Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
And i can guarantee you there has been people who have been killed by careless gun ownership. It's statistical probability we're talking about here. What is the chance of getting into a situation where you become a victim of a crime? What is the chance that you had your gun with you? What is the chance that you can reach it in time? And what is the chance that the gun will actually save you? That's a lot of what if's to trust in a dangerous weapon. Have people been saved by guns themselves? No doubt they have. But even in those instances where somebody have saved themself with a gun, could they have been successful without a gun as well?
You guys are way too glamorized by Hollywood. People are not homeinvading you all the time. There is not a bunch of terrorist out there that's going to take over a building and you're going to be the hero with the gun. These are the points Moore was making in Bowling for Columbine that a lot of you miss because of your bias. He was pointing out Canada has guns as well, LOTS of guns. You can buy bullets from Walmart in Canada as well. But the difference between Canada and the US? Less paranoia up here... which is why he was walking up to random houses and opening the front door, to show Canadians are less likely to lock their door if they're at home in the day... or talking to blacks that come up from the US, and their experience with Canada is that Canadians are less paranoid... in the US, a white couple would cross the street and walk on the opposite side if they saw the blackman coming down the street.
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Nope, guess you win.
Well why don't you share your story on how your gun has saved you twice? Something like that would be great for gun ownership.
No one is claiming that owning a gun makes a person immune to being a victim of crime.
There are many situations where a locked-up gun will be useless. There are many others where it is possible to retrieve the gun and save your life.
The point is that it's simply another line of defense, like door locks, alarm systems, and guard dogs, all of which are useless in certain circumstances.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Read my earlier posts. Violent crime in the UK is up nearly 100% since they banned guns. Most of the population will fall victim to more than one violent crime in their lifetime. Self defense is illegal in England, you are supposed to let the criminal do whatever they want. Hitting a criminal with a baseball bat will land YOU in jail.
Well share some scenarios in which a victim could reach for a gun. The scenarios i gave are what most crimes is. You have a concealed weapon permit, and you're walking in the park. Somebody comes up to you pointing at his wrist, wanting the time. You smile and go up to him, about to tell him the time, and he pulls out a gun or knife on you, and asks for you wallet. You see he's nervous and he's twitchy, are you going to risk unlatching your holster, and pulling the gun out all before he shoots or stabs you? And if you do, then what? A mexican standoff?
Door locks, alarm systems, guard dogs, etc are fine. You can be paranoid all you want, but they're safe if you're careless or if you have an accident with them. Guns are not. Being careless once is all it takes for something tragic to happen.
Yes i've heard of that argument before, and have heard it about Canada as well. The theory goes, if people are allowed to have guns, then criminals will be less likely to commit crimes because they'll be afraid that people have guns. That could be it, or it could be because people in Canada and England are more trusting of their police, and when a crime happens, they're more likely to call the police and report the crime. I remember reading somewhere that at least 25% of all convenience store robberies in the US don't get reported... why's that they said? When they asked the store owners, they said the cops couldn't do anything anyways, more often than not they can't catch the criminal, and even if they could, they never get their money back... but there's once thing they could count on after reporting the crime, is their insurance will go up.
Also in Canada and England, the minority and immigration community are more likely to trust the police than those minority communities in the US. They hear about the racism in the police, they hear about the Rodney King's and stuff. So if something happens within the community, they're less likely to report to the police or cooperate with the police. Do you think if a Latino in a Latino community gets attacked, he's going to run to the police? Hell no, they'll take care of it themselves, because the communities don't trust the authorities.
You have to understand the mentality of a criminal. Criminals DO NOT think they're going to get caught, that they're going to fail... if they do, they wouldn't commit the crime. It's a psychological condition called 'magical thinking', 'narcissistic immunity', or the 'superman' syndrome. They just don't believe they'll fail or get caught... which is part of the reason why more heavy sentences does absolutely nothing to deter crime, because the criminal never thinks they're going to get caught!
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Nope, guess you win.
Well why don't you share your story on how your gun has saved you twice? Something like that would be great for gun ownership.
You don't read threads very closely do you?
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Nope, guess you win.
Well why don't you share your story on how your gun has saved you twice? Something like that would be great for gun ownership.
You don't read threads very closely do you?
Not when i'm late in a thread this long. Why don't you copy and paste or tell me which page it's on.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
From the BBC: Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals."
