The joys of gun ownership...

Homeowner defends his property.

Woman in wheelchair shoots mugger.

Register or log in to remove.

I am finally getting my mother to get a gun.

Reply to Caboose-1

Nope. She's never used a firearm once in her life and has never possessed one. And I am worried about her safety, so I am helping her pick out a weapon. I'll see if I can find the picture.

Reply to Caboose-1

Can I suggest a Detonics Scoremaster .45 ACP longslide, complete with an Aimpoint 'Red Dot' lazer sight.

Reply to WingDing

Quote :

Homeowner defends his property.

Woman in wheelchair shoots mugger.

I am against civilians legally owning weapons--particularly firearms--and most certainly I do not agree with them carrying handguns.

I respect the constitutional rights of the United States citizens and how important they are culturally to the US, but I cant abide the notion that guns are a required form of self-defense.

In these two cases I certainly respect the rights of the victims to adequately defend themselves as best they can.

Reply to BomberBill

Quote :

Can I suggest a Detonics Scoremaster .45 ACP longslide, complete with an Aimpoint 'Red Dot' lazer sight.

She can't handle a .45, at least that is what she says.

She was thinking about getting a Taurus PT92SS. A nine millimeter. Originally I told her to get something like a 1911, but she said she couldn't handle a revolver. :lol: So, yeah, I didn't bring up the 1911 again.

Pic of the Taurus:

Reply to Caboose-1

Quote :

Homeowner defends his property.

Woman in wheelchair shoots mugger.

I am against civilians legally owning weapons--particularly firearms--and most certainly I do not agree with them carrying handguns.

I respect the constitutional rights of the United States citizens and how important they are culturally to the US, but I cant abide the notion that guns are a required form of self-defense.

In these two cases I certainly respect the rights of the victims to adequately defend themselves as best they can. 8O

Don't tempt me to get in a debate about firearms. They are a necessary tool for self defence, they do not increase violence, they decrease it. Just the sight of one is enough to make most run away. I personally have been saved by my own weapon, so I have experience. I have no idea what might have happened that day if I didn't have it.

Reply to Caboose-1

Quote :

They are a necessary tool for self defence, they do not increase violence, they decrease it.

I simply do not agree with that notion.

Reply to BomberBill

I will agree that guns in the hands of "well trained good people" will decrease violence... I also believe that if guns were banned, the "bad guys" would still have guns and wreak more havok. I can also see how a gun could make a bad situation worse.

I don't own a gun and likely won't... I would like to, but it isn't high up on my list of things to do...

I think back to the Simpson's episode where they destroyed all the guns and Kang and Kodos came and took over the city because they couldn't defend themselves...

Reply to JustPlainJef

I knew you would bring a knife to a gunfight...

Reply to _WW_

Florida recently passed a new law..

Generally, in the US, if someone attacks you.. you legally are not allowed to strike them back. If someone punches you and you punch them back, they can press charges against you. Kind of lame eh? Someone shoots at you, you shoot back, you're at fault.
In the case of the two stories above, the people were clearly defending themselves.. As the one was shot inside the house.

When shooting someone inside your house, there are rules to follow:
1) The person MUST be in your house
2) You can not shoot them more than 2 times
3) You can not shoot them in the back (incase they were fleeing)

If you shoot someone and they get out of your house, you can go to jail. Shoot them in the back, manslaughter. Shoot them more than 2? Cool, but attempted manslaughter.

Now, Florida passed a law that you no longer need to retreat. You can forcefully defend yourself. Someone punches you? Beat the shit out of them until you're able to get away to safety. Shoot them, etc.
There are limitations to it, but its basically do what is necessary to get yourself to safety.

I've been considering picking up an H&K 9mm myself. Lock box, etc, taking the concealed weapons course for Ohio, etc.
No real desire to own a gun for any other reason than a sense of security should someone break in. The neighbor's house a month or two ago was broken into while they were home. They chased the people off.
A couple of kids went around the other day and shot out a couple windows of what I believe to be select car windows. I wasn't home at the time.. not that a gun would matter.. but guns are relatively easy to come by considering what goes on.

I'm all for gun ownership. Especially since we have the concealed weapon law in effect. You don't know who is carrying anything.. though you can't take the weapon into any building and you can't have it loaded when not on your person.

Technically, with all the restrictions, you can't do much with it except walk down the street or drive around with it concealed.

/shrug

Pro-guns.

Reply to Riser

Quote :

They are a necessary tool for self defence, they do not increase violence, they decrease it.

I simply do not agree with that notion.

Totally agree.

Example: If some guy is following me down the street one night and decides to mug me, I'd much rather that he just had to threaten me to get my wallet. If he thinks I might be carrying a weapon, he's probably just going to shoot me first and avoid taking the risk that I shoot him.

Of course, I could use my weapon to defend myself if he's kind enough to say "er, excuse me, good fellow. I'm just about to mug you; would you like to draw your weapon, and take the safety off?"

If guns reduce crime, why does America have one of the highest rates of violent crime (per capita) of any Western country? :?

Reply to llama_man

You're more likely to get stabbed in the UK than in the US. It's a fair trade off.

I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed though.

Reply to Riser

Quote :

You're more likely to get stabbed in the UK than in the US. It's a fair trade off.

I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed though.

I'd rather just hand over my wallet and have a chance of walking away!

Reply to llama_man

Quote :

If guns reduce crime, why does America have one of the highest rates of violent crime (per capita) of any Western country? :?

