstand drawer and quickly grabbed her .38-cal. revolver. &#8220;My mind told me to get that gun,&#8221; she explained. No sooner had she done so than an intruder appeared at the bedroom door. The woman fired a shot, striking the wall. The intruder ran out the back door, which he had kicked in. (_KTVU-TV_, Oakland, CA, 03/03/11)​Denard Joe was stopped in his car at an intersection when a man wearing a red bandana tapped on the window and pointed a gun at him. Big mistake. Joe, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew a handgun and opened fire through the window, striking his assailant twice in the chest. The carjacker, who had just been released from state prison last November, ran a short distance and then died. (_The Ledger_, Lakeland, FL, 04/06/11)​Home alone in his two-story house, a man heard a knock at his door. Glancing out the window, he saw three men sneak around to the back sliding door. The sound of breaking glass made it clear that the men were entering the house. The homeowner went upstairs, locked himself in a bedroom and got his gun. At least one of the burglars approached the bedroom door and was about to enter when the resident opened fire, killing him. The other burglars fled, one of whom was nabbed by a responding officer&#8217;s police dog. (_The News Tribune_, Tacoma, WA, 04/05/11)​Church Minister Kimani Wright and his young son interrupted a burglary as they returned home one morning. Wright saw the burglar, who was armed, and immediately drew a handgun and opened fire. Glass shattered as bullets struck the front door. The burglar wisely ran away. According to police, the intruder was not struck. Neither Wright nor his son were injured. (_The Fayetteville Observer_, Fayetteville, NC, 04/21/11)​&#8220;You&#8217;re not supposed to knock old people down &#8230; I&#8217;m too old to be going through all that!&#8221; said 83-year-old James Brooks after a hair-raising burglary incident. It began when a man knocked on the door, claimed to have lost his cell phone and inquired whether Brooks had seen it. Soon after, a second man knocked on the door. &#8220;He told me to go sit on the couch because he didn&#8217;t want to kill me,&#8221; Brooks recalled. At first he thought the suspect was joking, but his intent to do harm quickly became clear. As the suspect attempted to lift Brooks&#8217; television, Brooks saw his opportunity to retrieve a firearm. He fired a shot, wounding the suspect, who fled the scene with the assistance of two accomplices. Brooks said he&#8217;s lived in the neighborhood for more than 25 years and never had anything like this happen. &#8220;These young people have got their whole lives to live, why spoil it?&#8221; Brooks asked rhetorically. &#8220;I&#8217;m thinking [the suspect] got the message.&#8221; (_Dayton Daily News_, Dayton, OH, 04/30/11)​A woman and her husband pleaded with a man to quit attempting to break into their home. As the woman dialed 9-1-1, the suspect banged on the front door and shattered the surrounding glass. The husband shouted that he was armed with a rifle&#8212;he even fired two warning shots in an attempt to halt the break-in&#8212;but the suspect forced the door open anyway. As he entered the home, the husband fired a single shot from his .22-cal. rifle. The suspect was shot once in the chest and killed. (_The World_, Coos Bay, OR, 04/08/11)​​For more EXCLUSIVE Armed Citizen stories, including from the Armed Citizen archives, and to comment on these stories, go to The Armed Citizen Blog.Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property. Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts. Send clippings to:*&#8221;The Armed Citizen,&#8221; *11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030-9400Or e-mail your Armed Citizen story to armedcitizen@nrahq.org If you have a firsthand* &#8221;Armed Citizen&#8221;* experience, call NRA-ILA PR/Communications at (703) 267-1193​



The NRA collects and publishes stories like these in its magazines, "American Rifleman," and "American Hunter" *every month*


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Understand, I'm not advocating that the UK arm everyone, or allow everyone to be armed, or have guns at all-how you conduct yourselves in your country is your business,_just as how we do things here in our country is our business._
> 
> However
> 
> ...



Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.


----------



## Wo Fat (Apr 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/



{chuckle}.  One socially irresponsible institution being critical of another.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 20, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> It was written into our constitution that our country is based on and it was the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT thing they wrote.



The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution. 
I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each. 
I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry. 
I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above. 



Sent from my iPhone using TapaTalk.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.




It *is* unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms _in the U.S._


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> It *is* unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms _in the U.S._



I'd say it's the best reason to, people obviously cant be trusted with them over there. Look at Canada, more guns _per head _yet only a tiny fraction of the gun crime.

To be honest, it didn't bother me until 2 British lads got shot killed in Florida for wandering into 'the wrong neighbourhood'. Is this the dark ages? Should we start attacking people with pitchforks and axes for wandering onto our land?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

If it's not a question you'd prefer not to answer, Robin, how old are you?  Also, did you grow up in the town or in the country?

Both of those factors will have coloured your views quite considerably on this issue.  

I'm nearly fifty and was born in a small market town out in the green bits .  For me, learning to shoot was as natural a part of my life as learning to ride a bicycle or building a go-kart and, as a result, I have a lot of sympathy for our American cousins here who are passionate about retaining their right to bear arms for whatever lawful pursuit they wish.  I grew up before guns became irrationally demonised and before they became some substitute for manhood amongst the gangs that are fed by the drugs trade, so I don't reflexively see them as being evil.  

That same feeling goes for my katana - how long I'll have before the Nanny state decides they're too dangerous for me to own and train with I have no idea.

Oh ... and Elder ... I'll spell my native language in the native way thanks all the same .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped?



Compare and contrast the number of legally-armed citizens on any given day in the US (the estimate was 10 million, I believe?) to the number of people those legally-armed citizens have hurt on any given day.

The question "what good have they done" is the wrong question.  The real question should be "why would we restrict a legal activity that is not causing major problems?"

I routinely carry a small pocketknife in my pocket.  I seldom need it, but it's a personal choice and it is there if I do have call for it.  Why would any logical person want to restrict my right to carry it, even though it normally does me no good at all?

It's the same with a legally concealed weapon.  One might note that you can't shoot up a parking garage or a barroom with a pocketknife but you can with a gun.  Quite true.  But from the 10 million legal weapon carriers in the USA, and the relative dearth of shootings by legally-registered concealed carry owners, I can state with some degree of confidence that the pocket knife and the legally-concealed handgun have about the same degree of risk to the general public.

It's the same argument I have with those in favor of photo ID for voting.  They tout the potential risk of abuse.  But there is no actual abuse, so there is no need to enact stricter laws.  Potential means nothing if not actualized.  The same is true of legal carry in the US.  There is no problem; no one can point to a systemic problem or an epidemic of violence by legal concealed carry owners.  Therefore there is no need of a cure for a problem that does not exist.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution.
> I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each.
> I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry.
> I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above.
> ...



Minor correction:  The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution.  It's the first 10 Amendments -- or additions -- to the Constitution.  That's why other amendments can alter what the main body says (see the 12th and 22nd Amendments, for example.)

I do agree that the order doesn't really have anything to do with the relative importance of each amendment.  The Bill of Rights, as a whole, was demanded as part of the ratification process of the Constitution; all 10 were added at the same time, and all 10 were things that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to spell out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Bill, we also have "_Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure", w_e also have the freedom to walk our streets without the fear of being shot, which I would say is a much nicer freedom to have. And yes some of our criminals have guns, but mostly they carry knives, knives that are easier to conceal, that don't make a loud bang when used against someone, and are easier for people to obtain. Isn't this why we train in self defence?