England's Civilian Disarmament Law Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate
"Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago."
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%
"Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms."
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
"Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals."
England's Civilian Disarmament Law Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate
"Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago."
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%
"Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms."
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
"Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."
Whatever, now you're just arguing against reality. Thousands of robberies and muggings are thwarted each year by gun owners.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Guys stop posting links to reality, it's so fun to play "what if" over & over & over again...
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
My family has had handguns for nearly as long as I can remember..that's seven people (five kids), and we haven't shot each other yet. My rifle is easily accessible (albeit unloaded), but it could be loaded and ready to fire in about 10 seconds. Education is the key..even my 9yo sister shoots.
Well, you guys have actually convinced me that gun controls doesn't seem to be working. I was going to say that England gun control was just idiotic, which it is (you're supposed to be completely submissive when a crime is committed on you, and if you do fight back, you get charged), but it still doesn't explain everything.
Like i said, i'm all for gun ownership and as a sport (although i don't like hunting as a sport), i just don't like the fact that people are so dependent on guns for protection. These are the people who are victimized by a crime, or witness it, and then get paranoid and go out and buy a weapon. They won't have much, if any training in it, and over time, when the fear goes away, their complacencies sets in and they become careless with the weapon... and just waiting for an 'accident' to occur.
Maybe gun ownership should require more than just a simple background check. You need to be trained and tested for a license, maybe it should be the same with gun ownership (it is in Canada).
But just look at it this way... how many guns come into the system every year? And how many guns leave the system? There isn't too many instances where a gun will leave the system... how many get lost, broken, destroyed? I would bet the numbers would say much more guns are entering the system and leaving. If people think the US has an abundance of guns today, what will it be like in 50 years? Will the US come down to everybody walking around with a gun like back in the old west?
And complete banning of guns won't happen over night, or in a couple of years, or even 10 years. It might take 20, maybe even 50 years for it to be out of the system significantly. So maybe England and Austrlia is on the right path, but it's just too early to tell. I'll like to believe in 20 years when a signficant portion of the guns get out of the system, that these types of crime will diminish greatly. Maybe this is like a broken leg, to set it straight, it's going to take some pain and suffering, but in the long run it'll help the leg heal straighter.
Like i said, i'm all for gun ownership and as a sport (although i don't like hunting as a sport), i just don't like the fact that people are so dependent on guns for protection. These are the people who are victimized by a crime, or witness it, and then get paranoid and go out and buy a weapon. They won't have much, if any training in it, and over time, when the fear goes away, their complacencies sets in and they become careless with the weapon... and just waiting for an 'accident' to occur.
Maybe gun ownership should require more than just a simple background check. You need to be trained and tested for a license, maybe it should be the same with gun ownership (it is in Canada).
But just look at it this way... how many guns come into the system every year? And how many guns leave the system? There isn't too many instances where a gun will leave the system... how many get lost, broken, destroyed? I would bet the numbers would say much more guns are entering the system and leaving. If people think the US has an abundance of guns today, what will it be like in 50 years? Will the US come down to everybody walking around with a gun like back in the old west?
And complete banning of guns won't happen over night, or in a couple of years, or even 10 years. It might take 20, maybe even 50 years for it to be out of the system significantly. So maybe England and Austrlia is on the right path, but it's just too early to tell. I'll like to believe in 20 years when a signficant portion of the guns get out of the system, that these types of crime will diminish greatly. Maybe this is like a broken leg, to set it straight, it's going to take some pain and suffering, but in the long run it'll help the leg heal straighter.
Originally posted by: raanemaan
I own a couple of guns. Used to hunt more than I do now. We had moved to Florida in the mid 80's because of a job. We decided that we were going to move back to Iowa so my wife came back before school started to enroll the kids. Before I was able to move back her sister stayed with her because she had a big fight with her husband. That same night her husband came by and broke into my wifes apartment. They were in the back and he was in the living room. He had a gun and they had a gun in the back bedrooms. He promised his wife he would put away the gun if she would just talk to him outside. She agreed and when they were outside he drug her down the alley. When the police pulled up about this time he shot her 3-4 times. She was killed, he was convicted of 2nd degree murder and served 17 years. Police station was 3 blocks from apartment in a town of 4,000+. Response time was 5-10 minutes after a call was made by the neighbors. A phone was not installed at the time. My wife always thought she could use a gun to protect herself or others but found out she couldn't pull the trigger when the time came. I keep a gun for self defense and because of the situation with her sister, would not hesitate to pull the trigger. I believe it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If you keep a gun for self defense sit down and look inside yourself. Decide if you could protect yourself or would it make the situation worse. Practice with it if you do have one. R.I.P Dixie
That's horrible, I couldn't imagine how much murder in a family would tear it apart. It must be even worse for your wife and children, my condolences.