This shows how uninformed you are, not being an American. In the states that have passed laws now allowing concealed weapons permits - the crime rates have gone down.

And I think your example is pitiful. If some guy wants to mug me for some cash, there is an excellent chance that he will end up dead. Case closed. Feel free to give your money to whomever you wish, I'm keeping mine.

And I just bought a short barreled Mossberg 12 guage with pistol grip (cheap but deadly) - it my "house gun" - for those times when you just might have an uninvited intruder late some night. It's more of a "point and shoot" type of weapon. Will "get the job done". :wink:

We've had this "debate" so often that I'm frankly sick of it - it's always the liberal non-Americans who want to tell me/us how to live in our country. Should I ever visit your country - I'll respect your laws. When in mine, be damned sure you are aware of ours.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

I believe in one's right to own a firearm, but I believe it is a right you should earn. I think at a minimum you should be required to take a Hunter's Safety Course before being able to acquire any type of gun. They're good courses and cover a lot of good information that applies to all firearms.

I'm actually an advocate of gun control laws, but in moderation. If you want to own a full/semi-auto rifle that's fine, but you either have to have military/law-enforcement training to own one, or it should be mandatory that you undergo some sort of training/licensing (that you pay for) before you get one. Training/licensing that shouldn't be easy. It should be considered a priviledge to own such a weapon and you should earn it. You're required to have a license to drive a car, it should apply the same way for a full/auto-auto rifle. Last time I checked, in NV it's a small hassle but just about anyone can order an AR-15 if they want to without needing to undergo any training at all. I see see pure ignorance everyday on the road, walking down the street, in the store, etc. It scares me that the same person can own a weapon like this.

Caboose-1, I've been out of the handgun scene lately but if IIRC, a lot of shops I dealt with didn't like Taurus due to quality issues. I don't remember exactly and it could have been more on their revolver product line. H&K make excellent handguns, but they can get kinda pricey. Glock and Sig are excellent also, but she may not like the hammerless and to a point, safetyless (myth) designs.

A friend of mine picked up a rather inexpensive semi-auto made my CZ-USA. At first I was a little skeptical of it but after shooting it on the range a few times I found I actually like it better than my Glock. It's a very smooth and accurate shooting hand-gun. My only complaint with it would be it's cleaning disassaembly is a bit more involved than other brands. Stay away from S&W's lower-end semi-autos as they are crap. Their mid to high end semis are nice though, and their revolvers are some of the best.

Reply to Anoobis

Jake_Barnes, is that one of the high capacity Mossberg's? My roommate has one of those. That shotgun is a blast (no pun intended). We've put countless rounds from regular shot to XX buck to slugs. He's got the pistol grip as well. Hours upon hours of simple entertainment out in the hills.

Reply to Anoobis

Quote :

When in mine, be damned sure you are aware of ours.

Because we might just shoot their ass for walking in the door...

Reply to Riser

Ask Aubbie or go down to the 'Hick' states. Kids down there are 3-4 years old, running out doors and shooting unsupervised. Sadly, they're good and know more about guns than most people will in their lifetime.

I remember I was 12 with my first high-powered BB gun. The damn kid next to me was running around with a 12 gauge. I lived in West Virginia for a year.

Deer season starts. I remember going to school and wondering where everyone was. Parents take their kids out hunting for 1-2 weeks during the open season. I was one of the few kids in there. Even had substitute teachers. No wonder they're a bunch of hicks. Hunting is more important than education.

But if America happens to get invaded by a massive amount of deer or bears, I'll feel safe.

Reply to Riser

Get her a can of mace.

Reply to CHEEZball

Quote :

If guns reduce crime, why does America have one of the highest rates of violent crime (per capita) of any Western country? :?

This shows how uninformed you are, not being an American.

*sigh*

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ [...] apita#rest

Quote :

In the states that have passed laws now allowing concealed weapons permits - the crime rates have gone down.

Down, maybe - but are they now below international averages?

Quote :

And I think your example is pitiful. If some guy wants to mug me for some cash, there is an excellent chance that he will end up dead. Case closed.

I'm sorry that you think my argument is pitiful - although I think it's because you didn't read it/think about it properly.
How exactly do you propose to draw your weapon and kill your assailant if he gives no warning? As I said in my example, if the guy is behind me?

Quote :

Feel free to give your money to whomever you wish, I'm keeping mine.

It's not about "giving" my money away. It's about not valuing a few quid (covered by insurance anyway) more than my life - or anyone else's, for that matter.

A nation where average citizens feel the necessity to carry concealed deadly weapons is one which has lost all hope and faith in the rule of law.

Quote :

it's always the liberal non-Americans who want to tell me/us how to live in our country.

I wasn't telling you how to live. You're free to pass whatever laws you see fit - carry a cannon for all I care.
My post wasn't telling you how to live - it was simply disagreeing with the commonly quoted rationale/argument in favour of civilian firearms possession.

On a side issue, I find it amusing that neo-con Americans use "liberal" as an insult. By extension, presumably the opposite is a compliment? I look forward to when I next meet an American, and complimenting them on being close-minded and bigotted. :lol:

Reply to llama_man

Yea - holds 5 2 3/4" or 3" shells. I'm using 2 3/4" 00 buckshot, took the "plug" out and now has a 5 round capacity, maybe six, but there is just 5 in right now. Chances are I'm just going to need 1 or 2 if I need any at all.