But we have quite a few criminals with guns here.  Why should they be armed and we not?  As most are aware, legal bans on things don't seem to stop the criminals getting them.



> Culture isn't an argument _for_ guns, Christ it shouldn't be used as an argument for anything. Ever.
> 
> Yes I'm from the UK as some of you already guessed, even our police don't carry firearms, and *gasp* many of them do their job without being attacked with weapons!



But put them in downtown Detroit and they'd be dead in a day.  So perhaps culture does matter.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> If it's not a question you'd prefer not to answer, Robin, how old are you?  Also, did you grow up in the town or in the country?
> 
> Both of those factors will have coloured your views quite considerably on this issue.
> 
> ...



I'm 25 which is young I know, and I grew up in, and live in the country. I've fired at a fair few clays myself, and gone hunting with a couple of party's before.

The difference is, we hunt with rifles and shoot clays with shotguns, neither are going to be easily concealed, and we don't have this nonsense of carrying them for 'self defence'. The same should be said of your (and mine as I currently have 3 antiques on the wall) Katana. I don't carry them for self defence, I have no pretensions that they can or should be used for self defence, and even if i did, how would you get away with carrying a long blade like that?


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But we have quite a few criminals with guns here.  Why should they be armed and we not?  As most are aware, legal bans on things don't seem to stop the criminals getting them.
> 
> 
> 
> But put them in downtown Detroit and they'd be dead in a day.  So perhaps culture does matter.



My answer to both your points is that your country is too far gone, firearms are way too ingrained into your culture for it to ever find a serious solution. That's why hundreds of people will wrongly lose there lives every year, because whether legally or illegally, there are too many guns too easily attainable in the US.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well I'm glad you presented us with such unbiased journalistic information. I'm pretty sure for every story the NRA print about people effectively defending themselves with firearms, there's another 15 stories about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm, or a story about someone shooting the wrong person, maybe even a friend or family member, when trying to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm.



You can assume that if you like; FBI statistics say it isn't so.  In fact, Google News provides the information on a daily basis for those interested enough to look for themselves.

http://www.ksat.com/news/2-elderly-people-targeted-for-home-invasions/-/478452/11182248/-/d81gne/-/

Let's take this one from one day ago. Two elderly people, who live around the corner from each other and even go to church together, both had their front doors kicked in on the same night (might it have been the same person?).  In the first home invasion, the homeowner was shot three times by the burglar as he menacingly laid in bed, posing a huge threat to the burglar by being in his own home angrily sleeping in a very threatening way.  Poor burglar, of course he shot the man several time, who wouldn't?

In the neighbor's house, she got up and took a shot at the burglar, who fled.

Hmmm.

I really don't think this sort of thing needs lots of discussion.  It speaks for itself.

Hmmm.  Lay in bed and let the bad guy shoot you.  Or, take action and try to stop them, by firing your weapon at them, and they run away.  Hmmm.  Gee, this is a tough one.  Let me think...



> &#8220;He said he thought he surprised the suspects,&#8221; said Capt. Cris Andersen, SAPD&#8217;s Night Watch commander. &#8220;One of the suspects fired at least three shots at the man as he was lying in bed.&#8221;





> Fannie Mae Brown, 89, said she woke up around 1 a.m. to find a man in her home in the 400 block of Como Street.
> 
> "I decided, 'I got to shoot. I have no alternative because they're not in here for (anything other than to do her harm),'" Brown said.
> 
> The gunshot missed the burglar, but did scare him off.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> My answer to both your points is that your country is too far gone, firearms are way too ingrained into your culture for it to ever find a serious solution. That's why hundreds of people will wrongly lose there lives every year, because whether legally or illegally, there are too many guns too easily attainable in the US.



In that case, it hardly matters whether or not the country restricts legal ownership of guns by citizens.  So we'll just carry on then, if it's OK with you, that is.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

Ah I see, Robin.  I hadn't realised that you were focussed particularly on concealed handguns rather than firearms in general - my bad for not reading the whole thread through again .

I understand your position on the notion of carrying a pistol for self-defence here in Britain and feel much the same way in the context of our culture - but American's have a rather different culture and perspective on this.  In their own context, I think that they have a pretty good point (tho I do agree about the seemingly out of kilter figures for violence involving firearms there).


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You can assume that if you like; FBI statistics say it isn't so.  In fact, Google News provides the information on a daily basis for those interested enough to look for themselves.
> 
> http://www.ksat.com/news/2-elderly-people-targeted-for-home-invasions/-/478452/11182248/-/d81gne/-/
> 
> ...



Refer to my post above. And not once did I try and sympathise with criminals.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In that case, it hardly matters whether or not the country restricts legal ownership of guns by citizens.  So we'll just carry on then, if it's OK with you, that is.



No it's not, and it shouldn't be with anyone who can rub two braincells together and form the slightest bit of common sense.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Ah I see, Robin.  I hadn't realised that you were focussed particularly on concealed handguns rather than firearms in general - my bad for not reading the whole thread through again .
> 
> I understand your position on the notion of carrying a pistol for self-defence here in Britain and feel much the same way in the context of our culture - but American's have a rather different culture and perspective on this.  In their own context, I think that they have a pretty good point (tho I do agree about the seemingly out of kilter figures for violence involving firearms there).



That's my fault, I'm not sure i did specify against handguns or concealed weapons.

The figures aren't just out of kilter, if you look at the numbers alone, you'd think that the whole of the US was a Favella straight out of Rio de Janeiro


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The Bill of Rights is not actually part of the constitution.
> I also question how it can be established that the order in which the amendments were adopted had anything to do with the relative importance of each.
> I don't disagree with your position. I am a CCW and routinely carry.
> I do question the factual basis of what you've stated above.
> ...



As noted, the Bill of Rights are the first ten of the current larger number of Amendments to the Constitution, and are therefore part of it.  Just not part of the original document.

As to the precedence of the numbering system, I agree that the 2nd Amendment is not therefore the 2nd in importance.  However, in the 'dark years' of heavy gun restrictions, when many citizens argued that gun ownership wasn't even an individual right of citizens, much research was done; even anti-gun historians finally gave it up as a bad job; the historical record simply abounds with direct statements made in newspapers, private letters, and written speeches of the day by various original founding members of our nation; they spoke with more or less one voice and said clearly that it was their intent that every man of good character be armed.  That's what they meant, that's what they said, and the SCOTUS has finally ruled that indeed, it is an individual right and not a 'militia' right.  That whole line of argument is done; even the gun-grabbers don't use it now.  It's like scorched earth for them.


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> It *is* unbiased. The NRA collects those stories from newspaper accounts around the country. I'm also pretty sure that the number of stories "about a random shooting by someone with a fully legal firearm," or shooting the wrong person, is nowhere near the amount you surmise, but even if it were, that would be no reson to prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms _in the U.S._


It's biased in that it creates an impression that is misleading.  Were a site to collect any news clippings to the contrary it would give the same impression.  It certainly happens enough.  

I've actually posted the CDC figures on _accidental _gun shot wounds and deaths.  2010 figures were over 14,000 unintentional firearms related injuries and something like 550 deaths.  While I guess it's possible that some of these were accidents with illegally owned guns, I'd bet most (if not all) of these incidents occurred with legally purchased firearms.  

In 2009, there were over 30,000 firearm deaths, all reasons included, but almost 20,000 of those were suicides.  

I don't know how many crimes are committed with legally owned weapons, but I'd guess quite a few.  The AZ shooting of Congresswoman Giffords was with a legally purchased firearm, for example.  And there are an alarming number of criminal negligence/manslaughter/murder charges in the State of Washington where a legal gun owner fails to secure his weapon and a child ends up shooting himself or someone else with it.  We've had three just in the last few months.  

Ultimately, I think that there's an interest on both sides to make the case as severe as possible.  On the part of the NRA and gun lobby, there is an interest in implying that all crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.  This isn't the case.  Neither, however, is it the case that they are all legally owned.   The truth is somewhere in the middle, and statistics are hard to find, and I believe that this is intentional, as the truth doesn't serve either position.  

Banning guns isn't the answer, IMO, but jesus can't we get a better handle on regulating these things?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> No it's not, and it shouldn't be with anyone who can rub two braincells together and form the slightest bit of common sense.



I'll keep your objection in mind, then.


----------



## rframe (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> I'm 25...



You sure know a lot about what is best for others at that ripe old age.

I can introduce you to two people who live close to me who've used concealed handguns to stop violent crime in the past year.  One is a 90lb barrista who stopped an attacker at her coffee shop.  The other is the owner of a sandwich shop who stopped a man who was mugging a woman at knife point outside his store.  But... I guess they are just gun-toting yahoo's in your book.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

I sympathise with your views on this, Steve, and quite agree that there is nothing more abused than statistics.  I do reckon tho that it is not the guns that need regulating but the training and habits of those that own them.  I have only ever accidentally discharged a weapon once ... and that was on my 'try out' for my university rifle club team .  I didn't take my finger off the unexpectedly light trigger when adjusting my prone position on the range and the CLANG!!!! of that round smacking into the target frame is a sound I've never forgotten :double blush.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I* I do reckon tho that it is not the guns that need regulating but the training and habits of those that own them*. .



And  I soooo agree with this-far too many people purchase a firearm "for protection" and don't get proper-and widely available-training.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

Gents, give Robin a bit of a break on this.  He's grown up under very different circumstances than yourselves and has been bombarded with the "guns are evil in and of themselves" message all his life (reinforced by the abuse of guns by drug gangs often reported in the news).

Robin, just a quick reminder that a lot of the responders in this thread are either serving or ex police officers and army/marines - so they are going to have a very negative reaction to someone, who they will perceive as an inexperienced outsider, out of the blue giving such strong opinions on a subject that means a great deal to them.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

rframe said:


> You sure know a lot about what is best for others at that ripe old age.
> 
> I can introduce you to two people who live close to me who've used concealed handguns to stop violent crime in the past year.  One is a 90lb barrista who stopped an attacker at her coffee shop.  The other is the owner of a sandwich shop who stopped a man who was mugging a woman at knife point outside his store.  But... I guess they are just gun-toting yahoo's in your book.



I'm sorry for being so young, I'll go back to my colouring books now shall I?

If the guns were never legal in the first place, they would be harder to obtain both legally and illegally, therefore, your friends would probably never have had to defend themselves from a firearm, with a firearm.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Robin, just a quick reminder that a lot of the responders in this thread are either serving or ex police officers and army/marines - so they are going to have a very negative reaction to someone, who they will perceive as an inexperienced outsider, out of the blue giving such strong opinions on a subject that means a great deal to them.



Or, like me, someone from a "gun family," who has hunted and shot almost all his life, and whose family had and carried guns for self defense because-for a variety of cultural reasons-they couldn't always depend on the system to do it for them. 

I mean, my grandfather wrote articles for "Field and Stream," _right up until they found out he wasn't white._ :lol:

Here's one of the first threads I posted on Martial Talk:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> In Monroe, North Carolina, in 1957, the Monroe chapter of the NAACP was under constant threat and harassment by the Ku Klux Klan. They were trying to exercise their constitutional rights to speak out, to assemble, to vote, to associate with one another, and the Klan were armed, and using those arms to illegally intimidate them. The Klan had set about driving through black neighborhoods and firing guns at homes.
> 
> So the Monroe chapter of the NAACP decided to exercise another of their civil liberties-the right to keep and bear arms. They received firearms training, and when the Klan came around again, they ran right into the Second Amendment. The Klan fired, and that fire was returned in a fight they had no stomach for. The terrorists failed, because one right prevailed.
> 
> Second amendment opponents and apologists, and citizens of certain European countries, offer grim statistics, and lay them at the foot of the Second Amendment. I, too, can offer those same statistics as gruesome proof of the failure of reliance on laws that do nothing more than restrict the rights of law-abiding people, and do nothing to disarm criminals or thwart criminal attack.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Gents, give Robin a bit of a break on this.  He's grown up under very different circumstances than yourselves and has been bombarded with the "guns are evil in and of themselves" message all his life (reinforced by the abuse of guns by drug gangs often reported in the news).


It's OK, I'm enjoying the discussion.



Sukerkin said:


> Robin, just a quick reminder that a lot of the responders in this thread are either serving or ex police officers and army/marines - so they are going to have a very negative reaction to someone, who they will perceive as an inexperienced outsider, out of the blue giving such strong opinions on a subject that means a great deal to them.



I can understand the military side of it, both my Dad and Brother are ex forces, my brother served 3 tours of Iraq and 2 tours of Afghanistan, my Dad fought in the Falklands. My point is essentially this. They carry guns for self defence, yet if they were never legal _to begin with_ then there wouldn't need for that, as they would be as hard to obtain illegally as they are in the UK. Of course it won't stop them completely, but enough so that you're not worried about getting shot whenever you lave your house after dark.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

Here's an article from a British source that covers just how easy it is to obtain an illegal firearm in our country, thus, sadly, showing that making such-and-such a thing illegal has no affect on it's availability to those with no respect for the law in the first place:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Or, like me, someone from a "gun family," who has hunted and shot almost all his life, and whose family had and carried guns for self defense because-for a variety of cultural reasons-they couldn't always depend on the system to do it for them.



Just in case you missed it, It's handguns/concealed guns that i'm talking about here. I have hunted and shot for sport myself, but we hunt with rifles and shoot clays with shotguns (as i'm sure you do), not the type of weapons you can just carry around unnoticed.


----------



## rframe (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> If the guns were never legal in the first place, they would be harder to obtain both legally and illegally, therefore, your friends would probably never have had to defend themselves from a firearm, with a firearm.



Yeah, because making things illegal has always made them so hard to obtain.  I mean, there's alcohol during prohibition... oh wait, ok bad example.  But, there's narcotics... oh well, nevermind that one.  Uhhhm prostitu.... oh heck, nevermind... I give up.

In the second case, the man was defending another innocent woman who was being attacked by a knife.  Are you planning to outlaw those?  Just curious.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Here's an article from a British source that covers just how easy it is to obtain an illegal firearm in our country, thus, sadly, showing that making such-and-such a thing illegal has no affect on it's availability to those with no respect for the law in the first place:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1



I've seen this before, isn't it funny though how we still haven't had a massive surge in guns and gun crime on the street?

Also those 'converted replica's' often backfire, making them as dangerous to the user as they are to the intended victim.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

rframe said:


> Yeah, because making things illegal has always made them so hard to obtain.  I mean, there's alcohol during prohibition... oh wait, ok bad example.  But, there's narcotics... oh well, nevermind that one.  Uhhhm prostitu.... oh heck, nevermind... I give up.
> 
> In the second case, the man was defending another innocent woman who was being attacked by a knife.  Are you planning to outlaw those?  Just curious.



How in the hell do you think almost every other country in the world copes without handguns? As Sukerkin posted above, illegal handguns aren't that hard to obtain in the UK, yet people aren't being shot everyday, people aren't suddenly calling for them to be legalised so we can all defend ourselves against them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2012)

:nods:  I certainly agree on your second point in post#51 about the dangers of such converted pistols, Robin.  

As to your first, I confess that I have not looked for any statistics in the past couple of years and the visible news focus switched to the up-tick in knife crime instead.  As the media is ever wont to do, it reports things in waves, making us think that something is an unstoppable torrent and rousing public opinion ... then they move on to something else.  So I am perhaps a bit out of date with my facts.

But I do have to say guns have always been available here.  Being a biker (of the 'rocker' sort rather than the 'Outlaw' kind), in my younger days I used to hang around in places where there were 'unsavoury' types and I saw with my own eyes the prevalence of firearms and their use in macho posturing or 'compliance assurance'.

So I ponder whether the problem is really worse in terms of the guns that are around or whether it is the culture of their use that has changed?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Just in case you missed it, It's handguns/concealed guns that i'm talking about here. I have hunted and shot for sport myself, but we hunt with rifles and shoot clays with shotguns (as i'm sure you do), not the type of weapons you can just carry around unnoticed.



I've shot deer, rabbits, squirrels and coyote with a handgun.

I wouldn't dream of using anything else for feral hog, except perhaps a knife or bow-just a little more sporting that way....:lol:

My wife and I also carry pistols in the field against bears and mountain lions-not that I'd ever enjoy killing a bear,nor am i likely to even see the mountain lion that decides I look tasty. Being able to carry concealed also makes us less off-putting to people we might encounter on the trail....


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I've shot deer, rabbits, squirrels and coyote with a handgun.
> 
> I wouldn't dream of using anything else for feral hog, except perhaps a knife or bow-just a little more sporting that way....:lol:
> 
> My wife and I also carry pistols in the field against bears and mountain lions-not that I'd ever enjoy killing a bear,nor am i likely to even see the mountain lion that decides I look tasty. Being able to carry concealed also makes us less off-putting to people we might encounter on the trail....


I hunt Rabbits with a catapult 

I'll admit that's an area that I hadn't considered. But then I'm not really sure that derailing the topic into large predator behaviour is really the way to go.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> :nods:  I certainly agree on your second point in post#51 about the dangers of such converted pistols, Robin.
> 
> As to your first, I confess that I have not looked for any statistics in the past couple of years and the visible news focus switched to the up-tick in knife crime instead.  As the media is ever wont to do, it reports things in waves, making us think that something is an unstoppable torrent and rousing public opinion ... then they move on to something else.  So I am perhaps a bit out of date with my facts.
> 
> ...


 You're definitely right about the media, again, if we believed everything we heard, we'd expect people to be knifed left right and centre. I'm also aware of the huge gun crime that existed in the late 80's early 90's, especially centred around Manchester and South London, but all praise to the law enforcement, they managed to curb it, get rid of a lot of the guns, and reduce the amount of firearm related crime.

I've no doubt that there are more Illegal firearms in the UK right now than there has been in at least 20 years, but it doesn't seem to equate to more shootings.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> I'm sorry for being so young, I'll go back to my colouring books now shall I?



I'm about to settle down with my Friday evening cartoons, so why not?  I believe I have a recorded episode of "Young Justice" and "Transformers" to watch.



> If the guns were never legal in the first place, they would be harder to obtain both legally and illegally, therefore, your friends would probably never have had to defend themselves from a firearm, with a firearm.



Yes, very true.  And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

The fact is, we in the USA have had a culture of private gun ownership since dot.  There is literally no way to collect up all the guns.  That leaves the option of having armed criminals and armed citizens, or armed criminals and disarmed citizens.  There is no scenario under which both would be disarmed.  So the only question is whether or not the victims will be permitted to defend themselves.


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, very true.  And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
> 
> The fact is, we in the USA have had a culture of private gun ownership since dot.  There is literally no way to collect up all the guns.  That leaves the option of having armed criminals and armed citizens, or armed criminals and disarmed citizens.  There is no scenario under which both would be disarmed.  So the only question is whether or not the victims will be permitted to defend themselves.



We've come to the inevitable point where we have started arguing the same point. I never offered a solution, only to say that it was ridiculous to find yourself (the generic 'yourself' there, not you personally Bill) in such a situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> We've come to the inevitable point where we have started arguing the same point. I never offered a solution, only to say that it was ridiculous to find yourself (the generic 'yourself' there, not you personally Bill) in such a situation.



I've had that discussion.  One of my in-laws was quite angry one night and shouting about why we were in Iraq.  It was all bogus, hoked up, faked evidence and so on. 

My response was that I do not know what led to it, but we're there now.  What does he propose we do?

"That's not my department," he shouted.  Ah, a problem that makes him angry but he has no idea what should be done about it.  Well, let's all have a good shout then, shall we?

I will put pencils up my nose and go 'wibble' but it won't fix anything.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> I hunt Rabbits with a catapult
> 
> I'll admit that's an area that I hadn't considered. But then I'm not really sure that derailing the topic into large predator behaviour is really the way to go.



I regularly get visits from bears and mountain lions-bears on my front porch-_really!_


----------



## Haakon (Apr 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> What are the numbers where a gun has actually helped? ...
> So, how often does a personal firearm help?
> 
> And before I get jumped, I'm not saying ban guns.  I am reacting strictly to Bill's argument that guns have a negative influence on situations in very few actual instances.  I'm simply asking whether the opposite is true.  Are guns ever or often a positive influence?
> ...



Depending on if you believe the study or not, guns are used millions of times a year to prevent violence.
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

If you exclude suicide firearm deaths that means guns are used to save life and limb about 170x more often than people are killed by them.

The people who want to ban guns don't believe any of these studies at all, of course those people have also been known to count people up to age 24 as "children" to skew their statistics.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I regularly get visits from bears and mountain lions-bears on my front porch-_really!_



Just yesterday, I shot a mountain lion in my pajamas...


----------



## rframe (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> How in the hell do you think almost every other country in the world copes without handguns?



Cope without?  They dont, they all have them.  But those that dont value the concept of liberty (allowing individuals the choice to legally use inanimate amoral objects and hold them responsible for their choices) simply make it a crime to be a gun owner so that the only people who own guns are criminals... brilliant solution.

Really, you're not schooling anyone.


----------



## Haakon (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I regularly get visits from bears and mountain lions-bears on my front porch-_really!_



Me too, I haven't seen a mountain lion (neighbor has though) but it's common to have bears in the yard and while black bears are usually pretty timid they aren't all the time.
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/sep/18/man-at-harborview-after-bear-attack-near-lake/


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> "Northern" Southern.



You forgot Country Western and Eastern Western...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Robin, just a quick reminder that a lot of the responders in this thread are either serving or ex police officers and army/marines



None of those nancy boy sailors or air farcemen...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I've shot deer, rabbits, squirrels and coyote with a handgun.
> 
> I wouldn't dream of using anything else for feral hog, except perhaps a knife or bow-just a little more sporting that way....:lol:
> 
> My wife and I also carry pistols in the field against bears and mountain lions-not that I'd ever enjoy killing a bear,nor am i likely to even see the mountain lion that decides I look tasty. Being able to carry concealed also makes us less off-putting to people we might encounter on the trail....



Buddy of mine hunts wild boar with a 10 inch knife, but, he carries a 1911 while doing so...
BTW, the whole hunting big mean wild boars with knives is friggin NUTS!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I regularly get visits from bears and mountain lions-bears on my front porch-_really!_



If it is on your porch, shooting it wouldn't be poaching, would it?
How does mountain lion taste?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just yesterday, I shot a mountain lion in my pajamas...



How it got in your pajamas we'll never know


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> My answer to both your points is that your country is too far gone, firearms are way too ingrained into your culture for it to ever find a serious solution. That's why hundreds of people will wrongly lose there lives every year, because whether legally or illegally, there are too many guns too easily attainable in the US.



But I thought culture wasn't an answer...  

Something to remember is that we're all discussing this from an emotional point of view at least as much as a logical one -- and the emotional POV tends to overwhelm the logical. 

I mentioned homogeneity earlier.  I know several current or recently retired British law enforcement officers, including those on the gun response units.  (Sorry; the proper name for those units escapes me at the moment.)  There's a lot of common experiences -- but I don't think any of us think that we could do the job in our respective jurisdictions the same way it's done in the other.  I know; kind of a confusing statement.  In the English system, there's currently enough social pressure to really allow the cops there to do things unarmed; we don't have that here.  Social pressure here in the States is almost towards rebellion and pushing back.  I think if you put three Brits together, they'd automatically form a line or queue...  Put three people from the US together, and I think their instinct would be towards a mob.

Guns are here.  Guns are part of our culture and society, in big ways and small ways.  We can't make them go away with laws.  Maybe one day we'll all "grow up" and leave violence behind... I don't know.  But until we all do -- cops here will need guns.  And people will have the right to have guns of their own to protect themselves when the cops can't be there.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 20, 2012)

Me, I live in the Unites States of America (USA).  I have carried a handgun since I was a child, I carry one today, everywhere I go. It's very natural to have one on me at all times. It's been that way in my family for hundreds of years. 

As far as taking the guns away from Americans, that will never happen. Owning guns and carrying guns is ingrained in the fabric of who we are and what we are.  Bottom line is that no one will ever take our guns away from us, but, as in the past, some may die trying.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And  I soooo agree with this-far too many people purchase a firearm "for protection" and don't get proper-and widely available-training.



This -- I agree with.  I'd personally like to see a mandatory safety course (BRIEF! -- like an hour or two) before you can make your first purchase (or maybe just accept delivery) of a gun -- or maybe just for ammo purchases, since without ammo, a gun is just a paperweight.  More extensive courses, like NRA training classes, hunter safety classes, police/military firearms instruction, or even Boy Scout/Girl Scout merit badges, if you can document it, would also satisfy and eliminate that requirement.  I'm really talking grinding in the Cardinal Rules of Firearm Safety, and home safety issues, along with what to do if the gun gets lost or stolen.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The fact is, we in the USA have had a culture of private gun ownership since dot.  There is literally no way to collect up all the guns.  That leaves the option of having armed criminals and armed citizens, or armed criminals and disarmed citizens.  There is no scenario under which both would be disarmed.  So the only question is whether or not the victims will be permitted to defend themselves.



Just an aside... there is literally no way to round up all of the guns short of some sort of enforced, house to house, bush to bush (literally; I can't tell you how many guns are hidden, either by those who are afraid of their seizure, or those who can't legally possess them) search.  Registration is far from total; in Virginia, you don't have to register handguns or rifles unless the feds demand it.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just yesterday, I shot a mountain lion in my pajamas...



Why, whatever was the mountain lion doing in your pajamas?  (I ask, obligatorily...)


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You forgot Country Western and Eastern Western...



Hey, there are significant differences up here in Virginia -- especially close to MD -- versus somewhere like South Carolina or Georgia.  Hell, Florida could probably be considered a culture unto itself...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Hey, there are significant differences up here in Virginia -- especially close to MD


That would be the Washington D.C. area? It should be a region unto itself, jackassarea...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/



That is short sighted, (Gun pun intended) gun companies are about the only companies that have flourished under Obama...


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 20, 2012)

I see both sides of the fence when it comes to gun ownership.  I do not have an issue with responsible gun owners and do not think thier right to own a gun should be taken away.  However, there are many gun owners that are not responsible.  For every story of a responsible gun owner protecting himself/herself and others from criminals, we see stories of people being hurt or killed through the irresponsible acts of other gun owners.  In good concious I cannot say the responsible good owner should lose his right to gun ownership over the stupidity of other gun owners, but at the same time the innocent should not have to suffer because of those that are stupid.

That means there needs to be some common sense regulations, that both gun owners and non-owners can agree upon.  Perhaps a good start would be closing some of the loop holes in purchasing guns, such as flea market or gun show type events.  Hand guns are made for one purpose, killing of human beings. That is fine if in self defence, but that is a huge responsibility to entrust to a person without giving them any training.  So perhaps a mandatory class of some sort would reduce some issues, like accidental shootings or kids with access to guns.  Maybe a law restricting gun ownership of people who have shown an inability to possess a gun responsably.  I don't mean those committing crimes neccesarily.  We already have those laws, but if you leave a loaded gun sitting on the cofee table so your 6 year old has access to it, you no longer get to own a gun.

The US has the highest murder rate out of all compatable industrialised nations.   In part, this is due to easy access of guns, legal or otherwise.  It is also true that we have a higher incident of criminals getting the tables turned on them through home owner gun use. Gun ownership is a right, though hands guns were not specifically what the founders were referring to.  For either side of the debate to dismiss the importance of these things is silly and non-productive.  Those against guns need to realise that many gun owners are responsible and SAFE, doing nothing wrong and guns are not going away.  Those that are pro gun need to realise that the right to gun ownership does not trump the rights of people to feel safe in thier own nieghborhoods.


----------



## Buka (Apr 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/



Do NOT, under any circumstances, believe ANYTHING said by Bank of America. EVER.


----------



## decepticon (Apr 20, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> That means there needs to be some common sense regulations, that both gun owners and non-owners can agree upon.  Perhaps a good start would be closing some of the loop holes in purchasing guns, such as flea market or gun show type events.



I went to a large fleamarket last weekend. When we first turned the corner and entered the grounds, I saw two rather grungy guys pulling a red kids' wagon with the wooden slat sides. About 25 gun barrels were sticking out of it. A hand lettered sign hung on the side of the wagon that read, "Cheep guns for sale". Absolutely no paperwork required. Also a buyer beware situation - I have no idea whether the guns were legally owned by the sellers or whether they were in good working order.

I live in a rural area. We use our guns as tools - to keep predators from eating our livestock, to kill animals that we will be eating, or for self protection. It generally takes law enforcement at least 30 minutes to respond to a call from my area. I always carry a handgun when hiking in the woods due to the increasing numbers of bears and mountain lions, or to euthanize the occasional injured wild animal I come across. I use a rifle for predator control. I use a shotgun for hunting. I don't know if laws that are made to suit an urban environment would work out here, and I imagine what we need wouldn't be helpful there.


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

The very same argument for guns can be made for automobiles in private hands.  They kill a lot more people, and anyone driving one has to have a lisence to do it with regular re-lisencning to continue driving Yet, there is vehicular mayhem everyday of the year.   Everyone would be much safer if private ownership of automobiles was outlawed and everyone was forced to take government transportation.  Cars are not constitutionally protected.

Alcohol and drugs also fuel a lot of the mayhem in the United States.  Legal or not, abusing these substances lead to innocent deaths.  Perhaps we should ban alcohol and increase the police powers as it relates to drug crimes.

Why are schools so often targeted by shooters?  Because the killers know there is no one there who can stop them because the killer is the only one with a gun.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> . Legal or not, abusing these substances lead to innocent deaths. Perhaps we should ban alcohol and increase the police powers as it relates to drug crimes.



_*"Ban alcohol????"  
*_
In some cases, not having would be likely to lead to innocent deaths.........:lol:


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

Here is another look at crime and Britain...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the 
European union, it has been revealed. 



> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of
> violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the
> world's most dangerous countries.
> 
> ...





> The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and
> United Nations, also show:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Haakon (Apr 21, 2012)

According to that article even that mecca of non violence Canada is twice as violent as the US.


> The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1sgvRmCB2​



This is another US vs UK look at violent crime: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

Are any sources for UK violent crime broken down by area to see if they have as wide a swing as the US does between different parts of the country?


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

From Hakkon's link, I hope you don't mind my quoting from your link, if you do, let me know...



> The public misconception is that the UK is a safe country and the US violent,
> but the truth is just the opposite. Depending on which numbers you choose, the
> violent crime rate in the UK is five times higher than the rate in the
> US.





> [Update - July 2, 2009: People still don't like these statistics, so
> , Naming Britain the most
> violent country in Europe, with violent crime rates ahead of the US and South
> Africa.]
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2012)

I'd be very wary of trying to do such a simple comparison between the figures for different countries - for one thing, even the definitions of what constitutes a certain type of offence can vary widely.

I do have to say, as I have before, that I do feel less safe whenever I am out and about these days, with bunches of youths hanging about on street corners being a distinct change from when I was their age.  

They seem much more aggressive when they are in groups and hide their faces in those 'hoodies' they seem to love so much.  I term it "pack bravery" and it comes to the fore when there's three or more of them and the pups reckon they could take on an older dog.  That and knowing that if you do punch the lights out of one of them if the group threatens you then it's you that're going to get into trouble.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 21, 2012)

I would love to see massive publicity of every time a gun owner protects himself or others. There would be so little news time for anything else...


----------



## Steve (Apr 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The very same argument for guns can be made for automobiles in private hands.  They kill a lot more people, and anyone driving one has to have a lisence to do it with regular re-lisencning to continue driving Yet, there is vehicular mayhem everyday of the year.   Everyone would be much safer if private ownership of automobiles was outlawed and everyone was forced to take government transportation.  Cars are not constitutionally protected.
> 
> Alcohol and drugs also fuel a lot of the mayhem in the United States.  Legal or not, abusing these substances lead to innocent deaths.  Perhaps we should ban alcohol and increase the police powers as it relates to drug crimes.
> 
> Why are schools so often targeted by shooters?  Because the killers know there is no one there who can stop them because the killer is the only one with a gun.



Because the kids who are shooting go to that school?  Speculation doesnt do anything but muddy the waters.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> Well coming from a country where guns are illegal, I've never seen an argument that convinced me that they should be legalised.
> 
> Seems like an outdated self indulgence to me.



Read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.  The whole book is an argument for the 2nd Amendment.  



> &#8220;And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have  been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make  an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to  say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as  for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire  city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror  at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the  staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had  boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people  with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs  would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport  and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would  have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even  more &#8211; we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and  simply deserved everything that happened afterward.&#8221;


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Bank of America is making a political statement by dropping a firearms company...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-bank-of-america-reportedly-drops-gun-company-for-political-reasons/



Oh yeah, the Big Banks REALLY REALLY REALLY want gun control.  LOL!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 21, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh yeah, the Big Banks REALLY REALLY REALLY want gun control.  LOL!



The BoA here was robbed a few months ago, the guy didn't threaten, didn't say he had a gun, didn't brandish any type of weapon, just simply demanded money. Had the teller had a pistol, they wouldn't have lost a dime.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> The BoA here was robbed a few months ago, the guy didn't threaten, didn't say he had a gun, didn't brandish any type of weapon, just simply demanded money. Had the teller had a pistol, they wouldn't have lost a dime.



I doubt you missed my sarcasm, what I was really trying to say though is that "criminals" REALLY REALLY REALLY want gun control.  Including the criminals that wrest the levers of power away from the people.  I guess now we're back to my post about the Gulag Archipelago...


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> The BoA here was robbed a few months ago, the guy didn't threaten, didn't say he had a gun, didn't brandish any type of weapon, just simply demanded money. Had the teller had a pistol, they wouldn't have lost a dime.



Red herring.  Most banks have policies that dictate that tellers are not to argue, not to refuse, and are just to hand over the money.  They don't want to create a shooting or other violence, and they don't want to create a hostage situation.  Incidentally, I won't say why, but if you have the misfortune to be in a bank you realize is being robbed, and you have a cell phone, call 911.


----------



## d1jinx (Apr 21, 2012)

who said " _I would never invade the US, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass_" ?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> who said " _I would never invade the US, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass_" ?



Yamamoto Isoruku. I think it was "rifle." *If* he said it, and it isn't just legend-he graduated from Harvard, though, and had a clearer picture of what Americans were like, and was pretty reluctant to go to war with the U.S. at all....never mind an invasion.


----------



## K-man (Apr 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is another look at crime and Britain...
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
> 
> ...


So *Bill*, how do you think this relates with regard to gun control? Are you saying there is a correlation?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

K-man said:


> So *Bill*, how do you think this relates with regard to gun control? Are you saying there is a correlation?



I don't know about this, but there is a correlation between disarmed populations and totalitarianism. This is something America's Founding Fathers recognized.


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

Well, crime apparently went up 40% after the gun ban went into effect in Britain/U.K./place where they drink tea and eat chips.  I know from John Lott's work on the issue here in the states as states passed concealed carry laws where the police had to issue carry permits, the interpersonal types of crime went down drastically, and crime moved to property crime.   At the same time, there was not an uptick in people just shooting other people because they could carry guns.  That myth pretty much was shot down as carry permits have been followed.


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2012)

When you look at gun violence in major urban areas, you have to weigh in the factor that there are now generations of children being raised by children, which is a new phenomenon which I don't think has been studied enough as far as gun crimes go.  You have teenagers in gangs, raised by teenage mothers, raised by teenage mothers, raised by teenage mothers, who have had little contact with responsible adults.  Impulse control has to have suffered under something like this.  What is it like in the urban centers in Britain/U.K./place where they drink tea and eat chips?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 21, 2012)

> Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,  history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the  blackest.


 Mahatma Gandhi 
​


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Mahatma Gandhi



That's what happens when you are a subject and not a sovereign.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 21, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That's what happens when you are a subject and not a sovereign.



I love that quote


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2012)

And I love how the words of a terrorist become canonised by the members of a nation who purports to be vigilantly anti-terrorist ...

... why would that be do you think?  Could it be that the real history was a bit different than American schools teach?  Or is that me being simplistic?

It's especially ironic when you consider that the 'non-violent resistance' (a cloak for self-serving power seeking hidden under a homespun cloak of false humility) that Ghandi promulgated was directly responsible, via the partition of India and Pakistan, for the present situation we have in Afghanistan.

By all means, accept that there is a correlation between control of a nation and the disarming of it's people but don't become confused between totalitarianism in the modern era and the necessities of empire in a previous century.

As Catholics get very upset when reminded of the bloody roots and actions of their faith, so do I when my country is falsely judged with a 21st century moral filter for actions that took place hundreds of years ago.

Maybe we can stick more closely to the actual topic of the thread?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

The reason why I think this point is relevant to the discussion is because the act of disarming a population IS the very kind of action all empires eventually resort to. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that the British disarmed the Indians AND the people that live in the particular islands where the Empire started. The essence os empire is conformity and control and you can't do that, you can't erase the individual, when the citizenry are armed.

America's Founding Fathers never wanted to become, because they knew that was the surest and fastest way to lose your liberty. Now that we have become one, it doesn't surprise me that major pushes against the Constitution are being made. if anything, America needs to understand more about Imperial history across the world in order to understand how important the 2nd amendment is.

As I like to think of it, we can't have the 1st amendment without the 2nd. And all other amendments rest on that foundation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

The Founding Fathers never wanted us to become an empire...dang phone.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 21, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The Founding Fathers never wanted us to become an empire...dang phone.



That is good, since we aren't and never have been.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> That is good, since we aren't and never have been.



This is why Americans need to learn history, Sukerkin.  If we don't "get" this bit about empires, we're going to lose all of our rights...


----------



## K-man (Apr 22, 2012)

billcihak said:


> When you look at gun violence in major urban areas, you have to weigh in the factor that there are now generations of children being raised by children, which is a new phenomenon which I don't think has been studied enough as far as gun crimes go.  You have teenagers in gangs, raised by teenage mothers, raised by teenage mothers, raised by teenage mothers, who have had little contact with responsible adults.  Impulse control has to have suffered under something like this.  What is it like in the urban centers in Britain/U.K./place where they drink tea and eat chips?


Thought that was what you meant.  The problem with the figures you quoted is that they were designed to pour s#1t all over the government.  Also you selected half the article and ignored the Government explanation.




> But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.
> There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
> 
> 
> ...



"Affray" is now regarded as violent crime in the UK and the definition has changed to include threatening to fight.

The US definition is quite different.  



> Affray is the fighting of two or more persons in a public place to the terror of ordinary people. The tendency to alarm the community is the essence of the offense. In order to be affray the fighting must be mutual. If one person unlawfully attacks another who tries to defend himself it does not amount to affray. Here the first person is guilty of assault and battery not affray. 'Affray' is derived from the French word effrayer, meaning to affright.
> In order to constitute affray there must be:
> 
> 
> ...


So basically we are comparing apples and coconuts.

If we want to look at real violence, let's look at homicides.  (figures /100,000,   2004 figures)
South Africa          69
Russia.                 29.7
Pakistan.              6.3
United States.       5.9 
Bolivia.                 5.3
Canada.                2
Australia.              1.5
New Zealand.        1.5
United Kingdom.    1.4

France.                  1.6
Greece.                  1.4
Italy.                     1.2
Spain.                    1.4
Netherlands.           1.4
Germany.               1
Austria.                   0.8

For what it's worth, Australia and NZ have similar gun laws to the UK and I think most of Europe is also similar.

It's a bit more difficult to get figures for firearm related homicides but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

United States.       4.14
Canada.                0.76
Australia.              0.44
New Zealand.        0.17
UK.                      0.07


Now, the US has its gun laws and millions upon millions of guns and that's the right of US citizens.  They obviously are keeping violent crime under control. God help us if you didn't have guns for all because then the figures would be really bad. 

For us oppressed people throughout the rest of the civilised world, we must just hope that our benevolent leaders can manage to keep us safe without the need to create mass armories. Unfortunately we don't have the same rights as the citizens of the US and we just have to learn to live with that. But, you really can't use crime figures from elsewhere to justify gun ownership in the US because the figures just don't add up.      :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Apr 22, 2012)

K-man said:


> But, you really can't use crime figures from elsewhere to justify gun ownership in the US because the figures just don't add up.      :asian:



Really, because health figures from elsewhere were used in planning Obamacare...


----------



## K-man (Apr 22, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Really, because health figures from elsewhere were used in planning Obamacare...


Well maybe, just maybe, _elsewhere_ might have something to look at. Crime figures involving guns are higher in the US than all other first world countries.  If I had health problems and was unfortunate enough to be unemployed, I would much rather be in Austraia, New Zealand or the UK. We have social security that affords most people a decent standard of living. Personally, I hope I never have to rely on it but I have never begrudged putting in so that our society can be as equitable as possible.      

I have worked hard and enjoyed a great life.  I have no problem helping those who by no fault of their own are less fortunate.      :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 22, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Really, because health figures from elsewhere were used in planning Obamacare...



Aye I suspect that to be true but the point being made, as I did earlier, is that the statistics for crime are not easy to compare in a straightforward fashion.  The article promoting this discussion made correlations based upon grounds that were asserted but not really statistically 'proven'.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 22, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This is why Americans need to learn history, Sukerkin.  If we don't "get" this bit about empires, we're going to lose all of our rights...



Like this dandy new law. American citizens can be arrested by our government, and held forever, without a trail or a right to legal counsel.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...s-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html


----------



## Big Don (Apr 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye I suspect that to be true but the point being made, as I did earlier, is that the statistics for crime are not easy to compare in a straightforward fashion.  The article promoting this discussion made correlations based upon grounds that were asserted but not really statistically 'proven'.


US Population:350 MILLION
UK Population: 62 MILLION 
Australian Population: 22 MILLION
California Population:35 Million
When one of our states has a population larger than Australia and half as big as the UK's it is insane to believe that what works for Australia or the UK could possibly work for an population many times their sizes spread across an entire continent.
Whether we discuss health care or gun control. 
Edited to add: That is without acknowledging the fact that gun control laws do jack **** to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.
Gun control laws ONLY limit the law abiding.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> And I love how the words of a terrorist become canonised by the members of a nation who purports to be vigilantly anti-terrorist ...
> 
> ... why would that be do you think? Could it be that the real history was a bit different than American schools teach? Or is that me being simplistic?




It's you being simplistic, Mark :lol:-after all, if Britain had defeated "the colonies," back when we had our Revolution, our Founding Fathers could be called terrorists-heck, they *still* could, much like the modern state of Israel's founders.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 22, 2012)

Just to re-inject some history and culture; which like it or not, do affect current practicality, remember that the USA is historically a gun culture.  Our history of gun control was begun on a bad note; not for the 'good of society' but to restrict certain classes and races from having guns.

Unlike most of Europe and Asia, the US has only fairly recently adopted ANY gun laws.  The US was awash in guns from our creation.  The first gun laws were basically 'Jim Crow' laws, intended to keep guns out of the hands of newly-freed former slaves.  They didn't come from the federal government, but the states.

Interestingly, if you look at some sources, they ignore earlier gun laws completely and pretend that there were no such things.

Look at NPR's article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91942478

They correctly point out that the first gun control laws on the federal level were enacted in 1934 (the National Firearm Act), but they ignore the post Civil War gun laws that limited the rights of former slaves to own guns.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/the-klans-favorite-law

But there are two important points here.  First, given that the US didn't have any federal laws limiting gun purchases from our inception until 1934, and few after that until 1968, we have both a history of a 'gun culture' and our nation is awash in guns.  They're everywhere, you can't get away from them.  Any anti-gun law that would attempt to restrict gun ownership has to take into account that fact.  How do you take away ALL the guns?  

The second is that the very first anti-gun laws were based on attempts to control others by restricting or eliminating their right to even defend their own lives.  Others have attempted to do likewise over the years, to meet their own agendas.  Gun owners in the USA are aware of this and rightly suspicious of it.  Attempts to pass gun laws still meet with scrutiny as to their motives, open and hidden.  Many citizens who are just not gun fans are not willing to look deeper.  If a politicians describes an anti-gun law as being aimed at public safety, that's good enough for them.  They often look askance at gun owners who are suspicious of hidden agendas; but they do not understand the history of such laws and such blatant attempts to use gun laws to control people, not to ensure public safety.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> It's you being simplistic, Mark :lol:-after all, if Britain had defeated "the colonies," back when we had our Revolution, our Founding Fathers could be called terrorists-heck, they *still* could, much like the modern state of Israel's founders.



:chuckles:  As you know, I still do consider the Founding Fathers traitors and terrorists .  Winning doesn't make you not a terrorist any more - Ghandi, Mandella, USA ... all the same to me.  Maybe Ex-terrorist is something we need a political word for?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 22, 2012)

Big Don said:


> US Population:350 MILLION
> UK Population: 62 MILLION
> Australian Population: 22 MILLION
> California Population:35 Million
> ...



Aye, I have said so myself before now.  I'm sure you recall that I agree with you when it comes to the futility and dangers of rash gun control law making.

I was only commenting as to the applicability of the statistics with regard to the political point being made.  When you try to compare the stats for one thing to another thing, even if it seems similar, then the pit of political expediency in point making opens beneath the feet of the presenter and devalues their stance.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> :Ghandi, Mandella, USA ... all the same to me. Maybe Ex-terrorist is something we need a political word for?



Here in the U.S.A. we _*do*_ have a political word for it:

*Winner.* :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2012)

K-man said:


> For us oppressed people throughout the rest of the civilised world, we must just hope that our benevolent leaders can manage to keep us safe without the need to create mass armories. Unfortunately we don't have the same rights as the citizens of the US and we just have to learn to live with that.



Australia and New Zealand aren't totally disarmed.  The gun control laws are as severe as the Soviet Union or Saddam's Iraq, not even close.  Therefore, the citizens have more freedoms.  In the US, part of our political tradition is that we believe that firearm ownership is a check on government power.  When we look out at the rest of the world and see more restrictions, it nearly always coincides with bigger government and less freedom.  With the bottom of the barrel being total disarmament and totalitarianism.  The path toward totalitarianism is convoluted, but it always passes through that phase.  

What interests me about this discussion is whether or not there is a tight relationship between the amount of gun laws and civil liberties.  Does having more restrictions result in less personal freedom?  We know that total disarmament leads to totalitarianism, *but does the slippery slope exist?*



K-man said:


> But, you really can't use crime figures from elsewhere to justify gun ownership in the US because the figures just don't add up.      :asian:



I agree, it's more complicated.  The US has a number of factors other then gun ownership that contribute to its high crime rate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Like this dandy new law. American citizens can be arrested by our government, and held forever, without a trail or a right to legal counsel.
> 
> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...s-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html



Truth.  The US has a dictatorship on paper, but something is holding back it's implementation.  What could it be?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Truth. The US has a dictatorship on paper, but something is holding back it's implementation. What could it be?



The lack of runaway inflation, anarchy and chaos. Or some other crisis for the implementation of martial law and other excessive and unecessary government control, like a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, or a 25% unemployment rate accompanied by rioting, or any number of others....

Just wait'll next year.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> The lack of runaway inflation, anarchy and chaos. Or some other crisis for the implementation of martial law and other excessive and unecessary government control, like a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, or a 25% unemployment rate accompanied by rioting, or any number of others....
> 
> Just wait'll next year.



It won't work unless they disarm us first.  If 1% said stood up and said they weren't going to take it, there's no way to control that.  If we remain armed, we could still get there through a slow creep that the sheep don't notice.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It won't work unless they disarm us first. If 1% said stood up and said they weren't going to take it, there's no way to control that. If we remain armed, we could still get there through a slow creep that the sheep don't notice.


 

It will work.

They've set us against each other. No need for disarmament at all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> It will work.
> 
> They've set us against each other. No need for disarmament at all.



Next to you, I'm the optimist! Lol

You might be right though, but more then just being divided and conquered, our society struggles with denial. Really smart people stick their fingers in their ears when confronted with facts and say silly stuff like, "I'm not and never will be part of the hate America crowd." Or they simply accept everything the government says as gospel. Or they buy into the schtick that we need to give up our rights in order to be safe.

These are the sheeple and they deserve every bit of tyranny we end up with. 

On the other side of the coin, there is a group of people who see the direction we're heading and are planning for it or trying to prevent it. The former need to realize that they will still lose of the latter are unsuccesful.

I definately get it. If liberty is lost in America, it's only a matter of time for it to be lost everywhere else.


----------



## David43515 (Apr 23, 2012)

@RobinTKD  You made some interesting points, but one thing struck me again and again. It was when you kept insisting that if no one had access to guns then our need to defend ourselves would be equally reduced. I'm a big guy (but getting older all the time) with a background in MA and live in a very safe country with respect to violent crime. You're a young man with a background in MA. I'll assume that means you're at least slightly athletic and in decent shape. So we're both able to handle ourselves fairly well I'd say. So the odds of a criminal who's looking for an easy score singling either of us out are probably lower.

Go back and look at the several articles that Elder99 linked to, did you notice something many of the articles had in common? The largest growing group of gun owners in the US, for many years, has been senior citizens. You and I are healthy guys capable of holding our own in a fight. But how would either of us realistically fair against 2-3 opponents at the same time? Now put my 82 year old mother in our place. (Heart condition, diabetes, arthritis, 2 artificial knees and an artificial shoulder) I think that she might present an easy target to some thug looking for an easy paycheck. I have a wife and 2 very beautiful daughters aged 24 and 25. Since they're all Japanese, they're all fairly petite by western standards. They wouldn't scare off any tough guy on their looks alone. In fact, their looks might attract more unwanted attention in the form of some kind of rape or assault. But any of those 4 women with a pistol and the training and will to use it would be more than a match for 2-3 men much larger than themselves. That's why senior citizens are attracted to guns. That's why women who don't relish being robbed, kidnapped, beaten, or raped buy handguns in larger numbers every year. Specifically because they can carry a concealed firearm with them when they travel or when they're at home without causing alarm to others, but can protect themselves and others should they have to. I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind.  It reminds me of a comment I once heard: "Why do I carry a gun? Because I can't carry a cop."


----------



## elder999 (Jan 2, 2014)

elder999 said:


> And  I soooo agree with this-far too many people purchase a firearm "for protection" and don't get proper-and widely available-training.



If You Don't Have Training, You're Just Pretending


----------