Your statement about using (or not using) a firearm in defense is so true. I had a childhood where I was taught that if you ever find yourself in a position where using a weapon is needed, you'd better be able to do it immediately. I have no doubt that I would pull the trigger, swing the crowbar, etc. Just recently a car in the street near my house had its front windshield shot in. Instict kicked in, and within 10-15 seconds I had a loaded firearm at my side in position facing my front door. Luckily I didn't need it that night as it wasn't an attempt to shoot at anybody, but just their car. I'm somewhat grateful it happened, as I feel more secure in my reactions. As you said, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Maybe cliche, but very true.
What is your point? People get killed by cars, carelessly, ought we outlaw cars too? Perhaps we shouldn't develop medicinal drugs b/c some people overdose on it. If a person wants to buy a gun, he has the right to do it. Owning a gun is not illegal, owning a car isn't illegal. Killing someone is illegal, regardless of whether or not you use a gun or a #2 pencil. If a person shoots himself by accident, what your point? Accidents happen, with chainsaws, cars, guns, planes, etc... You're using emotional appeal to argue your point. Your string of logic is this: A) Dieing is Bad. B) People Die from Guns C) Therefore guns are bad. Completely ignoring any real logic.
THe only person glamorizing anythign here is you. Consider the following:
Scenerio A: Guns are LEGAL. Criminals (people that break the law) and average Citizens (people that abide by the law) have guns.
Scenerio B: Guns are ILLEGAL. Criminals still have guns (they break the law). Average Citizens don't (they abide by the law).
Result: Outlawing guns only removes guns from law-abiding citizens and promotes an environmnet that is conducive to criminal activity by placing more power in the hands of the criminals.
To address your "point" of paranoia: You're making a blanket statement. Not only does it make no logical sense how you go from paranoia to more crime, your/moore's statement is devoid of any facts at all. If you look into the facts, places with more legalized guns tend to have lower crime rates... canada and in teh states, Check out Virginia's crime rates (a state that has loose gun control) versus states with high gun control. The reason Canada has low crime rate is b/c everyone has guns. If I was a robber and I knew that regardless of where I went, there's a VERY high chance the owners have a gun that would be a very nice deterant. Look back on my scenerio to make it clear.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Man, you didn't hear about the new rule?
First one to bring up Michael Moore loses the argument.
IMHO, the parents (The self involved dickhead parents) of those kids that planned & executed the murders @ Columbine should answer for what they allowed to happen under their noses. I seriously doubt that either of my children could plan something like that without me figuring out they were up to something & making one hell of an effort to find out what they were doing & stop it.
And what fvck kind of logic are you following? My premise is purely statistical. There will always be a certain number of accidents with a certain number of guns. Increase the number of guns, and you increase the number of accidents. Now the point i was trying to make, was that guns is something that we can live without. Can you live without cars? I suppose we can, but that'll affect almost every single part of society. But can we live without guns? MANY societies do. Some people can recreate on crack just fine and not become addicted or ruin their lives... but we know that a lot of people can't, and we balance it with the fact that they really shouldn't need to, so it gets banned and criminalized.
Now people will say that guns do become a necessity, because they need to protect themselves. The point i was making was that guns isn't as useful for protection as people think, because in the vast majority of cases, they would never get to it in time anyways. So guns isn't such a helpful means of protection at all... but it's chance of becoming a liability is still there... and the more guns that are around, the greater the chances of there being an accident, but the greater number of guns doesn't really produce as much protection as people think.
You're assuming people in Scenario A will always have the gun on them and ready at the time of being a victim. They don't, so Scenario A is closer to Scenario B than you think, so where's the helpfulness in that? True, some people are able to protect themselves in time, but is it enough to justify it? I'm sure those who were able to will say it was, and i know if i'm a victim of a crime, i would like to think i was able to defend myself... but you have to look at the overall picture... which is there is hundreds of millions of guns out there, and yet how many of them can really be used successfully in defense? And how many of those guns get lost in the closet, forgotten, or misplaced?