It's not a shotgun you take out and brag about the looks nor finish, etc - it's just "effective" for the purpose.

I have handguns (9mm Beretta auto-loader) for the car and several others around, but I think this 12 guage is my "go to" shotgun at night, at home. Nothing like the sound of a shotgun round being chambered in the dark to freeze a bad guy's sh|t.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

I think this 12 guage is my "go to" shotgun at night, at home. Nothing like the sound of a shotgun round being chambered in the dark to freeze a bad guy's sh|t.

Agreed. When trouble is coming down the hall, it's nice to know all you need to do is point the scatter gun in their direction and know you're going to make their evening little unpleasant.

Reply to Anoobis

Christ that's scary... only people I know with guns are either farmers (for coyotes), gun collectors, or dealers.

For my own protection I have a little jack knife on the bedstand, never had it there before in my life until I moved to Broadway, it's a bit scary out there. I sleep with my backdoor open on hot hot nights, prop a chair just behind it so the door is only ajar maybe a foot, and prop some sandals on the edges, so even if a strong breeze comes through and jiggles that chair, all the shoes fall and wake me up

Other than that, for a concealed weapon, if I'm walking alone at night and pass a group of kids that scare me, i grab my keys in my knuckles. I may not survive, but I'll fuck em up for sure, DNA BABY!

Reply to CHEEZball

I apologise for not having seen this post earlier, somehow I missed it, but I'll take another jab at the gun control arguement here.

Llama_Man, thanks for at least having the intellectual honesty to reference a fairly balanced site on the subject. But please, read the footnotes more carefully. You'll find this:

Quote :

Talking facts to gun control zealots is only likely to make them angry.... The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple.

They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.... Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media.

Another dogma among gun control supporters is that having a gun in the home for self-defense is futile and is only likely to increase the chances of your getting hurt or killed. Your best bet is to offer no resistance to an intruder, according to this dogma.

Actual research tells just the opposite story. People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice as often as people who resisted with a firearm. Those who resisted without a firearm of course got hurt the most often....

Re: Gun Control Myths: Gun Restrictions and Murder Rates
by Thomas Sowell

Read the whole article, it's enlighening.

Quote :

Down, maybe - but are they now below international averages?

International averages ... are you joking? I've never met an American yet who wondered aloud (at least in my earshot) about so-called "international averages". Is this something that you're grading on the curve?

Quote :

I'm sorry that you think my argument is pitiful - although I think it's because you didn't read it/think about it properly.
How exactly do you propose to draw your weapon and kill your assailant if he gives no warning? As I said in my example, if the guy is behind me?

A nation where average citizens feel the necessity to carry concealed deadly weapons is one which has lost all hope and faith in the rule of law.

That last statement is some liberal US-bashing mantra, I suspect. We've not given up faith in the rule of law, but I suspect that you have no clue what the rule of law does to protect you in the present.

I'll try to explain (to someone who's clearly made up their mind on this issue). The law will prosecute and ,perhaps, punish a lawbreaker - it doesn't do a damn thing to protect you before a crime has been commited. That's up to you. It my job to insure no crime is committed. Period. That's why I'm often armed - especially in my home.

And if you're dumb enough to permit some dubious character to come up from behind (I assume in some secluded area where you have no back-up?), then ... I won't say it ... it's impolite :roll:

Quote :

On a side issue, I find it amusing that neo-con Americans use "liberal" as an insult....

Oh pal, it's not just conservative Americans (I'm unclear as to neo-con, is that an insult?) who think liberals are wrong on the issue, it's most of those who have studied it and have done a bit more than jump to some knee-jerk conclusion based on flawed data or logic.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

Christ that's scary ...

Cheezie, I don't know why you'd be scared? If you're not in my house, uninvited and with malicious intent, then you'd never see any of my weapons.

On a quick sidenote, that pocket knife on your bedside table requires that an intrude get close enough for you to "stick" him/her. I don't have any intention of letting a home invader get that close.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

Llama_Man, thanks for at least having the intellectual honesty to reference a fairly balanced site on the subject.

Thank, I try my best It wasn't the best site, but it was getting late at work and I wanted to go home

Quote :

Talking facts to gun control zealots is only likely to make them angry....

The opening sentence screams "biased article", n'est pas?

Quote :

The grand dogma of the gun controllers

"Grand dogma"? Oh please :roll: Even SoDNighthawk can do better than that. But let's perseve with his tortuous article nevertheless...

Quote :

They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.... Gun control zealots

Oh, the "zealots" are back. He only needs one more reference to complete his sub-par-hack attempt at brainwashing.

Quote :

compare the United States and England

The country is Great Britain, not England. Dumbass. If he can't even research geopolitics, how am I supposed to give credence to the rest of his diatribe, er, I mean article?

Quote :

Another dogma among gun control supporters

Yay! I was waiting for "dogma" again. Again! Again!

Quote :

according to this dogma

Magic! We didn't even have to wait more than another sentence.

Christ, this is poor. And I've read The Daily Mail.

Quote :

Actual research tells just the opposite story.

And yet he fails to provide a souce. I did.

Quote :

People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice

"Gotten"? Oh for f*cks sake, he can't even be bothered to write in proper English? Is this really the best article you could find? This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists".

Quote :

Read the whole article, it's enlighening.

Indeed it was. In all the wrong ways. Frankly, I wouldn't wipe my arse on Thomas Sowell on the basis of that cr*porama. you're clearly an intelligent man - do you own arguing in future - gonzo hacks like that muppet will do you no favours.

Now, to get back to the point in hand, the gist of the article isn't that relevant anyway. I was never trying to claim that guns cause violent crime - that would be plain daft.
As a result, showing that some countries have high gun ownership but low violent crime rates proves very little.
Switzerland may have high gun ownership - but it also has high affluence, low poverty, low population density and generally very little of the social pressures that tend to lead to violent crime.

My point - as I stated in my first post -was disputing the claim that gun ownership lowers crime. There simply is no compelling evidence to suggest that. You can find examples of both high and low crime rates in gun-toting countries - which suggest that there is no correlation at all - somewhat undermining the pro-gun lobby.

If you want to carry guns - fine. But be honest and admit that it's because you want to, not because you need to.

Quote :

Oh pal,

I would be flattered that you call me "pal", but since the rest of the paragragh is slightly abusive, I consider it slightly ingenuous.

Quote :

it's not just conservative Americans (I'm unclear as to neo-con, is that an insult?)

No insult intended. I think even Donald Rumsfeld has used the term himself.

Quote :

who think liberals are wrong on the issue, it's most of those who have studied it and have done a bit more than jump to some knee-jerk conclusion based on flawed data or logic.

I'd have thought the fact that I'd gone to effort of finding some data to back up my claims and argued on a point-by-point basis would prove that I HAD "studied it". I note that your chosen champion failed to provide any data at all, and his article was a diatribe that wouldn't have been out of place in a NRA newsletter.
If you're going to try to insult me, you're going to have to do better than that. "Pal".

Oh, and whilst we're on the issue, I'm going to shock you. You're a liberal. Yes. you heard me. Most Americans are.

Do you think that YOU should choose how to live your life? That government or special interest groups shouldn't decide what is "right" for everyone? Congratulations - you are a liberal. Enjoy.

EDITS: Fixing quotes.

Reply to llama_man

Quote :

Oh, and whilst we're on the issue, I'm going to shock you. You're a liberal. Yes. you heard me. Most Americans are.

I almost pissed myself over that one!!!!!! ROTFFLMFAO!!!!!!

Well, one fact remains..... We can have guns & you can't.... So that doesn't make for a level playing field.... We've grown up with them & will always have them..... You've not had that opportunity to do that & will never appreciate the fact...

Inside looking out & outside looking in!!!!!! [shrug]

Reply to RCPilot

Quote :

They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.... Gun control zealots

Oh, the "zealots" are back. He only needs one more reference to complete his sub-par-hack attempt at brainwashing...

Look, you've misquoted the guy again. His full quote is:

Quote :

The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple. They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.

Quote :

compare the United States and England

The country is Great Britain, not England. Dumbass. If he can't even research geopolitics, how am I supposed to give credence to the rest of his diatribe, er, I mean article?

Funny, the source in your original cite uses England or England/Wales - not Great Britian - didn't the World Cup do the same ... but I guess all these scholors and athlete's, by your definition, are dumbas[b][/b]ses ... :roll:

And don't get hung up on the use of the word dogma - it's what you've been spouting ad nauseam ...

Quote :

And yet he fails to provide a souce. I did.

No you didn't, you just provided the link that leads to his article. And I suspect that you've read none of the rest.

Quote :

"Gotten"? Oh for f*cks sake, he can't even be bothered to write in proper English? Is this really the best article you could find? This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists".

Let me help ... 5 results for: gotten ... see, he was cool ... you were the dumbas[b][/b] here.

Quote :

My point - as I stated in my first post -was disputing the claim that gun ownership lowers crime. There simply is no compelling evidence to suggest that....

Yes there is:
http://www.independent.org/newsroo [...] sp?id=1621
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds [...] gs305.html

There's a couple ... give you something else to read while you're wiping you arse ...

Oh, and I thought I was this neo-con ... and now you call me a liberal ... I'd rather just be your garden variety, gun-totten' conservative ...

Have a pleasant evening with the new arse-wipping matterials I've provided.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

The day they take my guns is the day I move out of the United States. God damn Liberals.

Reply to Caboose-1

Quote :

The day they take my guns is the day I move out of the United States. God damn Liberals.

Me too ... but before I go, I guess, by definition, I'll be a "criminal" because I will refuse to surrender my firearms ... as will, I suspect, thousands of others.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

The day they take my guns is the day I move out of the United States. God damn Liberals.

Me too ... but before I go, I guess, by definition, I'll be a "criminal" because I will refuse to surrender my firearms ... as will, I suspect, thousands of others.If firearms were ever outlawed, I truely believe that there would be a revolution.

Reply to Caboose-1

My criminal justice teacher told me the same happen in Aussie. They banned weapons and so all the law abiding citizens turned in their weapons. But no criminal in their right friggin mind would. Need i say more?

Caboose-1 may i recommend the Sig Sauer, spesifically the Sig Pro

Reply to dasickninja

Quote :

Look, you've misquoted the guy again. His full quote is:

I used the "..." to signify that I had cut a sentence from the quote. Apologies if this wasn't clear.

Quote :

The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple. They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.

Quote :

Funny, the source in your original cite uses England or England/Wales - not Great Britian - didn't the World Cup do the same ... but I guess all these scholors and athlete's, by your definition, are dumbas[b][/b]ses ... :roll:

True, but I admitted that my article wasn't the best selection as I had to find one in a hurry. But as it happens, England/Wales is appropriate, since Scotland has different Criminal laws. References to England alone are very rarely accurate - they usually refer to England&Wales or the whole of Great Britain.

The separation of the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in football is historical anomaly, and ceratainly shouldn't be viewed as in any way indicative of the respective nations/countries/grand duchies legal status.

Oh, and just becuase an athlete competes for a given region doesn't mean that he or she necessarilly supports it's definition. That's a very poor argument - you can do better.

Quote :

And don't get hung up on the use of the word dogma - it's what you've been spouting ad nauseam ...

Au contraire. I've actually tried to support my arguments with reason and (well, once) statistics. Your chosen article was an editorial light on either, but with a distinct penchant for reusing the words "dogma" and "zealots" ad infinitum. It was clearly an applling piece of journalism ,regardless of your views on the topic.

Quote :

And yet he fails to provide a souce. I did.

No you didn't, you just provided the link that leads to his article. And I suspect that you've read none of the rest.
I'm pretty certain the site I linked listed where it got it's data from. His didn't. That's because it was an opinion column.

Quote :

"Gotten"? Oh for f*cks sake, he can't even be bothered to write in proper English? Is this really the best article you could find? This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists".

Let me help ... 5 results for: gotten ... see, he was cool ... you were the dumbas[b][/b] here.
I hadn't realised "archaic" language was back in fashion.
Hwaest du fugelas?

Quote :

My point - as I stated in my first post -was disputing the claim that gun ownership lowers crime. There simply is no compelling evidence to suggest that....

Yes there is:
http://www.independent.org/newsroo [...] sp?id=1621

Oh dear, oh dear.
Let me quote

Quote :

If more guns mean more violence, nations with high gun-ownership rates should have high murder rates. But two international studies comparing gun ownership with murder rates in 36 and 21 nations (respectively) found “no significant correlations.”

No correlation? That means neither a positive (guns = high crime) OR negative (guns = no crime) correlation. Which is what I said. :roll:

Quote :

Oh, and I thought I was this neo-con ... and now you call me a liberal ... I'd rather just be your garden variety, gun-totten' conservative ...

Well, the "con" in "neo-con" is short for conservative.
My point was - that a lot of people who think "liberal" is a dirty word, are in fact liberal. Funnily enough, those who tend to most strongly believe in personal freedoms vote for governments that attempt to restrict them.

Don't believe me? - look at the anti-terror laws passed in the last 5 years by the US and the UK.

Quote :

Have a pleasant evening with the new arse-wipping matterials I've provided.

Thanks. I'd like to continue the debate, but I'm a few hours ahead over here and need to sleep. I hope you meant "wiping" and not "whipping". Any mention of arse-whipping is oikely to summon the Wingy...

Reply to llama_man

Quote :

Look, you've misquoted the guy again. His full quote is:

I used the "..." to signify that I had cut a sentence from the quote. Apologies if this wasn't clear.

Quote :

The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple. They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.

Quote :

Funny, the source in your original cite uses England or England/Wales - not Great Britian - didn't the World Cup do the same ... but I guess all these scholors and athlete's, by your definition, are dumbas[b][/b]ses ... :roll:

True, but I admitted that my article wasn't the best selection as I had to find one in a hurry. But as it happens, England/Wales is appropriate, since Scotland has different Criminal laws. References to England alone are very rarely accurate - they usually refer to England&Wales or the whole of Great Britain.

The separation of the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in football is historical anomaly, and ceratainly shouldn't be viewed as in any way indicative of the respective nations/countries/grand duchies legal status.

Oh, and just becuase an athlete competes for a given region doesn't mean that he or she necessarilly supports it's definition. That's a very poor argument - you can do better.

Quote :

And don't get hung up on the use of the word dogma - it's what you've been spouting ad nauseam ...

Au contraire. I've actually tried to support my arguments with reason and (well, once) statistics. Your chosen article was an editorial light on either, but with a distinct penchant for reusing the words "dogma" and "zealots" ad infinitum. It was clearly an applling piece of journalism ,regardless of your views on the topic.

Quote :

And yet he fails to provide a souce. I did.

No you didn't, you just provided the link that leads to his article. And I suspect that you've read none of the rest.
I'm pretty certain the site I linked listed where it got it's data from. His didn't. That's because it was an opinion column.

Quote :

"Gotten"? Oh for f*cks sake, he can't even be bothered to write in proper English? Is this really the best article you could find? This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists".

Let me help ... 5 results for: gotten ... see, he was cool ... you were the dumbas[b][/b] here.
I hadn't realised "archaic" language was back in fashion.
Hwaest du fugelas?

Quote :

My point - as I stated in my first post -was disputing the claim that gun ownership lowers crime. There simply is no compelling evidence to suggest that....

Yes there is:
http://www.independent.org/newsroo [...] sp?id=1621

Oh dear, oh dear.
Let me quote

Quote :

If more guns mean more violence, nations with high gun-ownership rates should have high murder rates. But two international studies comparing gun ownership with murder rates in 36 and 21 nations (respectively) found “no significant correlations.”

No correlation? That means neither a positive (guns = high crime) OR negative (guns = no crime) correlation. Which is what I said. :roll:

Quote :

Oh, and I thought I was this neo-con ... and now you call me a liberal ... I'd rather just be your garden variety, gun-totten' conservative ...

Well, the "con" in "neo-con" is short for conservative.
My point was - that a lot of people who think "liberal" is a dirty word, are in fact liberal. Funnily enough, those who tend to most strongly believe in personal freedoms vote for governments that attempt to restrict them.

Don't believe me? - look at the anti-terror laws passed in the last 5 years by the US and the UK.

Quote :

Have a pleasant evening with the new arse-wipping matterials I've provided.

Thanks. I'd like to continue the debate, but I'm a few hours ahead over here and need to sleep. I hope you meant "wiping" and not "whipping". Any mention of arse-whipping is oikely to summon the Wingy...

Quote :

That's a very poor argument - you can do better.

Better than what? You're a car salesman aren't you?

Get some sleep, and correct your spelling errors tomorrow ... I had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say ...

Edit: As I've said before, this arguement has been done "to death" - do some research will you. I'm sick of it - and don't think I'll play with you anymore ... unless you continue to be obtuse.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

First,. I cant help but feel this was a trolling topic, with someone looking to suck a poster in them play with them. But, what the hell.

Please, be conscientious when quoting "statistics". Improper application of statistics makes a person sound like a lying political whore i.e. Hillary Clinton, Pat Schroeder Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein.

To wit, you are correct; the US does have the highest crime rate on the planet. What does this have to do with guns? Not very much. Making the implication that the US has the highest global crime rate due to private gun ownership is a completely ludicrous assumption and totally discounts:
Rape
Drug usage/trafficking
TIP (Trafficking In Persons)
Illegal Immigration
Vehicular homicide
Burglary
Arson
....
And on and on and on.

Here is a quick breakdown of the actual statistics for reported crime in United States from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for 2000-2004
Crime rate per 100,000 population
Violent crime 2000-2004
Murder/non-negligent manslaughter.......5.5
Forcible rape rate............................... .32.3
Robbery rate.......................................145
Aggravated assault rate........................306

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/datao [...] yState.cfm

It would take days for me to research and list every type of crime that factors into your "US has the highest crime rate". But take a good look. Murder is pretty low.
I mean really, it is actually insulting that you would make the relation that the US has the highest crime rate on the planet because of guns. You just belittled and disregarded every woman who was 'ruffied' then date raped. You just ignored every person who was the victim of a hit and run driver, every person who was swindled by con artists, every one who got taken in the Enron scandal, every intern who was ever probed by a cigar then threatened to keep her mouth shut and on and on and on. Gun crimes in the United States are a small fraction of the total number of crimes commited.

That said, lets start at the beginning. What is a gun? A gun is a simply a machine, nothing more, nothing less. Period. It is an imamate object incapable of independent action. Even in today’s would, the gun/weapon system has yet to be invented that can maintain itself, load itself, seek out a target, then discharge itself. So, in short, what you are saying is that we should eliminate machines that kill. So, if the people are going to eliminate machines that kill, then we should start with the #1 global killing machine----the automobile. More people are killed by automobile (whether accidental, through negligence or intentionally) every year than by guns

Since you wanted to quote some stats, here are some random death stats for you:
(This is a compilation; numbers vary by agency, but generally tend to be within %5)

Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by suicide 30,622 (2002)
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517* (All homicides, not limited to guns)
All gun deaths 25,880 (2001) (2)
Murdered by gun 10,799 (2001) (2)
Suicide by gun 16,487(2001)
Killed in airline crashes (of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
Killed by Anthrax 5

(1) Annual average over 19 year period.
(2) Current rates declining
*Average annual totals in United States since 1999

Do you see this? More people are killed by cars, suicide and the FLU than by guns

A gun is a tool. Just as a crescent wrench may be used to turn a bolt, or strike someone in the skull, so may a gun may be used for good or bad. As a tool of crime, it is a tool for the lazy. A gun can not load itself. It cannot charge itself. It cannot aim itself. It cannot slip its own safety. It cannot pull its own trigger. It takes a human to do this. And within the human (barring the bullshit insanity excuse, or the uneducated actions of children) it takes INTENT to use a gun. It is human intent that kills, not guns. Eliminating guns does not eliminate intent. It simply forces a change of method. If the intent exists, the action will follow regardless of whether the facilitating implement is a gun, a spoon or an individuals bare hands. Do guns make it easier to kill? No. That is the argument of the ignorant. You have a better chance of successfully committing murder with a screwdriver (granted, this does require a bit more training/study/practice) than you do with a gun. Does the typical criminal does not possess this knowledge? No. So I guess we're safe from screwdriver attacks for the time being. That is until guns are banned. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

Some more stats for you

A DOJ (Department of Justice) study showed only 15 percent of gun crimes are committed with firearms purchased through legal/licensed firearm dealers. Of the other 85% ".....85 percent of firearms used by criminals don't come from retail stores; they come from friends and family, as well as the black market and through drug deals or trades.

Here's another study/stat for you. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and prevention) did a study on gun control.
-----As a side note, no one from CDC ever clearly answered why they (the CDC) was doing a study which had nothing to do with diseases. The scuttlebutt was the whores Gore, Feinstein and Clintoid pressured the CDC into doing the study, hoping to use the results as ammunition in their anti gun crusade)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/200 [...] 6422.shtml

"an independent CDC task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies was done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC task force found 'insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.'"
"Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000."
"About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides."
"Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year."

What does this mean? Well, a study performed by an arm of the United States Federal Government shows gun laws do nothing.

Finally my favorite factoid. Sadly, one for which I cannot display the evidence.

At the end of the cold war, during the hugs & kisses period of Glasnost, while the Armies, Navies and Air forces of the US and the former USSR were all hanging out in the pubs drinking with each other, "bonding" and telling stories, this interesting little tidbit surfaced.

For the better part of 30 years, the US and the USR completely mis-estimated each others perspective and motivations. One of the things we (the US) never imagined was a deterrent factor was the standard issue civilian hunter. In the Soviets invasions plans for the US (yes, they had invasion plans just as we did) one of the significant adverse factors centered around the US north east, i.e. Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Connecticut etc. To keep it short, the Soviets were scarred shitless of invading the NE. Why? Millions of native snipers. That is, Hunters armed with high powered, high accuracy rifles, who were intimately familiar with the terrain (which was also a significant negative factor in itself), had a built in support/supply network, and would be patriotically motivated by a foriegn invasion.

The US always underestimated the USSR. One thing were consistently failed to understand was nationalism within the USSR. We were so blinded by the notion that "everyone wants freedom" that in a war with the USSR, we assumed the native populous would welcome the US as "liberators", freeing them from communist oppression. We were wrong. To be sure, there were those in the Soviet Union who would have seen the US in that light, but at a far smaller number than the US estimated. We always failed to recognize how strongly the natives of the Soviet countries were imbued with nationalistic fervor. This is interesting as it was the Soviets "transferring" their nationalistic fervor onto the citizens of the US that lead them to believe the NE US could not be successfully invaded/neutralized by conventional (non nuclear) methodology

In other words, all those civilian "gun nuts" actually helped deter the US/USSR war.

To sum up, there is not now, nor has there ever been a single shread of evidence to show guns are responsible for crime or that banning guns would eliminate or even reduce any form of crime.
This post is already ridiculously long. Maybe if Im motivated, Ill show you some more stats tommorrow that show the lowest crime rate in the US is in a Georgia county where the citizens are required, by law, to carry firearms while the highest crime rates occur in urban areas which have the strongest gun control laws or outright gun bans.

heres another quick link
An interview with John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Reply to turpit

Quote :

A gun is a tool. Just as a crescent wrench may be used to turn a bolt, or strike someone in the skull, so may a gun may be used for good or bad. As a tool of crime, it is a tool for the lazy. A gun can not load itself. It cannot charge itself. It cannot aim itself. It cannot slip its own safety. It cannot pull its own trigger. It takes a human to do this. And within the human (barring the bullshit insanity excuse, or the uneducated actions of children) it takes INTENT to use a gun. It is human intent that kills, not guns. Eliminating guns does not eliminate intent. It simply forces a change of method. If the intent exists, the action will follow regardless of whether the facilitating implement is a gun, a spoon or an individuals bare hands. Do guns make it easier to kill? No. That is the argument of the ignorant. You have a better chance of successfully committing murder with a screwdriver (granted, this does require a bit more training/study/practice) than you do with a gun. Does the typical criminal does not possess this knowledge? No. So I guess we're safe from screwdriver attacks for the time being. That is until guns are banned. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

For the most part, I support people owning guns, but I think it should be made harder to get them legally, and then easier to have the right to carry them. So I guess that puts me right in the middle...

I'm not to sure about the whole screwdriver bit, or the guns not making it easier to kill. Here is my unsubstantiated opinion...

Guns do make it easier to kill, as they can remove the humanity from people. You no longer have to get within arms length of a person, and very possibly look them in the eyes while stabbing them. You can point your hand in their direction and squeeze your finger. Then turn and run. You don't need to know if they got hit, or how bad... Just "point and shoot". I understand that this is not the most accurate way of shooting, but it will work occasionally... But I think that with guns becoming such an integral part of gang life, there's many new gang members that are shown how to use a gun, but they are never taught the respect for the gun, or another human's life...

I feel that, with training, gun ownership is no more dangerous than anything else... Like it was said, it's not the guns, it's the people. Did you see the Mythbusters where they made the paper crossbow, and Adam took a tour of the prision, and they had all of the home made weapons on display? Same thing...

Quote :

"Gotten"? Oh for f*cks sake, he can't even be bothered to write in proper English? Is this really the best article you could find? This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists".

Let me help ... 5 results for: gotten ... see, he was cool ... you were the dumbas here. I hadn't realised "archaic" language was back in fashion.
Hwaest du fugelas?

Quote :

got or (Archaic) gat

Gotten is not Archaic. Gat for got is. Gat it? According to Answers.com

Quote :

got·ten (gŏt'n)
v.
A past participle of get.

Reply to JustPlainJef

Quote :

Making the implication that the US has the highest global crime rate due to private gun ownership is a completely ludicrous assumption

I never did. I wasn't claiming that the guns cause the crime - I was claiming that the guns don't prevent crime, which was the claim that had been previously made.

Quote :

To sum up, there is not now, nor has there ever been a single shread of evidence to show guns are responsible for crime or that banning guns would eliminate or even reduce any form of crime.

I'll reiterate - I never claimed that guns cause crime. I even explicitly stated that.

My original post was challenging the claim that guns reduce crime - which most pro-gun lobbyists state as if it was proven fact. It isn't. There's data to support both sides of the argument.

If we accept the claim that guns reduce violent crime, then the obvious conclusion is that a gun-free America would have even more crime - it would probably be the most dangerous place on the planet! (OK, exaggeration). But you get my drift - are Americans really more violent than Europeans? Are you all that much more deranged? Not the Americans I know!

Maybe - and it's my belief - levels of violent crime have nothing to do with gun ownership. There are countries with low gun ownership and high crime rates (like the UK) and others with high gun ownership and low crime rates (Switzerland). There's no correlation! If people want to hurt someone else, they'll use whatever is available - be it a gun, a knife, or Wingy's diseased member.

As you yourself said:

Quote :

To wit, you are correct; the US does have the highest crime rate on the planet. What does this have to do with guns? Not very much.

Exactly.

If you want to carry a gun - that's fine by me, it's your choice. But please don't try to justify it with the unproven claim that carrying a firearm prevents crime.

Reply to llama_man

Quote :

got or (Archaic) gat

Gotten is not Archaic. Gat for got is. Gat it? According to Answers.com

Quote :

got·ten (gŏt'n)
v.
A past participle of get.

[/quote]

I stand corrected :oops:

Reply to llama_man

Quote :

If you want to carry a gun - that's fine by me, it's your choice. But please don't try to justify it with the unproven claim that carrying a firearm prevents crime.

Tell that to the old lady in the wheel chair...

Reply to _WW_

Quote :

If you want to carry a gun - that's fine by me, it's your choice. But please don't try to justify it with the unproven claim that carrying a firearm prevents crime.

Tell that to the old lady in the wheel chair...

Eh? She got attacked! That's a crime.

Where is the deterrent you speak of?

Reply to llama_man

Yes she was attacked. Was she robbed? No. Was she killed? No. Why? Because she shot the fu[i][/i]cker.

In the other instance there was a crime - Breaking and Entering. Was there a robbery? No. Was there a rape? No. Was there a murder? No. Was there a kidnapping? No. Why? Because he shot the fu[i][/i]cker.

Further crimes were prevented upon these persons by the use of their personal firearms to defend themselves. It's as plain as day. If you can't see that - it's your problem not mine.

Reply to _WW_

Quote :

If you want to carry a gun - that's fine by me, it's your choice. But please don't try to justify it with the unproven claim that carrying a firearm prevents crime.

Both turpit and I cited this study:

Disarming Facts: The road to bad laws is paved with good intentions.

and this interview ...

An interview with John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

Actually, if you take the time to read it (and much that has been posted above), you'll see that the notion that gun ownership actually does have a crime reduction effect is true.

And one other complaint. In an earlier post, you chose to use ridicule as a tactic in refuting the article I quoted by Thomas Sowell. You said:

Quote :

This man has shot straight into my Top 10 of "Cr*p Jounalists ... Frankly, I wouldn't wipe my arse on Thomas Sowell on the basis of that cr*porama....

Look chief, when you've reached his status, you can throw stones.

At the risk of sounding "politically impolite", I want to mention some additional factors:

1. I suspect that if you were able to factor out those crimes committed by blacks and illegal immigrant gangs (the drug trade again), those crime numbers would be much lower. In the current political climate here, that almost impossible now. Those "official bureaucracies" charged with the responsibility, here, to collect (and publish) the data have virtually eliminated the categories of race and ethnicity from the numbers. And it's a damned shame too.

2. If it were possible to seperate the "drug trade" influenced crime - I suspect, too, that we would be looking at significantly different set of numbers. It's no accident that (#1) Colombia, (#3) Jamiaca, (#4) Venezuela and (#6) Mexico are in this top ten (your source: *Murders). I'll venture a guess - the drug trade. Funny, Mexico has strict anti-gun laws and blames the import of their gun problems on Americans. It's also interesting to note that all those illegal "automatic" weapons employed by the drug cartels and gangs there are illegal in the US - very unlikely that we're shipping them weapons that we can't get ourselves. I'm thinking that Mexico's illegal gun problems are coming from the south ... not their northern neighbor.

On an interesting side note, I heard a statistic in a recent television debate that indicated that almost 1/5th of Mexico's citizens were now living and working illegally in the USA. We can't keep drugs out of this country and the criminals that are naturally attached. Hell, we can't keep 1/5th of the population of Mexico out. Sad, really.

Hell, I forgot the other points I wanted to make ... but that's for another time. If there is another time for this "debate". I will note that it seems that, for now, the gun control debate has been decided in this country. US citizens can carry guns, more and more states here are passing very pro self-defense laws and I don't see this changing anytime soon. Most people here (with the exception of the hysterically liberal gun control lobby) are becoming aware of the facts that armed citizens are not a threat to law abidding citizens. And I hope this doesn't change in my lifetime.

*Your original source cited

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Quote :

Most people here (with the exception of the hysterically liberal gun control lobby) are becoming aware of the facts that armed citizens are not a threat to law abidding citizens. And I hope this doesn't change in my lifetime.

I'd say that armed law abidding citizens are not a threat to other law abidding citizens...

Reply to JustPlainJef

Quote :

Most people here (with the exception of the hysterically liberal gun control lobby) are becoming aware of the facts that armed citizens are not a threat to law abidding citizens. And I hope this doesn't change in my lifetime.

I'd say that armed law abidding citizens are not a threat to other law abidding citizens...

Yeah, that's what I ment, should have made it clear. I got lazy and used citizens, as opposed to criminals ... I'll try to do better next time.

Reply to Jake_Barnes

You damn well better!!!!

Reply to JustPlainJef

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - The joys of gun ownership...

Please mind

Focus On

The joys of gun ownership...

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - The joys of gun ownership...

Please mind