# A question for the gun owners/advocates on this site



## iMan323 (Mar 11, 2008)

Should civilians be allowed to purchase a shotgun like the experimental military AA-12 (Click here to see a video demonstration).  That is the best CQB weapon I've ever seen....  

On that note, should civilians be able to purchase military grade weapons?  I bet many of you still grumble over the 1994 automatic weapons ban.  I know what the gun control people are going to say, so I'm not really interested in hearing it...but how would you gun folks feel if your neighbor had one of those shotguns in his closet?


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 11, 2008)

they could have places where civilians can go and shoot them and other weapons for a nice price. the money could be used to buy equipment for police and firefighters.  but imagin some idiot having one of those n deciding to shoot up a school. i dunno, tough question.


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 11, 2008)

There are pro and cons. I don't mind as long as they can pass a federal checked background check. And no mental problems! I collect all kinds of guns from .22 cal. up to the 50 cal. sniper rifle.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 11, 2008)

even though you did not ask...the only firearm a civilian should be allowed to purchase/own IMO is a hunting rifle, they have no use for anything else.


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> even though you did not ask...the only firearm a civilian should be allowed to purchase/own IMO is a hunting rifle, they have no use for anything else.



Well, I happen to agree.  I think the police/military should have a firepower advantage regular citizens.  Otherwise, who'd want to be a police officer?


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 11, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Well, I happen to agree.  I think the police/military should have a firepower advantage regular citizens.  Otherwise, who'd want to be a police officer?



Military has a lot more firepower then citizens do. And why a hunting rifle only? they are just as deadly as any gun


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> even though you did not ask...the only firearm a civilian should be allowed to purchase/own IMO is a hunting rifle, they have no use for anything else.



It's been beat to death, but statistics show that crime rates are lower in areas where people are known to carry concealed weapons (legally).  Look at Washington D.C. where they banned guns and gun crime continued; all that did was take away people's ability to defend themselves.


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 11, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> It's been beat to death, but statistics show that crime rates are lower in areas where people are known to carry concealed weapons (legally).  Look at Washington D.C. where they banned guns and gun crime continued; all that did was take away people's ability to defend themselves.



And other countries for that matter


----------



## Arnold (Mar 11, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> And why a hunting rifle only? they are just as deadly as any gun



they are very difficult to conceal, most people that own hunting rifles own them for the purpose of hunting, they are not semi-automatic or automatic, it's very rare that a privately owned hand gun is used in self defense, statistic's show that they get used more in domestic violence situations and accidents, i.e. kids getting a hold of them, than shooting an intruder.

it's just what I believe, and I don't really care if anyone agrees with me on this.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> even though you did not ask...the only firearm a civilian should be allowed to purchase/own IMO is a hunting rifle, they have no use for anything else.



only thing that would do is keep it out of the hands of law-biding citizens.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 11, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> only thing that would do is keep it out of the hands of law-biding citizens.



do you really think that is a good argument?

so what is the point of drugs being illegal and/or controlled?


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> they are very difficult to conceal, most people that own hunting rifles own them for the purpose of hunting, they are not semi-automatic or automatic, it's very rare that a privately owned hand gun is used in self defense, statistic's show that they get used more in domestic violence situations and accidents, i.e. kids getting a hold of them, than shooting an intruder.
> 
> it's just what I believe, and I don't really care if anyone agrees with me on this.



That's cool. All of my guns are locked up and out of kids reach. I have one in my night stand for any intruders. I just don't think I should give up my guns because of someone elses mistake or actions. FYI there are some semi-automatic hunting rifles!


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> do you really think that is a good argument?
> 
> so what is the point of drugs being illegal and/or controlled?



Legalize them and tax the shit out of them.  Chances are drugs will still be "illegal" in the sense that every single employer in the US will have a drug policy stating that you can't use heroine and such, and that is perfectly fine.

There is no reason to keep filling our jails with nonviolent offenders and stoners.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 11, 2008)

Prince said:


> do you really think that is a good argument?
> 
> so what is the point of drugs being illegal and/or controlled?



Yes, I do.  You really think theives & murderers give a shit if the gun they have is legal?

I don't have a gun now, but the second I have a family I will.  No way in hell I'll leave my family's safety to chance.  I can't imagine anyone thinking differently...

I personally don't care if Joe Citizen wants to ruin his life with drugs, but making them legal really isn't realistic. Drug abuse & personal safety are two topics that don't really have much in common.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 11, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> I don't have a gun now, but the second I have a family I will.  No way in hell I'll leave my family's safety to chance.  I can't imagine anyone thinking differently...



I have a family, which is why I live in an upper middle class suburban area and have an alarm on my house, I don't need a gun.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 11, 2008)

I love Future Weapons.. this was probably my favorite tidbit.

Why would a civilian ever need such a gun? I suppose it may come in handy for "dawn of the dead" type scenarios where you may need to engage an army of zombies, but how else would a civilian use it?


----------



## PappaD (Mar 11, 2008)

I'll take one of those shotguns in black and give me one in hot pink for my wife!! We love guns!! We have no small children but my wife feels secure knowing she has a means of defense if I am not home. 

We live in a fairly large home (8000sqft) and you wouldn't hear someone on the other end of the house break a window or door! We have dogs but put them up at night. I took her to the range and got her lessons on how to defend herself.

The neighborhood you live in makes no difference these days, just ask Jon Benet Ramsey!!! That girl in Reno was taken right out of a house and killed.

I am laying in bed right now and can put my hand on at least 4 pistols within 3-4 seconds. 

You see, here in Texas we only call 911 to have your carcass hauled off when we're through with ya!!!


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 11, 2008)

Holy dogshit Texas?  Only two things.......


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 12, 2008)

Prince said:


> I have a family, which is why I live in an upper middle class suburban area and have an alarm on my house, I don't need a gun.



I understand, but I still see that as leaving it to chance that a person won't enter your home, and that your alarm is sufficient.  I'd just rather have a gun in the unusual case that I would need it.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 12, 2008)

Prince said:


> do you really think that is a good argument?
> 
> so what is the point of drugs being illegal and/or controlled?



If the criminal has pot and I don't, I'm not necessarily going to lose the fight. 

Besides, the right to smoke pot isn't in the Constitution.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 12, 2008)

PappaD said:


> You see, here in Texas we only call 911 to have your carcass hauled off when we're through with ya!!!


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 12, 2008)

PappaD said:


> I'll take one of those shotguns in black and give me one in hot pink for my wife!! We love guns!! We have no small children but my wife feels secure knowing she has a means of defense if I am not home.
> 
> We live in a fairly large home (8000sqft) and you wouldn't hear someone on the other end of the house break a window or door! We have dogs but put them up at night. I took her to the range and got her lessons on how to defend herself.
> 
> ...



We don't fuck around in Texas, hell we even get the robbers for our neighbors!!


----------



## DOMS (Mar 12, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> We don't fuck around in Texas, hell we even get the robbers for our neighbors!!



Jump to 8:04.  "Express lane." 






YouTube Video


----------



## Irons77 (Mar 12, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Jump to 8:04.  "Express lane."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That the truth!!!


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 12, 2008)

i have plenty of guns my two favs cobray mach 11 and taurus pt 92. i keep them up so my kids cant get them. a few are in good locations to be reached if needed. i grew up around guns. i see no reason to not have them. also for civillians home protection, shooting range, hunting. all good uses for a gun. i would rather have my 9mm loaded with hollow tips than a alarm. what good does a alarm do but tell me there is a psycho in my house.  well i guess if i had a alarm i wouldnt have to search the house to shoot his/her ass. the alarm would possibly help me know were they are. hmmm i dont know any way guns if used correctly are fun, and a great source of home protection.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 12, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Jump to 8:04.  "Express lane."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 did that bill pass? it should.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 12, 2008)

Prince said:


> they are very difficult to conceal, most people that own hunting rifles own them for the purpose of hunting, they are not semi-automatic or automatic



They do come in semi-auto and automatic. Also, shotguns are used for hunting more than rifles. One of the best selling hunting firearms on the market is the Remington 11-87 semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun. They are much more lethal than handguns.


----------



## Tier (Mar 12, 2008)

Gun control is made silly by the host of any other deadly weapons that exist. It seems ridiculous to try to control one fish in the ocean, is it because you can use them to kill further away? I mean what's the argument?

Every nation falls, but I will feel a lot better if we take out a few million enemies before we buckle because most families have guns. Everybody remember why Japan did not invade the west coast? They ran the numbers and figured out they could not sustain an invasion force, guess why? Not because we don't have guns.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 12, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Should civilians be allowed to purchase a shotgun like the experimental military AA-12 (Click here to see a video demonstration).  That is the best CQB weapon I've ever seen....
> 
> On that note, should civilians be able to purchase military grade weapons?  I bet many of you still grumble over the 1994 automatic weapons ban.  I know what the gun control people are going to say, so I'm not really interested in hearing it...but how would you gun folks feel if your neighbor had one of those shotguns in his closet?



Bill Clinton's 1994 semi-auto ban had nothing to do with military grade weaponry.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 12, 2008)

Prince said:


> I have a family, which is why I live in an upper middle class suburban area and have an alarm on my house, I don't need a gun.



I'm glad this woman is smarter than you.  Otherwise we'd have one less law abiding citizen and one more stalking rapist.
YouTube - Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work


----------



## DOMS (Mar 12, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Bill Clinton's 1994 semi-auto ban had nothing to do with military grade weaponry.




It also has nothing to do with proving that gun control laws stop gun-related crimes.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 12, 2008)

Pop Quiz:

"Assault Weapons," as defined in the 1994 semi-auto ban, were linked to what percentage of violent crime before, during, and after the ban according to the FBI?

A.  100%
B.  50%
C.  20%
D.  5%
E.  Less than 1%


----------



## maniclion (Mar 12, 2008)

Ban guns and nuts will still find ways to kill large numbers of people, hell household products can make a bomb.....a speeding car into a crowded sidewalk can drop more people faster than a machine gun......a little tampering with food or water supplies...

I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.  Sometimes things don't happen right off, say you guys get your gun bans, then slowly our government starts taking away other rights....pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind so we want to change it and the old methods of change through voting don't work anymore the only way is by force but they have all of our weapons.  What can we do but just get fucked in the ass until we can smuggle and steal enough weapons to revolt.......any of these things could happen they've happened throughout history to some of the best nations and are happening now in other parts of the world.....  Don't ever think that America is immune to those things and don't ever let the government get the upper hand on the people......


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 12, 2008)

*"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." - Gandhi.  
*


----------



## lucifuge (Mar 12, 2008)

maniclion said:


> Ban guns and nuts will still find ways to kill large numbers of people, hell household products can make a bomb.....a speeding car into a crowded sidewalk can drop more people faster than a machine gun......a little tampering with food or water supplies...
> 
> I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.  Sometimes things don't happen right off, say you guys get your gun bans, then slowly our government starts taking away other rights....pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind so we want to change it and the old methods of change through voting don't work anymore the only way is by force but they have all of our weapons.  What can we do but just get fucked in the ass until we can smuggle and steal enough weapons to revolt.......any of these things could happen they've happened throughout history to some of the best nations and are happening now in other parts of the world.....  Don't ever think that America is immune to those things and don't ever let the government get the upper hand on the people......




*+1*

well put manic


----------



## KentDog (Mar 12, 2008)

maniclion said:


> You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.


Good point.



maniclion said:


> pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind


Of course we would still have slavery and suffrage if we went by what our forefathers had in mind.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 12, 2008)

maniclion said:


> Ban guns and nuts will still find ways to kill large numbers of people, hell household products can make a bomb.....a speeding car into a crowded sidewalk can drop more people faster than a machine gun......a little tampering with food or water supplies...
> 
> I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.  Sometimes things don't happen right off, say you guys get your gun bans, then slowly our government starts taking away other rights....pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind so we want to change it and the old methods of change through voting don't work anymore the only way is by force but they have all of our weapons.  What can we do but just get fucked in the ass until we can smuggle and steal enough weapons to revolt.......any of these things could happen they've happened throughout history to some of the best nations and are happening now in other parts of the world.....  Don't ever think that America is immune to those things and don't ever let the government get the upper hand on the people......



+7


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 12, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> Of course we would still have slavery and suffrage if we went by what our forefathers had in mind.



But our houses would be a lot cleaner and a lot more cooking would get done


----------



## Hoglander (Mar 12, 2008)

Get rid of cars. CARS KILL!!!!!!!


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 12, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.



I dunno...I think a hunting weapon is perfectly sufficient for home protection.  Actually, I have a first hand experience with this.  When I was just a child living somewhere in the unstable Eastern Europe of the late 80's/early 90's my step father had kept a loaded 12 gauge shotgun in our apartment, because there was an ethnic movement out there to get to folks of my kind...

What amazes me about Americans is they don't seem to realize that George Washington and Company envisioned this nation a looooooooooong fawking time ago, and just about everything has changed since then.  I just can't hear an intelligent person use that argument, it's silly.  What was true over 200 years ago is irrelevant today.  There's no Injuns roaming your lands.  The fuck you need combat weapons for?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 12, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I'm glad this woman is smarter than you.



I am not sure how you measure my intelligence based on one opinion that I hold.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 12, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> I dunno...I think a hunting weapon is perfectly sufficient for home protection.  Actually, I have a first hand experience with this.  When I was just a child living somewhere in the unstable Eastern Europe of the late 80's/early 90's my step father had kept a loaded 12 gauge shotgun in our apartment, because there was an ethnic movement out there to get to folks of my kind...
> 
> What amazes me about Americans is they don't seem to realize that George Washington and Company envisioned this nation a looooooooooong fawking time ago, and just about everything has changed since then.  I just can't hear an intelligent person use that argument, it's silly.  What was true over 200 years ago is irrelevant today.  There's no Injuns roaming your lands.  The fuck you need combat weapons for?



You obviously stopped reading at the point that you felt your ideas were still valid.  Continue to the second half of his post, and you will find the answer to why we still need weapons.

And you know what?  New Orleans.  Theft, looting, murder, robbery.  By both citizens AND the police.  Still don't think we need guns?


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 12, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> You obviously stopped reading at the point that you felt your ideas were still valid.  Continue to the second half of his post, and you will find the answer to why we still need weapons.
> 
> And you know what?  New Orleans.  Theft, looting, murder, robbery.  By both citizens AND the police.  *Still don't think we need guns?*



Nope.  Freedom and weapons...that's romantic, but has shit to do with reality.  Gunslingers aint' shit these days.  Look at Afghanistan or Iraq or Rwanda or Libia or Somalia.  Everybody's armed to the teeth.  Do they have freedom...uhhh ok....?  Do they prosper?  moot point...

No, I don't think guns have shit to do with freedom these days.  It's all about the economic firepower these days.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 12, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Nope.  Freedom and weapons...that's romantic, but has shit to do with reality.  Gunslingers aint' shit these days.  Look at Afghanistan or Iraq or Rwanda or Libia or Somalia.  Everybody's armed to the teeth.  Do they have freedom...uhhh ok....?  Do they prosper?  moot point...
> 
> No, I don't think guns have shit to do with freedom these days.  It's all about the economic firepower these days.



Question: Do you trust the current administration?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 12, 2008)

Good discussion in this thread.  

I own about 6 guns.  Been locked up for years.  One rifle, the rest handguns.

I don't have a clear stand on the issue, except if I want one in my house hidden, I can and want to be able to.  Also, travelling across the USA I carried a handgun in my car (often, probably illegal in many states).

I've got a concealed weapons permit in my home state.

Banning guns is too late for the US.  170-220 million are in circulation.

I believe in a 1 strike and you're out with gun related crimes.  Meaning, 20+ years minimum for robbing 7-11, that does not injure someone.

The US has a gun crime/public shooting problem.  There will be more mass killings in the near and long-term future.  It doesn't matter where you live, either.


----------



## Tier (Mar 13, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Good discussion in this thread.
> 
> I own about 6 guns.  Been locked up for years.  One rifle, the rest handguns.
> 
> ...



Haven't you ever watched batman?? 

Point being stricter isn't better, he's going to use a gun and he will get 20 years if he's caught why not just walk up and cap the guy then take the money instead of waiting for him to put it in the bag? It's all about escalation, once we sit back and say there will always be crime and people will always get killed by other people then we can make sane laws.

If the cops told you "if I catch you speeding I just whip out my gun and blast you in the face", what are you going to do when a cop pulls you over? You're going to throw lead at him.


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 13, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Question: Do you trust the current administration?



Do I sound like I trust the current administration, or will trust the next administration?  No.  

Will I take up arms to stand up to an oppressive US government?  No, I'd pack my shit and move to Brazil.  Why?  Because I want to live.  I spent 3 years in the US Army infantry and I don't want to be on the receiving end of that firepower.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> but how would you gun folks feel if your neighbor had one of those shotguns in his closet?



jealous


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> It's been beat to death, but statistics show that crime rates are lower in areas where people are known to carry concealed weapons (legally).  Look at Washington D.C. where they banned guns and gun crime continued; all that did was take away people's ability to defend themselves.



Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of this thread!


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> You obviously stopped reading at the point that you felt your ideas were still valid.  Continue to the second half of his post, and you will find the answer to why we still need weapons.
> 
> And you know what?  New Orleans.  Theft, looting, murder, robbery.  By both citizens AND the police.  Still don't think we need guns?



As I have already covered this topic 5,896,097,913 times, perhaps movies will help.

John Stossel on 20/20 regarding the facts of gun control:

YouTube - Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

After Katrina:

YouTube - NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

The UK experience:

Weapon Videos - Point, Aim, Click, Film........ :: Video :: Gun bans in the UK (NRA)

And for Humor, Penn and Teller on gun control:

Penn & Teller - Bullshit - Gun Control 1/3

Enjoy!


----------



## ZECH (Mar 13, 2008)

maniclion said:


> Ban guns and nuts will still find ways to kill large numbers of people, hell household products can make a bomb.....a speeding car into a crowded sidewalk can drop more people faster than a machine gun......a little tampering with food or water supplies...
> 
> I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.  Sometimes things don't happen right off, say you guys get your gun bans, then slowly our government starts taking away other rights....pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind so we want to change it and the old methods of change through voting don't work anymore the only way is by force but they have all of our weapons.  What can we do but just get fucked in the ass until we can smuggle and steal enough weapons to revolt.......any of these things could happen they've happened throughout history to some of the best nations and are happening now in other parts of the world.....  Don't ever think that America is immune to those things and don't ever let the government get the upper hand on the people......



Very true and good post


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Do I sound like I trust the current administration, or will trust the next administration?  No.
> 
> Will I take up arms to stand up to an oppressive US government?  No, I'd pack my shit and move to Brazil.  Why?  Because I want to live.  I spent 3 years in the US Army infantry and I don't want to be on the receiving end of that firepower.



It's a good thing you, and that many people like you, weren't around for the Civil War.


----------



## brogers (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Nope.  Freedom and weapons...that's romantic, but has shit to do with reality.  Gunslingers aint' shit these days.  Look at Afghanistan or Iraq or Rwanda or Libia or Somalia.  Everybody's armed to the teeth.  Do they have freedom...uhhh ok....?  Do they prosper?  moot point...
> 
> No, I don't think guns have shit to do with freedom these days.  It's all about the economic firepower these days.



Really?  So you're citing Rwanda, "Libia" (Liberia?) and Somalia as examples as to why the US should alter its current policies?  Can you tell me some of the parallels between those nations and the United States, and why you think our problems with guns are comparable to theirs?

Perhaps you could explain to me why Switzerland, which has the highest rate of gun-ownership in the world (to my knowledge), and has a very strong 'gun culture' has such a low homicide rate?  I thought more guns=more gun crime?

If you were serious about reducing gun crime, a better suggestion would be to exile every single black person in the United States, because they are committing a ridiculously disproportionate amount of homicides.  Of course that would be an absurd suggestion though, wouldn't it?  Perhaps you should look more into cultural factors surrounding gun crimes, rather than the # of guns.

I agree with manic about cars being used as weapons--I go to a university of ~50,000, one person driving their car on campus could easily take out 100+ in about 45 seconds, fortunately the sickos are too stupid to do anything like that.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Do I sound like I trust the current administration, or will trust the next administration?  No.
> 
> Will I take up arms to stand up to an oppressive US government?  No, I'd pack my shit and move to Brazil.  Why?  Because I want to live.  I spent 3 years in the US Army infantry and I don't want to be on the receiving end of that firepower.



That's a terrible attitude to take, but it is yours to take.  Personally I would take a stand and fight for this country.

I was very close to enlisting in the military actually, but then I realized that I have no desire to go fight in another country in order to secure profits for BushCo.  If anything, our military should forcefully overthrow our administration if they were to really honor their vows to protect the Constitution, but that is just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 13, 2008)

maniclion said:


> Ban guns and nuts will still find ways to kill large numbers of people, hell household products can make a bomb.....*a speeding car into a crowded sidewalk can drop more people faster than a machine gun......*a little tampering with food or water supplies...
> 
> I am the closest to being a hippy on this board and I am all about peace and love but I am also for freedom.  It is our right to own guns not only for hunting but for defense of our homes and our homeland.  You never know what could happen say a natural disaster puts your town or even the whole country into a state of anarchy, we've seen it happen first hand in NOLA.....I bet any of you anti-gun folks would be happy to have an arsenal of guns when a mob of starving looters try to break into your home.  Sometimes things don't happen right off, say you guys get your gun bans, then slowly our government starts taking away other rights....pretty soon we are living in a country so far from what George Washington and his homies had in mind so we want to change it and the old methods of change through voting don't work anymore the only way is by force but they have all of our weapons.  What can we do but just get fucked in the ass until we can smuggle and steal enough weapons to revolt.......any of these things could happen they've happened throughout history to some of the best nations and are happening now in other parts of the world.....  Don't ever think that America is immune to those things and don't ever let the government get the upper hand on the people......



i was just coming here to post that  it's been done a few times i remember hearing about.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i was just coming here to post that  it's been done a few times i remember hearing about.



I've only heard of it having been done by confused old people.


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 13, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's a good thing you, and that many people like you, weren't around for the Civil War.



...said the guy who didn't serve a day in his life.   You're all talk pal, just another backwoods cowboy.

And just in general, you're sooooo wrong, and I'm soooo right.

You think that having by plinker, you're going to protect your rights, or your freedom or your land against the might of the US government + military.  You are so hilarious man.  What are you going to do when somebody calls a fire mission on your residence or when somebody laser-tags your house and drops a 500lbs bomb on you?  You are gonna die that's what you're going to do.

Seriously, are you that much of a fool to think that you can stand up to the government?  You're what, 35?  What are you thinking man?  How naive could you be?

If you fuck with Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam comes in and kills you.  It's as simple as that.  But, you're the revolutionary, the rebel, bla bla bla, a man of principles who will stand up for his freedoms and country.....

Dude, wake the fuck up!

What bothers me, is that in real life you're probably a stand up guy, but when it comes to these discussions you sound like the biggest idiot around, DOMS.


----------



## Biggly (Mar 13, 2008)

I have rather mixed feelings on the topic. I think if you live in a country that doesn't have many then banning them has some advantages. Generally, no matter how bad things get, you know the other guy is gonna have to stab you or something, he can't go and get a gun and pop you from a distance in a moment of angered stupidity.

I'm afraid I find the overly callous, indeed apparantly enthusiastic attitude towards killing that some gun owners have to be somewhat distasteful to say the least. If guns merely cause a nasty injury with the risk of death I'd find them a lot more acceptable. However as a keen shooter myself I've heard far too many 'jokes' along the lines of "fire 2 warning shots to the chest and then ask why they're in your yard" etc.

Fact is, one simple trigger squeeze can render someone totally, permanently dead. That's no laughing matter and unless your life is truly at risk, right there, right then, you don't have any moral right to kill someone.

And I don't give a fuck if you're wearing a uniform or a silly hat at the time.

In most parts of the world and certainly in America it's way too late, all you'd be doing is disarming the innocent.

Here in Malaysia the gun control laws are even stricter than the UK's have become, we're talking automatic death sentence if caught with a firearm here. Yet ironically enough I'd say it would be easier to obtain a firearm here than the UK, as a small number of places have armed guards. They're often doddering old goats standing around half asleep - it would be a very simple matter for one guy to distract and the other to grab the gun, meaning in a nation with virtually no weapons you'd have the Finger of God. As there's a death sentence anyway, if robbing a jewellery store or something just walk up behind the guard, shoot him in the head (thanks for the spare gun) and go rob. Crazy really.

At least in the UK NO-ONE has a firearm except farmer's shotguns and the odd deer rifle, even the police didn't used to carry them. 

Then they made the laws so strict that even farmers had hassles getting one - and gun crime has exploded. Finger of God, see? In a world without guns, he who's armed is God. Now the police are starting to resemble the paramilitary stormtroopers you call 'police' in the US.

So either ban and hide the bloody things completely, or quit trying to control them and leave any God-wannabe wondering who's armed and who isn't. 

Regarding warding off the state's cold dead hands, no, no individual, even armed with a full assault rifle, extended mag and full-auto capability, is going to last long. The idea of an armed poplace is that in the event of a _popular uprising_ no military can contain it.

You think the US military could control an armed population? Tell that to the people of Iraq. In fact is seems there should be a constitutional amendment - everyone should have the right to bear improvised roadside bombs...

If they had SAMs you'd be really fucked.

As mentioned earlier, history shows far too often wannabe tyrants have first removed the civilian's weapons, then shown themselves as tyrants later.

So overall I support the right to keep and bear arms - but gun-holders don't do themselves any favors with a gung-ho attitude.


B.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> ...said the guy who didn't serve a day in his life.



Go to this web site run by current and ex SOF and tell them of your plans to run to Brazil:

Special Operations Forces Community Forum

Let's see what the guys who served have to say about your attitude. If I a single guy there agrees with you, I will give you $50.00 (fifty dollars US)

I will have to confirm they are a real member of that forum (so we know it's no just you using another name and or a pal of yours) but that's my only requirement. I promise you, those who served will take a much worse view of you than anyone here will and will not be nearly as nice as anyone here is being.

You got the mouth, I have the $$$. What's it gonna be?


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 13, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I've only heard of it having been done by confused old people.



a woman in las vegas felt the police weren't doing enough to find her missing daughter so she plowed into a crowded sidewalk. it happened at a daycare once too i think it might have been 

and i got this from here looking for the daycare thing. i remember hearing the daycare one n the vegas one on the news

When a driver of a car at a S. California college intentionally drives into a crowd of people, and claims to be the "angel of death," why is it not reported widely and the car blamed? When another man drives his car into a day care facility, and claims he wanted to kill as many kids as possible, do we not hear a cry for immediate banning of cars? Why do we not hear a demand for licensing and registration of drivers and cars? Oh, yeah. I forgot, we've had that for decades. I guess licensing and registration of cars won't prevent some people from using cars in an illegal manner. Same thing with guns.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> a woman in las vegas felt the police weren't doing enough to find her daughter so she plowed into a crowded sidewalk. [/FONT][/SIZE]




SUV Hits Several Outside California Middle School

Thursday, May 03, 2007


May 2: An SUV sits outside the Ralston Middle School in Belmont.

BELMONT, Calif. â?????? A sport utility vehicle jumped a curb and plowed into a group of California middle school students waiting for a bus, authorities said. Three teenagers were in intensive care Thursday.

About half a dozen children were hit, including several who were trapped under the SUV when it struck a tree outside Ralston Middle School on Wednesday, Police Lt. Dan DeSmidt said. Parents and staff used a jack and collective muscle to lift the SUV and rescue the trapped children, he said.

Fire Chief Doug Fry said 13 children and the SUV's driver were taken to hospitals. Seven went to trauma centers with problems ranging from broken bones to internal injuries, he said.

FOXNews.com - SUV Hits Several Outside California Middle School - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Later one person said "Nobody needs a vehicle that massive. It can only cause horrific damage with such momentum. It is a terrible public health hazard. If it saves just one life it will be worth it. Think of the children!"

Yah, it's like that....


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> ...said the guy who didn't serve a day in his life.   You're all talk pal, just another backwoods cowboy.



So, you know whether I've served or not?



iMan323 said:


> And just in general, you're sooooo wrong, and I'm soooo right.



Wow, that's a great bit of reasoning.  You're debating skills are legendary.



iMan323 said:


> You think that having by plinker, you're going to protect your rights, or your freedom or your land against the might of the US government + military.  You are so hilarious man.  What are you going to do when somebody calls a fire mission on your residence or when somebody laser-tags your house and drops a 500lbs bomb on you?  You are gonna die that's what you're going to do.



Like I said, who said the full military is going to side with the government?  It'll likely be another civil war.  But the sure thing is that I won't go down like the pussy you are.




iMan323 said:


> What bothers me, is that in real life you're probably a stand up guy, but when it comes to these discussions you sound like the biggest idiot around, DOMS.



I'm hurt.


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 13, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Go to this web site run by current and ex SOF and tell them of your plans to run to Brazil:
> 
> Special Operations Forces Community Forum
> 
> ...



Are you asking to see my DD214? Thanks, but no thanks, fuck you very much.  And just for the record Brinks, I'm not concerned what some military people think.  My obligations are done, I wouldn't go back at gunpoint.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 13, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Are you asking to see my DD214?



Not asking you a damn thing. You spoke about those who served, but you don't want to face those who serve/served with such comments about running off to Brazil yet use the "you never served so your opinion don't count" routine. Just trying to get some clarification here, that's all....


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 13, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMan323  
What bothers me, is that in real life you're probably a stand up guy, but when it comes to these discussions you sound like the biggest idiot around, DOMS 

wow man people have the right to a opinion. dont call doms a fucking idiot so what if he hasnt seen what other people have seen. ya i get it you fuck with the gov ok what ever. it is better to stand up for what you believe in and die for it than to run away like a coward. i wear my army shirt with pride. i am proud to say i stand for what i believe in ya you may have seen some fucked up shit. well that happens but you as a ex-soldier should still say you would stand up for what is right.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 13, 2008)

Prince said:


> I am not sure how you measure my intelligence based on one opinion that I hold.



Some opinions are utterly wrong.  Some opinions are indicative of a fear-driven, closed minded individual.

If you had said something along the lines of "I have weighed the pros and cons and I don't think a gun in my home is worth the risk at this point in time," that would be something different.  To flat out say that you do not need a gun under any circumstances because you live in a good neighborhood and have an alarm is flatly false.  As you can clearly see by that video, many times the police can't get there until after the crime is committed.  Your alarm isn't going to do a damn thing.  Sorry to burst your bubble of false security, but you are responsible for your own protection.

I know that guns aren't for everyone.  Some people are too spastic, too irresponsible, or too untrustworthy to own one.  But if you do not fall into one of these categories, chances are you are safer with a gun in your home, especially given the fact that you can own a 100% reliable handgun, have 100% confidence that no one else can access it, and have 100% confidence in your ability to use it safely for roughly $700 and half a days instruction.


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 13, 2008)

well clemson not all things that come with a hand gun are 100%reliable. i once got  a box of winchester 9mm shells that were all freaking duds. i got up close and personal with a target to make sure. even point blank nothing i was livid.


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 13, 2008)

also ignorance, and inteligence are two diffrent things. princes statement was more ignorant to the topic than stupid. although he may have a good reason for that opinion making him not ignorant to the topic.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 13, 2008)

Tier said:


> Haven't you ever watched batman??
> 
> Point being stricter isn't better, he's going to use a gun and he will get 20 years if he's caught why not just walk up and cap the guy then take the money instead of waiting for him to put it in the bag? It's all about escalation, once we sit back and say there will always be crime and people will always get killed by other people then we can make sane laws.
> 
> If the cops told you "if I catch you speeding I just whip out my gun and blast you in the face", what are you going to do when a cop pulls you over? You're going to throw lead at him.



Can you please explain this post.

I don't understand it.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 13, 2008)

Tier said:


> Point being stricter isn't better, he's going to use a gun and he will get 20 years if he's caught why not just walk up and cap the guy then take the money instead of waiting for him to put it in the bag? It's all about escalation, once we sit back and say there will always be crime and people will always get killed by other people then we can make sane laws.
> 
> If the cops told you "if I catch you speeding I just whip out my gun and blast you in the face", what are you going to do when a cop pulls you over? You're going to throw lead at him.


Excellent rebuttal.



danzik17 said:


> But our houses would be a lot cleaner and a lot more cooking would get done


It's funny because it's true!


----------



## KentDog (Mar 13, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Some opinions are utterly wrong.  Some opinions are indicative of a fear-driven, closed minded individual.
> If you had said something along the lines of "I have weighed the pros and cons and I don't think a gun in my home is worth the risk at this point in time," that would be something different.  To flat out say that you do not need a gun under any circumstances because you live in a good neighborhood and have an alarm is flatly false.


I hope you are not serious. First, no one needs to outright state that they have weighed the pros and cons of any situation to give a valid opinion. Secondly, you are putting words into Prince's mouth. When did he say he would never need a gun under any circumstances? Even if he had, it would still not make his opinion "utterly wrong." Some people just don't feel they need guns. What's wrong with that?

If a man purchases a gun to keep in his home for self defense, but dies a natural death at an old age without ever having used it for self defense, then did he ever need a gun? No.



clemson357 said:


> As you can clearly see by that video, many times the police can't get there until after the crime is committed.  Your alarm isn't going to do a damn thing.  Sorry to burst your bubble of false security, but you are responsible for your own protection .


Are you saying that you honestly believe house alarms do not prevent any crimes; that if a burglar where to break into a home and an alarm were to sound, that 100% of them would continue to stay in the home and none would immediately flee?



clemson357 said:


> I know that guns aren't for everyone.  Some people are too spastic, too irresponsible, or too untrustworthy to own one.  But if you do not fall into one of these categories, chances are you are safer with a gun in your home, especially given the fact that you can own a 100% reliable handgun, have 100% confidence that no one else can access it, and have 100% confidence in your ability to use it safely for roughly $700 and half a days instruction.


Can you really ever be 100% sure your gun is 100% reliable, that no one will have access to your gun, and that you will be able to handle a gun safely in most situations? If you felt someone was breaking into your home, I think the average person, gun owner or not, would feel nervous; possibly nervous enough to potentially mistaken their own son for a burglar and shoot him dead.

I live in an upper middle class suburban area as well and in my opinion, I don't need a gun either. You make it sound as if owning a gun would prevent any kind of situation in which someone could be trying to harm you. If an intruder were to enter your home with the intent to shoot you dead, owning a gun wouldn't necessarily lower the chances of your death.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 14, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Excellent rebuttal.



It's a terrible response.

Studies don't claim what he's saying.  (No, I cannot find the old links, but they are there.)

He making an _assumption._


----------



## maniclion (Mar 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's a good thing you, and that many people like you, weren't around for the Civil War.


There were, they helped make towns like Toronto bustling cities....


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> I have a family, which is why I live in an upper middle class suburban area and have an alarm on my house, I don't need a gun.




wow. prince. wow.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 14, 2008)

iMan323 said:


> Should civilians be allowed to purchase a shotgun like the experimental military AA-12 (Click here to see a video demonstration).  That is the best CQB weapon I've ever seen....
> 
> On that note, should civilians be able to purchase military grade weapons?  I bet many of you still grumble over the 1994 automatic weapons ban.  I know what the gun control people are going to say, so I'm not really interested in hearing it...but how would you gun folks feel if your neighbor had one of those shotguns in his closet?



I like the idea little wing had about being able to use one at a gun range and the money going to police. No i dont think a military shotgun should be sold to the public. It would be fun to shoot, but no point in a civilian owning one. Also i could care less about banning assault weapons. again they would be fun to shoot, but little civilian purpose. my concern with allowing some guns to be banned is that it opens the door for all guns to be banned.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I like the idea little wing had about being able to use one at a gun range and the money going to police. No i dont think a military shotgun should be sold to the public. It would be fun to shoot, but no point in a civilian owning one. Also i could care less about banning assault weapons. again they would be fun to shoot, but little civilian purpose. my concern with allowing some guns to be banned is that it opens the door for all guns to be banned.




There is a shooting range here that rents out guns that are illegal to own, but you can shoot in their indoor range. You can rent guns like AK-47s, Uzis, MAC-10s, ect. The idea rocks. I got to shoot an HK-MP5 machine gun like the one below:






YouTube Video











It only cost $25 to rent the gun for a day, but they get you on the ammo. That guy just shot 30 rounds in about 3 seconds. You end up shooting $100 worth of ammo. Its still cool, and it quenched my thirst for a while. One day I will go back and shoot some more. The guy said he barely makes any money off of it, because the license to own and rent them cost so much.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 14, 2008)

KentDog said:


> I hope you are not serious. First, no one needs to outright state that they have weighed the pros and cons of any situation to give a valid opinion. Secondly, you are putting words into Prince's mouth. When did he say he would never need a gun under any circumstances? Even if he had, it would still not make his opinion "utterly wrong." Some people just don't feel they need guns. What's wrong with that?
> 
> If a man purchases a gun to keep in his home for self defense, but dies a natural death at an old age without ever having used it for self defense, then did he ever need a gun? No.
> 
> ...



You make so many terrible points, I am not going to waste my time.  Its clear you are beyond help.

I will say this.  When someone says "I don't need a gun because I live in a good neighborhood," it _DOESN'T_ mean "I may need a gun at some point in time."

Also, when someone enters your home with the intent to kill you, all an alarm does nothing but give them a time limit.  Usually around 15-30 minutes, which is plenty.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 14, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You make so many terrible points, I am not going to waste my time.  Its clear you are beyond help.


Great argument . You then try to make some points of your own after said statement .



clemson357 said:


> Also, when someone enters your home with the intent to kill you, all an alarm does nothing but give them a time limit.  Usually around 15-30 minutes, which is plenty


Okay, expert .

I like that you don't even try to directly refute any of the points made.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 14, 2008)

KentDog said:


> I like that you don't even try to directly refute any of the points made.



Because they are so eloquent and well thought out.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 14, 2008)

KentDog said:


> If an intruder were to enter your home with the intent to shoot you dead, owning a gun wouldn't necessarily lower the chances of your death.



But being defenseless will.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 14, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> But being defenseless will.


Not owning a gun does not make one defenseless.


----------



## Biggly (Mar 15, 2008)

But it does make you gunless...




B.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Not owning a gun does not make one defenseless.



against a gun it does


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> against a gun it does



Remember, this woman did not need a gun, and an alarm plus wishful thinking is all she really needed:

YouTube - Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> against a gun it does



The first rule of a gun fight: have a gun.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> against a gun it does



You are also shit out of luck if you happen to be a woman or an elderly person and your attacker is a man.  However, if this is your circumstance, take solace in the fact that the police may show up in 10 to 30 minutes.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> The first rule of a gun fight: have a gun.



"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You are also shit out of luck if you happen to be a woman or an elderly person and your attacker is a man.  However, if this is your circumstance, take solace in the fact that the police may show up in 10 to 30 minutes.



I have already made that point to him, but he's one of those people unable to think beyond his own personal situation and is unable to put himself in anothers shoes. A common human failing. Remember:

"when seconds count the cops are just minutes away"


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 15, 2008)

This is really an exercise in futility.  I don't think any anti-gun person has ever been convinced of the lack of logic in their argument.  Hoplophobia is based on an irrational fear, and logic only works on rational people.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> This is really an exercise in futility.  I don't think any anti-gun person has ever been convinced of the lack of logic in their argument.  Hoplophobia is based on an irrational fear, and logic only works on rational people.



You are of course correct. They will repeat themselves, using the same myths and fallacies, and will pull the intellectual equivalent to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la" when corrected (using the actual hard data, etc) about those myths and fallacies they repeat. Of course, histories best known men of war and peace understood what's at stake and or supported the basic human right of self defense. For example:

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully." - *Mahatma Gandhi* (Young India, 11-10-1928, p342)


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- *The Dalai Lama*, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -* St. Augustine* A.D. 354-430


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> The first rule of a gun fight: have a gun.



USMC Rules For Gun fighting
1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with at least a "4."
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8 Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement is preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating and reloading.
14. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Remember, this woman did not need a gun, and an alarm plus wishful thinking is all she really needed:
> 
> YouTube - Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work


Like a broken record, WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again.



clemson357 said:


> The first rule of a gun fight: have a gun.


This still does not address if the intruder is unarmed (which was the original example). Is a possible that having a gun could escalate the situation and perhaps be turned against its owner? I expect you gun nuts to avoid addressing this possibility and just resort to insults instead of civil discussion yet again. The problem with you guys is that you can never admit a gun could be used negatively; guns can _only _save lives in your minds.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Like a broken record, WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again.



You and I both know I supply more data/fact based info on this topic in a single thread then you have in your entire life. That's a fact, but we also know you will stick your head in the sand if I supply it again. So you think she didn't need the gun? Let's hear your fantasy scenario of what she could have or should have done differently.



KentDog said:


> This still does not address if the intruder is unarmed (which was the original example). Is a possible that having a gun could escalate the situation and perhaps be turned against its owner?



Data already supplied many times, thus your usual head in sand fingers in ears "la la la" approach to the topic.



KentDog said:


> I expect you gun nuts to avoid addressing this possibility



Been addressed many times in many threads, regardless of how much you pretend to have not seen t, It's "possible" a meteor could hit you, so one has to actually look at the actual data to see where the risk to benefit is so:

"The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun." - Dr. John Lott, John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law



KentDog said:


> and just resort to insults instead of civil discussion yet again. The problem with you guys is that you can never admit a gun could be used negatively; guns can _only _save lives in your minds.



Wrong as usual. Keep up the good work....


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

More proof that you are nothing but a delusional asshole .

It's too bad when you actually make a legitimate point, even though it occurs infrequently, you only discredit yourself with your abrasive, unlikable personality.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> More proof that you are nothing but a delusional asshole .



And this shows how you bob and weave when put in a corner with no place to run, when you don't have the facts to spport your position, ergo your last post you claimed  "resort to insults instead of civil discussion yet again."

Who resorted to what again? Moron.




KentDog said:


> :It's too bad when you actually make a legitimate point,



I am still waiting for you to make one of those....



KentDog said:


> :even though it occurs infrequently, you only discredit yourself with your abrasive, unlikable personality.



Would rather be correct and "unlikable" than terminally incorrect  and everyones favorite person. Stating the facts as they exist does not always make friends. Learned that the hard way in the supplement biz, believe me.


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 15, 2008)

ok here is a good point yes a gun can be turned on its owner. the most dangerous type of gun is one that you think is unloaded. yes pulling a gun on some one can escalate a situation to a point that it does not need to go to. my whole thing is if some one breaks into my house with the intent to do any thing at all. i would rather have a firearm so i can say stop or i will blow your fn head off. as opposed to saying please put down the weapon you are holding while i call the police. i support guns i dont support stupid people that walk around with guns thinking that if makes em a hard ass. a gun is a tool like any other tool if used correctly it can be a vital asset. if used for any thing other than self protection, hunting, or shooting a shooting range to blow off steam i see no point in having one.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> More proof that you are nothing but a delusional asshole .
> 
> It's too bad when you actually make a legitimate point, even though it occurs infrequently, you only discredit yourself with your abrasive, unlikable personality.



So what is he getting wrong?  He's backing up his side with more than the anecdotal information that you are.


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 15, 2008)

tomuchgear said:


> ok here is a good point yes a gun can be turned on its owner. the most dangerous type of gun is one that you think is unloaded. yes pulling a gun on some one can escalate a situation to a point that it does not need to go to. my whole thing is if some one breaks into my house with the intent to do any thing at all. i would rather have a firearm so i can say stop or i will blow your fn head off. as opposed to saying please put down the weapon you are holding while i call the police. i support guns i dont support stupid people that walk around with guns thinking that if makes em a hard ass. a gun is a tool like any other tool if used correctly it can be a vital asset. if used for any thing other than self protection, hunting, or shooting a shooting range to blow off steam i see no point in having one.



You should be treating an unloaded gun with the same respect that you treat a fully loaded one.  If you're about to clean one, I would check it, double check it, then fire the empty chamber somewhere safe just to be 100% sure that nothing is in that gun.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> So what is he getting wrong?  He's backing up his side with more than the anecdotal information that you are.



You think? 

You will note he's not claiming I got anything wrong ('cause he can't) , he's just doing what all types of his ilk do when cornered with reality and the facts.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> You should be treating an unloaded gun with the same respect that you treat a fully loaded one.



It's that rule #1 of gun handling?


----------



## maniclion (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Like a broken record, WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again.
> 
> 
> This still does not address if the intruder is unarmed (which was the original example). Is a possible that having a gun could escalate the situation and perhaps be turned against its owner? I expect you gun nuts to avoid addressing this possibility and just resort to insults instead of civil discussion yet again. The problem with you guys is that you can never admit a gun could be used negatively; guns can _only _save lives in your minds.


Let's talk about something that almost every kitchen in America, hell the world has...Great big thin steel blades capable of puncturing and slicing, able to slit a throat in a single slice.....Think about how many accidents children have with them, think about how easy it is to grab one out of the counter top rack as you, a burglar make your way to the back bedroom of some old ladies home and silently bleed her out no loud bang to alert the neighbors or even a person sleeping in the next room.  With practice a person can toss one from a distance and do lethal damage....  A tiny little strip of super sharp steel can be held in ones mouth until they have a chance to part the red sea of your jugular......WHERE'S THE BAN THE BLADES FOLK AT?   People don't need knives only butchers should have them, you can get your meat presliced at the store hell most food can be cut with a plastic knife and if you need to cut stuff they have safety scissors for that.....


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> So what is he getting wrong?  He's backing up his side with more than the anecdotal information that you are.


I said the text you quoted in response to Post #93.

- He stated that himself and I both know he has supplied more facts in this thread than I have supplied facts in my entire life. He then states this is a fact. Both are incorrect. It is absurd to honestly believe he has given more facts in this thread than I have given facts in my entire life.

All his responses to my own are not directly relevant to the statements I have made in this thread. What I had said were as follows:

- That I don't believe everyone NEEDS a gun.

- I asked if Clemson truly believed that alarms do not prevent any crimes. He did not answer this question directly but instead repeated that alarms don't matter.

- That not all guns are 100% reliable and that you can never be 100% sure no one will be able to have access to your gun.

- That I don't feel I personally need a gun.

- That not owning a gun does not make one defenseless.

- That if an unarmed intruder enters your home, pulling a gun out on them could escalate a situation that could have been harmless.

What I think you guys aren't getting is that I am not against owning guns. I am not saying people should not own guns. I am not saying the government should take all guns away. 

The original point of this thread was whether or not we believed a civilian should be able to own the AA-12. My first post (#16) hints that I don't think any civilian would ever need this type of gun. My second post in this thread (#36) was to acknowledge a good point that maniclion had made about how useful a gun could be in a natural disaster scenario. I agreed. My next  post (#70) was agreeing with Tier that sticter gun control laws, in the example stated, could be detrimental because it may persuade criminals who use guns in crimes to use them more frequently. My following post (#71) was in defense of Prince because clemson jumped on his ass about a statement he had made about personally not feeling he needed to own a gun. Not everyone needs a gun. What's so confusing about this? I am not saying to take them all away.

My main problem with some of you gun advocates is that you are so one-sided that you lump anyone who may disagree with you on one point, as someone who wants to ban all guns. And how you got that from my above statements, I do not know .


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> You will note he's not claiming I got anything wrong ('cause he can't) , he's just doing what all types of his ilk do when cornered with reality and the facts.


Tell me what is my "type of ilk?" I love guns and have stated that I personally go shoot guns for recreation every so often. I plan on purchasing a gun for myself in the near future. You don't even know me, how can you classify my behavioral personality?


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 15, 2008)

that is why i put a gun that you think is unloaded. more accidents happen from people thinking a gun is unloaded, ergo a gun that you think is empty can be more dangerous. my grandmother shot my grandfather in the foot with a gun she thought was unloaded. if you no the gun is loaded common sence tells you to discharge the mag, and clear the chamber. if you think a gun is unloaded and dont take the time to check to  make sure accidents happen.


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's that rule #1 of gun handling?



dont know what the number one rule is but the rules that i learned growing up were: always check the safety, drop the mag, check the chamber, dont point a gun at any thing you dont plan to shoot, never point a gun any were near your body.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> I said the text you quoted in response to Post #93.
> 
> - He stated that himself and I both know he has supplied more facts in this thread than I have supplied facts in my entire life.



Which was in response to your statement "WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again." which of course is wrong as anyone can see who reads any gun related thread I am in. I supply a *GREAT* deal more hard data and facts in any gun related thread than you do, and that son, is a fact.  You can back peddle into victim mode if you wish, but who started with the over generalized statements here is easy for everyone to see in addition to throwing the insults, etc when put into a corner.




KentDog said:


> That I don't believe everyone NEEDS a gun.



And no one said other wise.



KentDog said:


> That if an unarmed intruder enters your home, pulling a gun out on them could escalate a situation that could have been harmless.



Wow, this statement above all others shows what sort of fantasy land you are in. There is NEVER a time an intruder is in your home that the situation is  harmless. I never knew anyone in quite this level of ignorance. You must have lived some charmed life to be that clueless. 



KentDog said:


> Not everyone needs a gun.



And no one said otherwise. More assumptions about "gun nuts" on your part.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> WYou can back peddle into victim mode if you wish



A *very* common tactic on the Internet.



WillBrink said:


> Wow, this statement above all others shows what sort of fantasy land you are in. There is NEVER a time an intruder is in your home that the situation is  harmless.



It's even worse than that.  

How many people have been murdered because they startled the intruder (sometimes on accident), and then the intruder panicked and killed them?  A lot of people have been murdered by people who "didn't mean to do it."

Trusting your life to an intruder (a very messed up individual to begin with), is just plain moronic.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> A *very* common tactic on the Internet.



Which is an odd tactic as it's all right there in print for everyone to see! In a verbal debate you can try that, and some times it works, but it NEVER works in the 'net for the reason there is a record of everything that was said right there! 





DOMS said:


> It's even worse than that.
> 
> How many people have been murdered because they startled the intruder (sometimes on accident), and then the intruder panicked and killed them?  A lot of people have been murdered by people who "didn't mean to do it."



Of course, and on the flip side,  it  also rarely happens that a home owner with a gun is startled and shoots there own family member or something of that nature, and that really sucks, but again, the data shows clearly the benefits of owning a gun FAR outweigh the negatives, and that is the only real point I have ever made here. 



DOMS said:


> Trusting your life to an intruder (a very messed up individual to begin with), is just plain moronic.



Can you imagine even making such a statement and thinking it's a reasonable thing to say? Amazing.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Which was in response to your statement "WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again." which of course is wrong as anyone can see who reads any gun related thread I am in. I supply a *GREAT* deal more hard data and facts in any gun related thread than you do, and that son, is a fact.  You can back peddle into victim mode if you wish, but who started with the over generalized statements here is easy for everyone to see in addition to throwing the insults, etc when put into a corner.


I had stated that a house alarm can work to deter someone from entering your home. This point was not to say anything bad about guns, but to support Prince's statement that he felt he didn't need a gun because he lived in an upper middleclass neighborhood and had a house alarm. Clemson followed this by essentially calling him unintelligent and ignorant because this was his opinion. You posted with sarcasm that all the woman in your YouTube video needed was an alarm and wishful thinking, not a gun. I had never disagreed, yet you chose to attack what I said about house alarms. Then in post #88, you classify me as "one of those people unable to think beyond his own personal situation and is unable to put himself in anothers shoes. A common human failing." How am I the first to throw insults here?

I am not saying that I provide more gun facts than you do. I suppose I misinterpreted what you had originally said. I had thought you said you provided more facts in one of your threads than I have provided overall facts (not only gun related ones) in my entire life. I felt this because why else would you say "my entire life?" Why not have just said "in all of your posts combined?" I feel like I need to restate that I am not against gun ownership.



WillBrink said:


> Wow, this statement above all others shows what sort of fantasy land you are in. There is NEVER a time an intruder is in your home that the situation is  harmless. I never knew anyone in quite this level of ignorance. You must have lived some charmed life to be that clueless.


Well, you've misunderstood what I had meant by the quoted. It may have been unclear wording on my part. What I had meant was physical harm. If someone enters your home and you pull a gun on them but end up getting shot yourself, that is physical harm that may have been avoided. Or if a neighbor came home drunk but mistakenly entered through your front door instead of theirs, and you shot before you had realized who it was, that is physical harm that may have been avoided.

You don't know me. If you did and felt I was the most ignorant person you knew, then you probably do not know very many people. And then you continue by calling me "that clueless." More unnecessary insults.

I assume that you do know that I did not mean "everyone" in the literal sense when I had said that not everyone needed a gun. This was said in response to clemson jumping on Prince's ass for saying that he felt he didn't need a gun because he lived in a nice neighborhood and had a house alarm. So what, this is his opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do not feel I personally need a gun either.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Like a broken record, WillBrink chimes in with his main point to support his argument... the same YouTube link yet again.
> 
> 
> This still does not address if the intruder is unarmed (which was the original example). Is a possible that having a gun could escalate the situation and perhaps be turned against its owner? I expect you gun nuts to avoid addressing this possibility and just resort to insults instead of civil discussion yet again. The problem with you guys is that you can never admit a gun could be used negatively; guns can _only _save lives in your minds.



If the same youtube post is appropriate maybe you should try and understand it this time.

I'll address the intruder being unarmed. Kill him. He is an intruder and has negative intentions in my home. armed or not he needs to die. Is it possible that having a gun in my home and an unarmed intruder comes in and uses it against me? sure. anything is possible. but i prefer that situation to the one where an armed intruder enters my home and i dont have a gun. there you go. no insults. civil. can and are guns used negatively? all the time. doesnt mean i should be denied the right to own one and have the ability to protect myself or my family.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I'll address the intruder being unarmed. Kill him. He is an intruder and has negative intentions in my home. armed or not he needs to die. Is it possible that having a gun in my home and an unarmed intruder comes in and uses it against me? sure. anything is possible. but i prefer that situation to the one where an armed intruder enters my home and i dont have a gun. there you go. no insults. civil. can and are guns used negatively? all the time. doesnt mean i should be denied the right to own one and have the ability to protect myself or my family.


Fair enough. I would like to think that I would be able to find an alternative to shooting an unarmed person in my home, and maybe having them locked up and not dead so that they may have a second chance, but if I were in the situation where someone were in my home, I may very well shoot them as well. I don't know, it's hard to say. I suppose I just wish death wasn't the only solution to a lot of problems. When I was younger, I did some stupid things. Nothing like breaking into someone's house or anything. But I have had friends who have done stupid things too as kids. One had gotten drunk one night and walked into someone's garage and taken something. He got prosecuted for it, but he got a second chance. I couldn't imagine if he were to get shot in the face for it. He was a star wrestler and football player in high school. Great guy, very nice, very likeable, not someone who went around trying to hurt people. Everyone makes bad decisions from time to time. I don't know, it's hard to say if that would have been fair.

Thanks for being civil when voicing your opinion. I don't think people should be denied the right to own a gun in the US either, but I think guns shouldn't be the solution to as many problems as they are; that these problems can be worked out in other ways than immediate death.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> And no one said otherwise. More assumptions about "gun nuts" on your part.


Not really. You are taking what I had said out of context. I was only re-posting the only statements I had made in previous posts, to demonstrate that all of the following posts quoting myself were not directly relevant to the statements I had made. This was in hopes of trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that I was trying to debate you on gun control, and consequently why you began insulting me. I had never said that anyone should be denied the right to own guns.


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> I love guns and have stated that I personally go shoot guns for an erection every so often.



Sorry Kent- Couldn't pass that one up.


Personally, I do not see a need for civilians to have 'military grade' weapons in their posession. But, that's just my opinion.
People collect things. People who collect weapons, like to collect all types of weapons, from flint locks up to current automatic weapons. 
MOST collectors who own these weapons keep them in safe, secure storage safes and only fire them in a 'safe environment': gun ranges, etc

If a person is a non-felon citizen who passes the back ground checks to purchase an auto-matic weapon, why couldn't/shouldn't they be allowed to own them?

As far as 'gun-control' goes, I have no problem with a background check. I like the 5-day cool off idea. it would be nice to have a mandatory class to take for fire arm safety to obtain a weapon. You have to take a driver's test (and hopefully driver's ed) to get your driver's license...

I honestly do not understand the anti-gun people's stance. Ok...YOU don't like guns and don't think you need them. Ok, that's fine for...YOU...but...who are YOU to tell me, a responsible adult, that I can't have a weapon(s) to protect myself, family, property, etc?


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Fair enough. I would like to think that I would be able to find an alternative to shooting an unarmed person in my home, and maybe having them locked up and not dead so that they may have a second chance, but if I were in the situation where someone were in my home, I may very well shoot them as well. I don't know, it's hard to say. I suppose I just wish death wasn't the only solution to a lot of problems. When I was younger, I did some stupid things. Nothing like breaking into someone's house or anything. But I have had friends who have done stupid things too as kids. One had gotten drunk one night and walked into someone's garage and taken something. He got prosecuted for it, but he got a second chance. I couldn't imagine if he were to get shot in the face for it. He was a star wrestler and football player in high school. Great guy, very nice, very likeable, not someone who went around trying to hurt people. Everyone makes bad decisions from time to time. I don't know, it's hard to say if that would have been fair.
> 
> Thanks for being civil when voicing your opinion. I don't think people should be denied the right to own a gun in the US either, but I think guns shouldn't be the solution to as many problems as they are; that these problems can be worked out in other ways than immediate death.



hey bro this is not a attack or anything but there is a problem with your statement. if some one breaks in, and you are trained to use a firearm you do not have to shoot to kill. a 45 to the knee cap or shoulder will do more than enough. also they make mag safe shells. the bullet is non lethal. great for having around the house they do more damadge than a rubber bullet but are considerd a non lethal round. well non lethal unless you shot some one in like the eye or some thing that would be a little diffrent.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> Fair enough. I would like to think that I would be able to find an alternative to shooting an unarmed person in my home, and maybe having them locked up and not dead so that they may have a second chance, but if I were in the situation where someone were in my home, I may very well shoot them as well. I don't know, it's hard to say. I suppose I just wish death wasn't the only solution to a lot of problems. When I was younger, I did some stupid things. Nothing like breaking into someone's house or anything. But I have had friends who have done stupid things too as kids. One had gotten drunk one night and walked into someone's garage and taken something. He got prosecuted for it, but he got a second chance. I couldn't imagine if he were to get shot in the face for it. He was a star wrestler and football player in high school. Great guy, very nice, very likeable, not someone who went around trying to hurt people. Everyone makes bad decisions from time to time. I don't know, it's hard to say if that would have been fair.
> 
> Thanks for being civil when voicing your opinion. I don't think people should be denied the right to own a gun in the US either, but I think guns shouldn't be the solution to as many problems as they are; that these problems can be worked out in other ways than immediate death.



Is there a rash of people breaking and entering and getting shot that i dont know about? In todays world what alternative is there? when the alternative is him or my family the answer is clear to me that it should be him. fair doesnt come with life. It's like the kid carrying a fake gun that gets shot by a cop. it is a tragedy, but i still side with the cop.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 15, 2008)

KentDog said:


> The original point of this thread was whether or not we believed a civilian should be able to own the AA-12.



Kent, I agree that this was the original point.

If your question is whether someone "needs" such a weapon, my answer is no.  No one needs a fully automatic weapon, in the same sense that no one needs a sports car, no one needs a flat screen TV, and no one need a beer.

My interest is in maximizing liberty first, and preserving safety a very close second.  I oppose gun control first and foremost because it is opposed to liberty and second because it doesn't increase safety.  Numerous studies have failed to prove a link between gun control and public safety.  In fact, no gun control law, besides those directed exclusively at criminals, has ever been linked to reduced crime.

Currently, under federal law and contrary to popular opinion, a civilian can own a fully automatic weapon with certain paper work.  I really don't see a problem with this.  The fact of the matter is that a criminal is not going to pay a grand or more for a weapon he can't conceal and probably don't know how to operate.  In fact, according to the FBI the average gun used in a crime costs less than $250 and holds less than 8 rounds.

Another gun control advocate in this threads has previously said that all guns except for hunting rifles should be banned.  This makes perfect sense to me, because I find at least 2 things common among all supporters of gun control.  1) They have no knowledge of even the basics of guns, 2) They have no knowledge of the current laws on guns.  The fact of the matter is that I could blow your head off at 400 yards with my hunting rifle, I'd be lucky to hit you at all at 150 yards with an AK-47, and I'd be lucky to hit you at 60 yards with my Glock.  Moreover, as seen in both England and Australia, that have enacted recent bans, criminals have no problem finding handguns easily.  The only people you disarm are the law abiders.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Moreover, as seen in both England and Australia, that have enacted recent bans, criminals have no problem finding handguns easily.  The only people you disarm are the law abiders.



And they live on *islands*!  How much more difficult would it be to try that in a country that has such large borders with others countries?  Especially a shit-hole country like Mexico.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 16, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And they live on *islands*!  How much more difficult would it be to try that in a country that has such large borders with others countries?  Especially a shit-hole country like Mexico.




Well, America even has experience with prohibitions.  After trillions of dollar and man hours spent, the government has no control over the supply of illegal narcotics.  Literally thousands of tons pass through the border every year.  Why people think you could control guns is beyond me.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 16, 2008)

KentDog said:


> "one of those people unable to think beyond his own personal situation and is unable to put himself in anothers shoes. A common human failing."



That is a common human failing, not an insult per se. Appears you don't know the difference, and yes, you have shown yourself here and other threads to suffer from that failing. Now "you are nothing but a delusional asshole." That's insult. My human failing is I have very little patience for young 20 somethings who like to hear themselves talk (a common failing of 20 somethings) vs shut up and learn. Patience is not one of my strong points, and it is a human failing of mine.

clemson357 (clearly a very patient man) summarized very nicely everything on the topic below in thread #116 for you, so there's nothing needed on my part there. He has clearly done the research on the topic you have not, and thus, actually brings some ammo to this battle of whits, you didn't.



KentDog said:


> I do not feel I personally need a gun either.



Then don't  get one. One does not "need" a gun until...well...you need a gun.  It's a much larger issue than you or I, a topic related to Liberty, Human Rights, etc, as  clemson357 covers nicely. I will never have an abortion, but I will defend a women's right to have one. If you or anyone else want to bet you or your families life on an alarm (and yes, I have one too), and or give your freedoms and liberties and trust to the government, that's your business. I'm going to think you're an idiot, but it's still your business.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 16, 2008)

Prince said:


> I have a family, which is why I live in an upper middle class suburban area and have an alarm on my house, I don't need a gun.



Prince, when one says they live in a low crime area and don’t feel they “need” a gun, that’s quite different than whether or not they may need one statically speaking. Denial can get you killed.

For example, the women who walks home alone late at night in a bad area of NYC says “I feel perfectly safe” is in denial no?

So, “feeling safe” and being safer two very different things right?

So, when one says I live in a low crime area, what you are actually saying is statistically speaking, the likelihood of your needing a gun to protect you or your family is low enough that you feel comfortable not owning one. Fair enough, but one should never mistake “feeling” safe for actually being safe, statistically speaking.

I too live in a low crime area, thus I am at low risk of needing a gun, and I know that. I also have an alarm and good locks and expect that would be effective against 99% of the people who ever attempted to enter my house by force. 

Now, back to feeling safe vs being safe. Before I lived in this town, I lived in Newton MA, which at the time was ranked THE safest city in the US. Number one at that time. Not sure where it’s ranked right now, but I am sure it’s still ranked top 3 or so of safest cities. My land lady didn’t even lock her doors, as she saw no need…Don’t know where you live, but do you think you have lower or higher crime rates than Newton MA? In the 7 years I lived there, I missed an armed bank robbery by less then 30 minutes, there was an armed break in down the block from me. Finally, close by was my favorite little fish store. Being  big salt water fish enthusiast I used to stop in a lo and knew the manager well. 

On night I was in, talked shop went home. Less than an hour later, a guy passing through came into that store (police later assumed he was probably high on something) asking about his drugs, where his money was, etc. My friend the manager tried to tell him he had no idea what he was talking about, so this guy pulls out a gun and shoots him twice. My friend, now shot twice, wrestled the gun from the guys hands, puts it under his chin, and blew is brains all over the fish store.

My friend lived, but with permanent injuries and the store was closed.  That’s real life. Yes, living in low crime areas, statistically speaking, you are unlikely to need a gun, but me, I am not willing to risk my life, or my families life on that, are you?

Don’t plan on any fires, but I have several fire extinguishers too….

Just my thoughts.  Not flaming you.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 16, 2008)

Burner02 said:


> Sorry Kent- Couldn't pass that one up.


lol, nice. Shooting is fun. I would love to be able to go to a place like the one KelJu posted and shoot non-civilian firearms. It really gets the adrenaline pumping.



tomuchgear said:


> hey bro this is not a attack or anything but there is a problem with your statement. if some one breaks in, and you are trained to use a firearm you do not have to shoot to kill. a 45 to the knee cap or shoulder will do more than enough. also they make mag safe shells. the bullet is non lethal. great for having around the house they do more damadge than a rubber bullet but are considerd a non lethal round. well non lethal unless you shot some one in like the eye or some thing that would be a little diffrent.


True. Great point.



bio-chem said:


> Is there a rash of people breaking and entering and getting shot that i dont know about? In todays world what alternative is there? when the alternative is him or my family the answer is clear to me that it should be him. fair doesnt come with life. It's like the kid carrying a fake gun that gets shot by a cop. it is a tragedy, but i still side with the cop.


Another good point. Logic tells you these types of tragedies don't occur frequently. I think in a sense I may have let the media get to me a bit. It may have something to do with the area in which I live in and have lived. Seems the only time you ever see or hear of any crime, it's when a 20 year old convenient store clerk gets his head blown off for $100 even after he gave the money. It may seem common in a large city, but if you're around 150k population, it seems like you always know someone who knew the victim.



clemson357 said:


> If your question is whether someone "needs" such a weapon, my answer is no.  No one needs a fully automatic weapon, in the same sense that no one needs a sports car, no one needs a flat screen TV, and no one need a beer.
> 
> My interest is in maximizing liberty first, and preserving safety a very close second.  I oppose gun control first and foremost because it is opposed to liberty and second because it doesn't increase safety.  Numerous studies have failed to prove a link between gun control and public safety.  In fact, no gun control law, besides those directed exclusively at criminals, has ever been linked to reduced crime.
> 
> ...


Great points and well written . Is it true that most states, in addition the paperwork, require large fees in order to legally purchase an automatic firearm? I have read that some require you to meet face to face with an LEO or even mayor to register it.



WillBrink said:


> That is a common human failing, not an insult per se. Appears you don't know the difference, and yes, you have shown yourself here and other threads to suffer from that failing. Now "you are nothing but a delusional asshole." That's insult.


I apologize for making that comment. As I had explained before, it was made in response to what I took were insults made at me first. Just a simple misunderstanding. In all fairness, what other threads have I shown this in your opinion, other than your other gun control thread? I only ask because I do not feel it represents my personality at all and that you may just be jumping to conclusions based on two gun-related threads.



WillBrink said:


> Then don't  get one. One does not "need" a gun until...well...you need a gun.  It's a much larger issue than you or I, a topic related to Liberty, Human Rights, etc, as  clemson357 covers nicely. I will never have an abortion, but I will defend a women's right to have one. If you or anyone else want to bet you or your families life on an alarm (and yes, I have one too), and or give your freedoms and liberties and trust to the government, that's your business. I'm going to think you're an idiot, but it's still your business.


Well written and good point. Same with post #120.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 16, 2008)

KentDog said:


> I apologize for making that comment. As I had explained before, it was made in response to what I took were insults made at me first.



Apology accepted and one sent back your way. I don't think it's surprising you would take as an insult, as no one likes to be accused of having a human failing. It's taken as an insult vs an observation and that's understandable *especially if you don't agree with it.*.. My human failing is I have the tact of a ballpean hammer and the patience of a angry bear. People have said "you know what Brink, you are an impatient A-hole" and  they would be correct....minus the A-hole part..



KentDog said:


> Just a simple misunderstanding. In all fairness, what other threads have I shown this in your opinion, other than your other gun control thread? I only ask because I do not feel it represents my personality at all and that you may just be jumping to conclusions based on two gun-related threads.



I don't know how many threads, but you have made that comment before and I and others addressed it. I don't mind debating, addressing, etc topics with people, but when they repeat comments I know has already been addressed or corrected, it irks me and my impatient side comes out quickly. Ergo, the comment tells me you apply yourself (a healthy 22 year old male) to every scenario vs seeing it from the 50 year old womens perspective, or the 80 year old man, etc. Again, younger people tend to do this, some people at any age do that.

Was talking to a guy not long ago on the same topic. He made similar "I don't need a gun" comments and finished with "I am 6ft, 250lbs and have a black belt in X." My response (as you can guess was), that's great, but most people are not, so what of them? He was unable view the world beyond his own personal loci, a common human failing and (I find) a hallmark personality trait of those in favor of gun control.

They think they have empathy for others, but they really don't, they think they know whats best for others (whether they like it or not!) vs real empathy. For example, the anti gun politician who (a) has a CCW license and (b) are guarded by armed men, but they wish to take my rights away to defend myself, etc



KentDog said:


> Well written and good point. Same with post #120.



Thanx, I simply wanted get away from the theoretical (which people find hard to really internalize to their own life) and get back to the real world (using myself as example) which people an understand and hopefuly have an "ah ha!" moment from it


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 16, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Apology accepted and one sent back your way. I don't think it's surprising you would take as an insult, as no one likes to be accused of having a human failing. It's taken as an insult vs an observation and that's understandable *especially if you don't agree with it.*.. My human failing is I have the tact of a ballpean hammer and the patience of a angry bear. People have said "you know what Brink, you are an impatient A-hole" and  they would be correct....minus the A-hole part..



my responce to the person that said i dont need a gun i have a black belt is simple. with you black belt can you a. dodge a bullet, b. catch a bullet, and c. stop some one before they pull the trigger at a distance. i am personaly well versed in a few fighting styles. i have been in martial arts since i was a kid. also i made it on team usa a few years ago when i still fought. all that being said doesnt matter who you are or what you know there can always be some one better. in a gun situation no matter how good you are a 3 year old can blow you away. do i have guns oh ya i love em. i have them for many reason besides just collecting. you should never ever think that becouse you can fight you can take a guy with a gun. a wallet is a wallet. a life or death situation hell ya charge that ass hole. i just dont ever plan to be in that situation were i am the unarmed one.




WillBrink said:


> I don't know how many threads, but you have made that comment before and I and others addressed it. I don't mind debating, addressing, etc topics with people, but when they repeat comments I know has already been addressed or corrected, it irks me and my impatient side comes out quickly. Ergo, the comment tells me you apply yourself (a healthy 22 year old male) to every scenario vs seeing it from the 50 year old womens perspective, or the 80 year old man, etc. Again, younger people tend to do this, some people at any age do that.
> 
> Was talking to a guy not long ago on the same topic. He made similar "I don't need a gun" comments and finished with "I am 6ft, 250lbs and have a black belt in X." My response (as you can guess was), that's great, but most people are not, so what of them? He was unable view the world beyond his own personal loci, a common human failing and (I find) a hallmark personality trait of those in favor of gun control.
> 
> They think they have empathy for others, but they really don't, they think they know whats best for others (whether they like it or not!) vs real empathy. For example, the anti gun politician who (a) has a CCW license and (b) are guarded by armed men, but they wish to take my rights away to defend myself, etc





Thanx, I simply wanted get away from the theoretical (which people find hard to really internalize to their own life) and get back to the real world (using myself as example) which people an understand and hopefuly have an "ah ha!" moment from it


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 16, 2008)

wow that came through screwed up sorry my responce is in the middle. can some one fix that please.


DOMS: fixed.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 16, 2008)

tomuchgear said:


> my responce to the person that said i dont need a gun i have a black belt is simple. with you black belt can you a. dodge a bullet, b. catch a bullet, and c. stop some one before they pull the trigger at a distance.



All true, but you have to take on one ignorant statement at a time with people. 



tomuchgear said:


> i am personaly well versed in a few fighting styles. i have been in martial arts since i was a kid. also i made it on team usa a few years ago when i still fought. all that being said doesnt matter who you are or what you know there can always be some one better. in a gun situation no matter how good you are a 3 year old can blow you away.



Hence, the well known quote regarding Colt making all men equal...


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 16, 2008)

hey thanks alot doms. at times though willbrink ignorant statements come so much it is easy to become annoyed. i have dealt with many a ignorant statement with my line of work.


----------



## KentDog (Mar 17, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> you apply yourself (a healthy 22 year old male) to every scenario vs seeing it from the 50 year old womens perspective, or the 80 year old man, etc. Again, younger people tend to do this, some people at any age do that.
> 
> Was talking to a guy not long ago on the same topic. He made similar "I don't need a gun" comments and finished with "I am 6ft, 250lbs and have a black belt in X." My response (as you can guess was), that's great, but most people are not, so what of them? He was unable view the world beyond his own personal loci, a common human failing and (I find) a hallmark personality trait of those in favor of gun control.
> 
> ...


You know to be honest, when you had first made the "you are, but how about a 100 pound woman" statement in the other thread, that was an "ah ha!" moment for me. It was well put and a very good point, and I agree that I can see it being common among gun control advocates (the overlooking of others' situations and not only your own). I apologize for not putting much effort into that previous thread; I remember that being a very busy time for me, being my last semester in school and being loaded with school, work, job interviews, and trying to throw in a little bit of a social life in there as well. The best type of argument is a logical one backed with facts, and I may have made statements to stimulate discussion (that I may or may not have agreed with), but it is true that I did not provide any outside source to back them up. Well done, Will.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 18, 2008)

KentDog said:


> You know to be honest, when you had first made the "you are, but how about a 100 pound woman" statement in the other thread, that was an "ah ha!" moment for me. It was well put and a very good point, and I agree that I can see it being common among gun control advocates (the overlooking of others' situations and not only your own). I apologize for not putting much effort into that previous thread; I remember that being a very busy time for me, being my last semester in school and being loaded with school, work, job interviews, and trying to throw in a little bit of a social life in there as well. The best type of argument is a logical one backed with facts, and I may have made statements to stimulate discussion (that I may or may not have agreed with), but it is true that I did not provide any outside source to back them up. Well done, Will.




Thanx KentDog. I am all for objective civil discussion on the topic. People like myself, who research the topic extensively, will get defensive when we see knee jerk emotional responses, especially if they are easy to disprove and debunk, but the person ignores it in favor of their illogical "guns are bad" type statements.


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 18, 2008)

well praise the lord and pass the amunition. you guys finaly are done arguing back and forth.


----------



## Tier (Mar 18, 2008)

Here's an interesting question, how many cops would die disarming Americans? It's not something I would obviously enjoy see happening but realistically, how many do you guys think?


----------



## Biggly (Mar 18, 2008)

Very very few. The majority of gun-owners are peaceful law-abiding citizens, who would spit n curse with disgust but meekly comply with any law.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 18, 2008)

so how does everyone think the case before the US Supreme Court will turn out?


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 18, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> so how does everyone think the case before the US Supreme Court will turn out?



I started a thread on the topic and added what I think the conclusion will be:

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/o...court-starts-today-heller-case-2a-rights.html

Listening the court transcripts, that's how it's looking to play out.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 19, 2008)

tomuchgear said:


> well praise the lord and pass the amunition. you guys finaly are done arguing back and forth.



Well SHIT!!!  I just made a fresh batch of popcorn so I could enjoy more of the fights and here you tell me there won't be any more fights?


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 19, 2008)

...well, at your age...you probably forgot where you put that bag of popcorn...


----------



## tomuchgear (Mar 19, 2008)

hey dont worry its the internet there will be more fights.


----------



## Will Brink (Mar 31, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Very very few. The majority of gun-owners are peaceful law-abiding citizens, who would spit n curse with disgust but meekly comply with any law.



Well it appears the people in the UK are starting to awake to what a huge mistake they made. Take a look at this new vid:

YouTube - England Gun Ban Update

If that does not make you angry and more intent than ever in protecting your 2A Rights, nothing will...


----------



## danzik17 (Mar 31, 2008)

Not only the 2A right, but every right.  I'm amazed at just how much shit people put up with from the government, but unfortunately I'm only one voice sending letters to my representatives in Congress.

As sad as it is, Colbert put it the best way - this generation doesn't know how to do anything but write angry posts on a blog and post videos to youtube.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 31, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Not only the 2A right, but every right.  I'm amazed at just how much shit people put up with from the government, but unfortunately I'm only one voice sending letters to my representatives in Congress.
> 
> As sad as it is, Colbert put it the best way - this generation doesn't know how to do anything but write angry posts on a blog and post videos to youtube.


Not me buddy, I'm always getting response letters from Abercrombie, Akaka and Inouye and my state reps get emails too...I even know the name of my Neighborhood Board Chairperson for my area...most people barely know who their Governor and Mayor are which is sad.  Being in my business i also get to meet a lot of our state reps when they come in to get more info on alternative energy or get some presentation materials....


----------



## ZECH (Mar 31, 2008)

tomuchgear said:


> . at times though willbrink ignorant statements come so much it is easy to become annoyed. i have dealt with many a ignorant statement with my line of work.



That is saying alot seeing you spell response "responce"
What is the old saying, Pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 3, 2008)

dg806 said:


> That is saying alot seeing you spell response "responce"



A spelling flame is your response? While we are at it, there is no such word as "alot." Look it up. Regardless, a spelling error is far different than being ignorant of a topic, and NO ONE supplies more hard data and facts on the topic then I do.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> A spelling flame is your response? While we are at it, there is no such word as "alot." Look it up. Regardless, a spelling error is far different than being ignorant of a topic, and NO ONE supplies more hard data and facts on the topic then I do.



i dont think DG was disagreeing with you.


----------



## TexanTA1996 (Jun 3, 2008)

YouTube Video


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 3, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i dont think DG was disagreeing with you.



Crap, you're right. He was replying to tomuchgear not I. My bad!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 3, 2008)

TexanTA1996 said:


> YouTube Video



I have seen that one and it's good stuff for sure. Other vids to see:

For those who like to say stupid things like taking guns away from law abiding US citizens when they need them most could ever happen, the Katrina experience:

YouTube - NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

For those who want to see what happens to others who don't fight for their rights to self defense, the UK and Australian experience:

Weapon Videos - Point, Aim, Click, Film........ :: Video :: Gun bans in the UK (NRA)

And follow up to the UK and Aussi experience:

YouTube - England Gun Ban Update

For those who like to tell some 120lb woman - who has to face some 200lb rapist/stalker - to "just call the police, you don't need a gun", tell that to this woman:

YouTube - Armed Citizens: Calling 911 Doesn't Always Work

And for Humor, Penn and Teller on gun control:

gun control is bullshit by penn and teller - Google Video


----------



## KelJu (Jun 3, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i dont think DG was disagreeing with you.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 3, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Crap, you're right. He was replying to tomuchgear not I. My bad!



Yeah I was taking up for you!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 3, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Yeah I was taking up for you!



Thanx! I didn't see that last response, and jumped the gun...pun intended!


----------



## tomuchgear (Jun 3, 2008)

wow stab at me for my spelling. that does not in any way make me ignorant. i am the first to admit my spelling sucks. also i know my grammar is terrible but still does not make me ignorant.


----------



## tomuchgear (Jun 3, 2008)

also i was stating a point that ignorant statements happen all the freaking time. i was not saying willbrink is ignorant or firing a shot at him all the time. i was stating that i understand were he is coming from.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 3, 2008)

tomuchgear said:


> also i was stating a point that ignorant statements happen all the freaking time. i was not saying willbrink is ignorant or firing a shot at him all the time. i was stating that i understand were he is coming from.



Never mind! It's my fault for stirring that up, so apologies all around. Can't we just get along?!


----------



## tomuchgear (Jun 3, 2008)

sorry bout the all the time i meant any time or some thing. i was cooking dinner any way. no worries at all i just wanted to state my point of view, and clear my statement.


----------



## HOOPIE (Jun 3, 2008)

Look guns dont kill people, *people kill people*.  People will use what ever they can to kill you.  Gun, bat, crowbar, 2x4, a car.  So should we ban all of those to.  I own a few and also have a carry permit.  Its my 2nd amendment right to protect myself and my family.  You take away that right and you can bet your ass that the criminals will still have them and the crime rate will sky rocket.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 4, 2008)

HOOPIE said:


> Look guns dont kill people, *people kill people*.  People will use what ever they can to kill you.  Gun, bat, crowbar, 2x4, a car.  So should we ban all of those to.  I own a few and also have a carry permit.  Its my 2nd amendment right to protect myself and my family.  You take away that right and you can bet your ass that the criminals will still have them and the crime rate will sky rocket.



Another example of what can happen when a law abiding CCW type is there and forced to act, which is stop a shooting spree:

Victims Released; No Charges Filed Against Reno Man In Winnemucca Shootings

Watch vid. I'm surprised the fact it was a CCW that stopped it was even mentioned on the vid, as the news media goes out of it's way to always ignore that fact a civilian with a CCW stopped a crime. Happens far more often than most people know, but the media makes sure to ignore that little detail as they (God forbid) don't want to encourage gun ownership or people "taking matters in their own hands" type attitudes, even if more people with CCWs  can and does save lives...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> "when seconds count the cops are just minutes away"
> 
> 
> "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -



Brilliant.

The founders felt that in reaction to the impending threat of government and criminals, civilians had a RIGHT to protect their : property rights, right to pursue happiness, right to liberty, and most importantly RIGHT TO LIVE -  protecting those with aggressive force.  People who want to ban firearms (not necessarily those who want to regulate them) are anti-constitution and anti-liberty.  That is to say their beliefs rationalize communal safety over individual safety, even though it is obvious that such gun control measures are equally dangerous to both.


----------



## HOOPIE (Jun 4, 2008)

Whats funny is people get killed by drunk drivers, yet you dont hear anyone saying that cars should be banned or alcohol should be banned.  Shows the ignorance of some folks.


----------



## mcguin (Jun 5, 2008)

HOOPIE said:


> Look guns dont kill people, *people kill people*.  People will use what ever they can to kill you.  Gun, bat, crowbar, 2x4, a car.  So should we ban all of those to.  I own a few and also have a carry permit.  Its my 2nd amendment right to protect myself and my family.  You take away that right and you can bet your ass that the criminals will still have them and the crime rate will sky rocket.



EXACTLY!  When the 9/11 response time in my neighborhood is 10-20 minutes, you bet your ass I'm going to have mr glock .45  waiting on the other side of that door.


----------



## tomuchgear (Jun 5, 2008)

depends on wich room of my house i am in. up or down i like to stay armed


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 6, 2008)

HOOPIE said:


> Whats funny is people get killed by drunk drivers, yet you dont hear anyone saying that cars should be banned or alcohol should be banned. Shows the ignorance of some folks.


 
Over 40,000 people per year die from DUI alone, not to mention all other alcohol related deaths.  Alcohol is more closely tied to violence in general than guns are.

Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year, over 50% of which are suicides.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 12, 2008)

HOOPIE said:


> Whats funny is people get killed by drunk drivers, yet you dont hear anyone saying that cars should be banned or alcohol should be banned.  Shows the ignorance of some folks.



Hey, a guy with a truck and a knife just killed 7 people in Japan. Gotta ban them trucks and knives...

TOKYO  â??????  A man who police said "was tired of life" drove into a crowd of pedestrians Sunday and then went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo's top electronics and video game district, killing seven people and wounding 10, authorities said.

FOXNews.com - Man Plows Into Crowd, Goes On Stabbing Rampage; 7 Reported Dead - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


----------



## Hench (Jun 12, 2008)

if no one had access to guns your country would be much safer. ive seen many cop shows from america where a car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer approaches the car door, weapon drawn? in the UK and Ireland even after a lengthy chase and severe evasive action by the person fleeing, when they are finally pulled over the police officer just walks up to the car and opens the door. Hell, most police officers in england dont even carry guns, the ones who do are a special division. The situation is slightly different in N.ireland where i live due to the troubles in the 70's and 80's, however gun crime still isnt that common. the only reason that crime rates are higher in places like DC is because the law abiding citizens do as they should and get rid of their guns, where as the criminals keep theirs, allowing crime rate to increase. if nobody had guns there would be less crime a HELL of a lot less murder.    

there, thats my rant over....


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> if no one had access to guns your country would be much safer. ive seen many cop shows from america where a car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer approaches the car door, weapon drawn? in the UK and Ireland even after a lengthy chase and severe evasive action by the person fleeing, when they are finally pulled over the police officer just walks up to the car and opens the door. Hell, most police officers in england dont even carry guns, the ones who do are a special division. The situation is slightly different in N.ireland where i live due to the troubles in the 70's and 80's, however gun crime still isnt that common. the only reason that crime rates are higher in places like DC is because the law abiding citizens do as they should and get rid of their guns, where as the criminals keep theirs, allowing crime rate to increase. if nobody had guns there would be less crime a HELL of a lot less murder.
> 
> there, thats my rant over....



Ireland 32,000 square miles, population 6 million
US  3.7 million square miles, population population 300 million.

we are dealing with a whole different animal here. it is impossible to disarm every american. and while that is the case law abiding americans are safest when we own guns to protect ourselves. our histories have shaped our collective countries psychies differently as well. to many americans the right to bear arms is up there with the right to own property


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> if no one had access to guns your country would be much safer. ive seen many cop shows from america where a car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer approaches the car door, weapon drawn? in the UK and Ireland even after a lengthy chase and severe evasive action by the person fleeing, when they are finally pulled over the police officer just walks up to the car and opens the door. Hell, most police officers in england dont even carry guns, the ones who do are a special division. The situation is slightly different in N.ireland where i live due to the troubles in the 70's and 80's, however gun crime still isnt that common. the only reason that crime rates are higher in places like DC is because the law abiding citizens do as they should and get rid of their guns, where as the criminals keep theirs, allowing crime rate to increase. if nobody had guns there would be less crime a HELL of a lot less murder.
> 
> there, thats my rant over....



One, your final statement is wrong and shown to be wrong in the research. For example:

Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):

"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that

"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

The Abstract:

Abstract

The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the worldâ??????s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant. 

Full paper downloaded here:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence

Two, many of your countryman also know your impression about guns both over there and here are incorrect. For example, the following article from the London (England) 'Times' is well worth reading. The original can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

////////////////


British attitudes are supercilious and misguided

Richard Munday

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that â?????gun controlsâ??? do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: â?????Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.â???

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginiaâ??????s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has â?????bannedâ??? pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).


How worried should we be about gun crime?
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns

Americaâ??????s disenchantment with â?????gun controlâ??? is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that â?????firearms-related crime has plummetedâ???.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun â?????? rifle, pistol, or machinegun â?????? without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Bront??« recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen


----------



## Hench (Jun 12, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Ireland 32,000 square miles, population 6 million
> US  3.7 million square miles, population population 300 million.
> 
> we are dealing with a whole different animal here. it is impossible to disarm every american. and while that is the case law abiding americans are safest when we own guns to protect ourselves. our histories have shaped our collective countries psychies differently as well. to many americans the right to bear arms is up there with the right to own property



i completely agree with the fact that it is unrealisitic to expect this to ever happen, the n.irleand government has been trying to disarm paramilitaries for the past 30 years and has only been mildly successful(and there is less than 500,000 of them). however just because many americans demand the right to own guns does not make it right. they feel they need guns because their attackers will almost certainly have guns. its an 'eye for and eye' mentality. 

although one thing i will commend you on are your prison sentences. again, after watching cop shows and hearing the length of prison sentences given to criminals i wonder why there is still crime. they get such a huge penalty for minor crimes, definatley the way to work things in my opinion


----------



## Hench (Jun 12, 2008)

i agree with the fact that gun control only disarms the law abiding, and that it is impossible at this stage to ever successfully control guns. however, if gun control had been implemented from the very beginning, your country would be a safer place. 

my parents grew up during the troubles in n.ireland, and they would make anywhere in america seem safe. a close family friend was killed druing the 80's by paramilitaries using automatic weapons (he was a police officer, and was driving around belfast at the time). 

i do not support the soft approach, i believe the law has to be firm. i support the war in iraq(to a certian extent) and believe in the death penalty. however putting deadly weapons in the hand of undereducated civillains is absolute madness! i remember hearing a story on the news a few months back, of a man who called 911 reporting a robbery at his neighbours house, and as he was on the phone they left the house and were about to run away. he then opened his door and shot them dead. this man should not be praised, he should face the death penalty. robbery is a terrible crime and the criminals should be punished, however it does in no way warrant murder. these mens had wives and children, they may be bad people but they did not deserve to lose their lives. i would question the mental sanity of anybody who believes the man in question was correct in shotting the robbers.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> i completely agree with the fact that it is unrealisitic to expect this to ever happen, the n.irleand government has been trying to disarm paramilitaries for the past 30 years and has only been mildly successful(and there is less than 500,000 of them). however just because many americans demand the right to own guns does not make it right. they feel they need guns because their attackers will almost certainly have guns. its an 'eye for and eye' mentality.
> 
> although one thing i will commend you on are your prison sentences. again, after watching cop shows and hearing the length of prison sentences given to criminals i wonder why there is still crime. they get such a huge penalty for minor crimes, definatley the way to work things in my opinion



its not that we demand the right to own guns. it is an amendment to our constitution. it is a right. and as we live in a republic if we as a collective body demand it as a right then it is a right. we expect it as a right.

the reason why it is now illegal in the british isles is that the people did not demand it as a right. so it was lost.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> however just because many americans demand the right to own guns does not make it right.



False. In America it IS A RIGHT. No other country in the world has it written into their Const. as a right of all free people. From the gent who actually wrote that right into our Const:

"Gun-control laws have always been elitist and racist. Elitists have always wanted to disarm the common folks while, of course, retaining the privileges of arms for themselves. And the right to keep and bear arms has always been a populist cause." - James Madison (boasting to a European critic that the new country of America did not fear its own people and allowed them to own arms).



Moondogg said:


> they feel they need guns because their attackers will almost certainly have guns. its an 'eye for and eye' mentality.



Also false and what I already posted would cover that well. Yes, self defense is one reason to be sure, and banning handguns in the UK saw a big rise in crime as already pointed out in the article I posted from your own news papers. I hope you are not one of those "don't confuse me with the facts" type who simply ignores what he does not like.



Moondogg said:


> although one thing i will commend you on are your prison sentences. again, after watching cop shows and hearing the length of prison sentences given to criminals i wonder why there is still crime. they get such a huge penalty for minor crimes, definatley the way to work things in my opinion



Yes, one of the reasons for our drop in crime was increases sentences.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> i agree with the fact that gun control only disarms the law abiding, and that it is impossible at this stage to ever successfully control guns. however, if gun control had been implemented from the very beginning, your country would be a safer place.



False, and I already posted the proof you need to know it's false. It would make us less safe and data, facts, and history have shown that to be true.

Denial: "Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence..."


----------



## Hench (Jun 12, 2008)

i meant right as in *correct*, not right as in it is a one of your legal rights. 

you make a very good argument, and no i am not someone who ignores facts, and i will readily admit that i am out of my depth as far as this argument goes, i am speaking from what i have seen in my country through decomission of weapons and through personal opinion. 

untimatley that facts may stand in your favour, however i feel safer knowing that the chances of someone walking about armed in my main cities is almost zero, whereas when i walk about american cities at night, i am always wary of what someone may have concealed on their person. 

you did not make any comment on the story of the neighbour shooting the robbers, do you think he was justified in any way? if you must have a gun use it for self defence, not target practise. the criminals were trying to escape, they posed no immediate danger to him, and yet he felt the need to open fire? this is the sort of person who spoils things for the rest.  

once again i am about to speak about something i do not know in enough detail, so please excuse my ignornace, but what methods of gun control have the government tried in the past. have they tried background checks, mental evaluations, not selling guns to anyone with a criminal record relating to gun?ect...


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> i meant right as in *correct*, not right as in it is a one of your legal rights.
> 
> you make a very good argument, and no i am not someone who ignores facts, and i will readily admit that i am out of my depth as far as this argument goes, i am speaking from what i have seen in my country through decomission of weapons and through personal opinion.
> 
> ...



these things and others have been tried in various forms. personally I think the guy is more than within his rights to shoot them.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 12, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> i meant right as in *correct*, not right as in it is a one of your legal rights.



I don't follow you there. 



Moondogg said:


> you make a very good argument, and no i am not someone who ignores facts, and i will readily admit that i am out of my depth as far as this argument goes, i am speaking from what i have seen in my country through decomission of weapons and through personal opinion.



That's fine, as long as you don't mistake it for objective data or reality.  How does the decommissioning of weapons by the IRA have any bearing on all this? It proves what we know: when they wanted weapons, they had them and no amount of efforts by the Brits prevented that. Any decommissioned arms were voluntary by the IRA. Thus, be they criminals or IRA fighting the Brits, they will have guns, bombs, etc at will.



Moondogg said:


> untimatley that facts may stand in your favour, however i feel safer knowing that the chances of someone walking about armed in my main cities is almost zero, whereas when i walk about american cities at night, i am always wary of what someone may have concealed on their person.



Which tells me you didnt read that article I posted from the London Times above....a quote from it:

"*In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.*"



Moondogg said:


> you did not make any comment on the story of the neighbour shooting the robbers, do you think he was justified in any way?



How could you even ask? To ask, tells me the sheep you all have turned into.He should have been given a prize.




Moondogg said:


> if you must have a gun use it for self defence,



"must"? Who decided this "must"? All free men have the right to defend themselves, be it from common criminals or tyranny. As a rather wise Brit said:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there." --George Orwell

Again, actually take the time to read that article I posted, and try to use your logical objective mind.



Moondogg said:


> not target practise. the criminals were trying to escape, they posed no immediate danger to him, and yet he felt the need to open fire? this is the sort of person who spoils things for the rest.



Yes, they spoil things for criminals. Have you all really become daffy over there you have forgotten your rights? You are a product of serious brain washing and socialist government I guess, and it's sad to see people from such a once great nation turned into sheep who would allow criminals to enter your homes at will. Pitiful. Not even the worlds best known man of peace would agree with you:

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully." - Mahatma Gandhi (Young India, 11-10-1928, p342)



Moondogg said:


> once again i am about to speak about something i do not know in enough detail, so please excuse my ignornace, but what methods of gun control have the government tried in the past. have they tried background checks, mental evaluations, not selling guns to anyone with a criminal record relating to gun?ect...



Again, it's quite clear you totally ignored what I posted regarding both the study and the effects of attempts at gun control have had on your side of the pond. Anyone who has actually read the data AND pays attention to history, has no interest in gun control. Again, Mr. Gandhi voice comes back to us:

"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." -Mohandas K. Gandhi


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 12, 2008)

I am fairly opinionated on a lot of political issues, but I have to say I believe gun control is the only political issues that is black and white, right and wrong, clear as day.  

There is no room for difference of opinion, unless we are talking about whether governments should arbitrarily restrict people's liberties without any benefit to anyone.

As to whether gun control reduces crime, there is no debate.  It doesn't.  It never has.  Not in any city.  Not in any country.  Not in any time period.  Not under any circumstances.  There is not one single study correlating a restriction on the general public's access to guns with reduced violent crime.

The gun control movement is one of the biggest political frauds of modern history.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 12, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I am fairly opinionated on a lot of political issues, but I have to say I believe gun control is the only political issues that is black and white, right and wrong, clear as day.
> 
> There is no room for difference of opinion, unless we are talking about whether governments should arbitrarily restrict people's liberties without any benefit to anyone.
> 
> ...



As I've pointed out before, the one aspect of gun control advocates that is the most amusing is that, quite often, the people that advocate gun control are also the people that claim that they don't trust the government.

Morons.


----------



## danny81 (Jun 12, 2008)

I think all weaposn should be legal to buy. not even just because i love guns. but foreal i would not rob some old lady if she had an AR-15 or an m-4


----------



## ZECH (Jun 13, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> The gun control movement is one of the biggest political frauds of modern history.



The United Nations has alot to do with this. They are the most worthless and corrupt organiztion in the world.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 13, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I am fairly opinionated on a lot of political issues, but I have to say I believe gun control is the only political issues that is black and white, right and wrong, clear as day.
> 
> There is no room for difference of opinion, unless we are talking about whether governments should arbitrarily restrict people's liberties without any benefit to anyone.
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## ZECH (Jun 13, 2008)

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## ZECH (Jun 13, 2008)

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty. 

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## ZECH (Jun 13, 2008)

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. 

William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 13, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin



Who also said:

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." --Ben Franklin

No Brit, or anyone from another country, can really understand the power of those words to us. That's the problem, they have been quelled into helpless sheep who look to their government for help, and look at Americans as crazy with a "what's the big deal about freedom and liberty these Americans keep going on about?" attitude. 

The above words from great men like Franklin et al have POWER to me, and remind me of what's at stake. Men since them, and before them, have known that too, as have men of peace and mend of war know all to well what happens when a population can't protect itself:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## mcguin (Jun 13, 2008)

I usually don't chime in to these conversations especially since the majority of the posts on here are coming from guys who have already said what I would've said in answer to the guy from Ireland.  The fact of the matter is, no other country has room to talk about what America should and shouldn't do.  If it wasn't for America, you probably wouldn't be typing any posts on here to begin with, that goes for any of the other nations listening.  And the fact of the matter is, you take away guns from law abiding citizens, your still left with the scum of this country obtaining guns illegally and continuously shooting down armed police officers.  This country was founded by armed militia men!  It is our right to bear arms, and thats the law!  And the last argument to put people in place is look at what happened to great ole Britain!  Disarm the peeps and the crime rates keep rocketing up!  Now you have the same crooks with the illegal handguns, and the innocents are carrying what? not guns!


----------



## Hench (Jun 14, 2008)

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): 

  Homicide Suicide       Other           (inc Accident) 

USA (2001)       3.98       5.92       0.36 
Italy (1997)   0.81       1.1       0.07 
Switzerland (1998) 0.50       5.8       0.10 
Canada (2002) 0.4      2.0       0.04 
Finland (2003) 0.35      4.45      0.10 
Australia (2001)  0.24       1.34       0.10 
France (2001) 0.21      3.4       0.49 
England/Wales (2002) 0.15      0.2       0.03 
Scotland (2002)  0.06       0.2      0.02 
Japan (2002)  0.02      0.04      0 

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International.  Westport.
(appoligies that the table is not overly clear to read, it will not let me edit the set up)

Though this was an interesting table, and helped to explain my views better. i am not so much against law abiding people have guns for their protection, as i am their ease of access makes them much more likely to be used for crime. i just find it mind boggling to think that on their 18th birthday any guy or girl can walk into Wal Mart and purchase a deadly weapon, no questions asked.


----------



## Hench (Jun 14, 2008)

WillBrink - sorry for not reading your posts fully, i had an exam on friday morning, and so i really should not have been posting on thursday, i was just coming online for short peroids and was trying to save time by skimming over the articles. 

i would like to know where Richard Munday got his facts from, because any tables or stats that i can find nowhere near agree with his statement that 

'we suffer three time the violent crime suffered in America'

i also feel that your are taking a lot of his statements to be fact, when they are really a matter of opinion. 

the bit that a do take offensive to however, is being called a sheep. of course i would defend myself if someone entered my house, however the fact that guns are not easily accessable here means that he will most likely not have one (and by most likely i mean almost certainly) and so i can defend myself by different means. i support the war in iraq, i support tough prison sentences, i support the death penalty, i support taking a tough stance with Iran, just because i think it unwise to give everyone easy access to firearms sure as hell does not make me a sheep. 

i dont really want to move off topic here, but as for the world wars, if america had got its finger out and entered in the war in 1939 with britain (a country with whom you have a strong alliance) and not waited until 1942 the war could have been won much faster and millions of lives could have been saved.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 14, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> Gun deaths per 100,000 population



I don't want to cause an embolism or anything, but you do realize that you can kill a person without a gun, right?


----------



## Hench (Jun 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I don't want to cause an embolism or anything, but you do realize that you can kill a person without a gun, right?



the table is meant to show that because americans have such easy access to guns, they are much more likely to use them irresponsibly. which is basically the reservation i have with them being so widely available, the way in which people abuse them.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 14, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> WillBrink - sorry for not reading your posts fully, i had an exam on friday morning, and so i really should not have been posting on thursday, i was just coming online for short peroids and was trying to save time by skimming over the articles.
> 
> i would like to know where Richard Munday got his facts from, because any tables or stats that i can find nowhere near agree with his statement that
> 
> 'we suffer three time the violent crime suffered in America'



Read the article again. He gives exactly what his source is.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 14, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> Though this was an interesting table, and helped to explain my views better.
> i am not so much against law abiding people have guns for their protection, as i am their ease of access makes them much more likely to be used for crime. i



Wrong again:

"There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder." - Dr John R Lott.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 15, 2008)

Moondogg said:


> the table is meant to show that because americans have such easy access to guns, they are much more likely to use them irresponsibly. which is basically the reservation i have with them being so widely available, the way in which people abuse them.




No, I think the table is meant to show how your average layman is completely unable to grasp the concepts involved in looking at statistics.

Pardon me if I don't belabor explaining it to you.  This topic is like a revolving door of idiots; every time you get done explaining the blatantly obvious to one person, another one jumps in with the same biased garbage and it starts all over.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> No, I think the table is meant to show how your average layman is completely unable to grasp the concepts involved in looking at statistics.
> 
> Pardon me if I don't belabor explaining it to you.  This topic is like a revolving door of idiots; every time you get done explaining the blatantly obvious to one person, another one jumps in with the same biased garbage and it starts all over.



Truth.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 15, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> No, I think the table is meant to show how your average layman is completely unable to grasp the concepts involved in looking at statistics.



It's always stunning to me how little most from the UK know about their own crime rates, yet feel it's fine to offer opinions on ours. Most from the UK don't even know how their crime stats are collected, and the fact there are two primary sources used. A good article on that:

Exploding the myth of the falling crime rate | UK news | The Guardian


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I don't want to cause an embolism or anything, but you do realize that you can kill a person without a gun, right?



Sort of like this?

TOKYO (AP) â?????? A man plowed into shoppers with a truck Sunday and then stabbed 17 people within minutes, killing at least seven of them in a grisly attack that shocked a country known for its low crime rate.

The lunchtime violence in the Akihabara district, a popular electronics and video game area, sent thousands of people fleeing.

The assault, which occurred on the seventh anniversary of a mass stabbing at a Japanese elementary school, was the latest in a series of knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising violent crime in Japan.

7 dead in Tokyo stabbing rampage - USATODAY.com

Time to ban trucks and knives!


----------



## DOMS (Jun 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Sort of like this?
> 
> TOKYO (AP) â?????? A man plowed into shoppers with a truck Sunday and then stabbed 17 people within minutes, killing at least seven of them in a grisly attack that shocked a country known for its low crime rate.
> 
> ...



It must have been a gun-knife.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> It's always stunning to me how little most from the UK know about their own crime rates, yet feel it's fine to offer opinions on ours. Most from the UK don't even know how their crime stats are collected, and the fact there are two primary sources used. A good article on that:
> 
> Exploding the myth of the falling crime rate | UK news | The Guardian



It's also stunning how European countries manipulate statistics.

I knew that if a person murders someone and it gets pleaded down in court, it's not recorded as a murder.  Now, according to that article, there is just blatant tampering.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 15, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's also stunning how European countries manipulate statistics.
> 
> I knew that if a person murders someone and it gets pleaded down in court, it's not recorded as a murder.  Now, according to that article, there is just blatant tampering.



How countries record their stats and or manipulate them is a whole other interesting conversation, but the above article touches on some of it. However, a very interesting read  comes right from the  U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics called "Is the violent crime rate higher in the United States or England?" found here:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime and Justice in the U.S. and England and Wales: Victim surveys versus police records

Talks about the differences in how crime is reported between the US and the UK, etc. Some interesting tid bits of note:

"in 1995 American police recorded 78% of all robberies reported to them, while English police recorded 35% (figure 15). In other words, American police were about twice as likely as English police to record a robbery coming to their attention in 1995"

The bottom line here is, when they ask actual victims of crime, UK is higher than the US, but UK police tend to under report crime on their side, which makes UK appear lower in crime than the US.


----------



## mcguin (Jun 16, 2008)

I love the source moon uses...!  And your incorrect when you say that any 18 year old can just walk into a walmart and buy a gun, get the facts before you start rambling please..


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 16, 2008)

mcguin said:


> I love the source moon uses...!  And your incorrect when you say that any 18 year old can just walk into a walmart and buy a gun, get the facts before you start rambling please..



As i said, people from other countries have myths of all manner in their heads about US gun issues, and tend to know appallingly little about their own crime rates or the data in general when it comes to guns. They seem to feel their "opinion" is all they need to debate the topic....


----------