The Canadian laws are FAR from perfect, but they do have certain good points. 1) you require a license, which requires passing a test (for handguns, there's actually two license and two exams you need to pass... there's two parts to the exam, a written exam, and a practical part that requires you to handle 3 different firearms) to acquire. 2) all guns must be registered to you to own it, so it becomes your responsibility. You can't sell it to a shady person, you can't pass it on to somebody else without the proper registration following it. So losing, misplacing, or forgetting about a gun can get you in trouble.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
The entire point of gun ownership is protection not from criminals, but from the state. The second amendment protects every other right in the bill of rights. Or would you dismiss this as another gun-lover being paranoid? In the 1930's a "progressive" German government disarmed its populus, allowing a small group of tyrants to rule. The same things happened under the iron will of communist Russia. Even today there are dictators who rule an unarmed country. Don't be fooled into thinking that somehow current "free" governments will not try to disarm free peoples in the world and use the power of their state for unpure purposes. Today police and military personel use their weapons using their own free will.(for the most part) These officiers and soldiers combine with armed citizens to form a check on government.
You consider weapons as somehow evil to the core, and a problem to face. But you're dealing with cival rights that should be protected by a government whose only power comes from the people themselves. When you start making government independent, somehow "above" the rest of us, you're playing with fire as witnessed by facist states in world history.
I don't need guns, I want them. Not hard to understand, really.
I want them because, if there should ever come a time when I do need them and I don't have them, it is a bit like wishing I would have purchased an insurance policy on my home as I'm watching it burn to the ground.
lol! Firearm technology has barely advanced in the last 100 years.
The semi-automatic pistol technology on which all modern semi-automatic pistols are based to one extent or another was developed in the 1890s and perfected within 20 years. A brand new Colt Model 1911 and all competing clones are virtually indistinguishable from the Colt Model 1911 prototype selected by the US Military in 1911 (hence the model #).
Materials, metals, and manufacturing processes have improved greatly, making modern firearms far more reliable and durable (e.g. better corrosion resistance and stronger materials). Firearms today aren't nearly as apt to blow up in your face as they were 100 years ago. These same improvements also contribute to more aesthetic appeal of many firearms (plating, coatings, etc).
What technology has not managed is to make them significantly more accurate or even more powerful than the closest counterpart as it existed 100 years ago. Ammunition technology has similarly improved reliability, reduced corrosive or fouling by-products of combustion, and the shelf-life of ammunition, but little advancement has been made in the way of power or velocity. A typical 9MM Luger cartridge produced today is not substantially more powerful nor 'deadly' than it was in 1908.
Advancements in ammunition technology have been as much to improve the safety of manufacturing ammunition than to improve terminal ballistics. It was not uncommon for ammunition factories to explode in the 19th Century, sometimes taking entire neighborhoods with them. Not so much today, due to significant advancements in manufacturing (but not in the 'deadliness' of ammunition).
As for rifles, if you can find a single rifle among the Top 30 best-selling civilian rifles that is not based on an action or cartridge older than 65 years, well that would really be something.
In order to get the really advanced stuff, not that 19th Century technology available to civilians, but the real 20th Century advancements (e.g. circa 1920), dandies such as the H&K MP5 and Colt M4 assault rifles are available at real bargain prices; starting around $5,000 for the most basic configurations with no add-ons or accessories. i.e. few are able to afford these weapons outside of drug cartels, organized crime, civilian and military governments.
Do you actually believe Chuck Farley and his 30-06 hunting rifle or 9MM pistol is 'driving' the market for advancements in firearms? lmao!
Civilian and military GOVERNMENT sales drive this market, civilians get the old stuff that 'filters' down after 20+ years. The logic that putting the skids on civilian gun ownership will have the affect of 'filtering up' to stem government demand and acquisition of weapons can't be beat for sheer lunacy, though oddly shared by most gun-phobes, giving us a disturbing glimpse into the delusional abyss driving gun-phobia.
You clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, but hey don't let that stop you from forming an opinion or view on any matter. No other gun-phobes do, so you're in good company! :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter