kallend 2,106
Recommended Posts
jdhill 0
How about countries where guns are in just about every home, Switzerland and Israel? In Israel's case you would need to adjust for murder by bombings... Oh yeah, those aren't just handguns either, they are the evil "Assault Rifles" that everyone has.
Josh
Josh
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
QuoteQuote
[#003366]Right. The US is just a more violent country.
Not according to US DOJ and FBI reports. ONLY in homicides with firearms is the USA the clear winner.
ok. That statistic is true. More people get killed with firearms in the US. I am just saying that the statistic does not imply cause-and-effect.
People would be killed in another fashion because of the violent nature of US society.
In less industrialized countries with the same violence problem, maybe it is just big sticks or rocks. The problem is the attitude, not the tool.
Why don't you compare apples-to-apples? Why not compare a US urban city with strict gun control to one without? Sometimes people pick statistics that prove a point, not to precipitate the truth. Picking statistics is a profitable science.
kallend 2,106
QuoteHow about countries where guns are in just about every home, Switzerland and Israel? In Israel's case you would need to adjust for murder by bombings... Oh yeah, those aren't just handguns either, they are the evil "Assault Rifles" that everyone has.
Josh
The homicide rate in Berne (Swiss capital) is 50% higher than in London (UK capital) and double the rate of Paris (French capital).
Next question?
kallend 2,106
QuoteHow about countries where guns are in just about every home, Switzerland
and Israel? In Israel's case you would need to adjust for murder by
bombings... Oh yeah, those aren't just handguns either, they are the evil
"Assault Rifles" that everyone has.
Forgot to mention that Switzerland and Israel have universal military training. The gun owners there actually know what they are doing, rather than just claiming such.
jdhill 0
Are those homicides gun related or done with swiss army knives?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
jdhill 0
Military training does not equal knowing how to handle a gun... I know lots of military folks that can't shoot worth a lick... I learned to shoot long before I joined the Army...
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteQuote
[#003366]Right. The US is just a more violent country.
Not according to US DOJ and FBI reports. ONLY in homicides with firearms is the USA the clear winner.
ok. That statistic is true. More people get killed with firearms in the US. I am just saying that the statistic does not imply cause-and-effect.
People would be killed in another fashion because of the violent nature of US society.
It's funny that the pro gun folks are quick to claim cause and effect in support of their position (CCW reduces crime, etc.) but deny cause and effect when the statistics go the other way.
Quote
It's funny that the pro gun folks are quick to claim cause and effect in support of their position (CCW reduces crime, etc.) but deny cause and effect when the statistics go the other way.
I agree with you here. I do not believe that using statistics to prove CCW reduces crime is any more valid. You will note that I have never said that.
Most crime starts with the criminal and the opportunity. Anonymity is a factor. Remember the looting and riots after the Bulls won? Also, a few years ago when the power went out in Montreal?
In a large city, you may never see that person again. In a small town, you have to have better manners. In rural areas, police presence is generally non-existent and you have to look out for yourself.
Violence is a sad defect in American society. Taking away guns will not change that. It will just disarm honest citizens. How many people think that riding the subway in New York is safe with all those "unarmed" citizens? Drop a few of the muggers and see where the mugging rate goes.
jdhill 0
the cuase and effect of guns & murder and CCW & reduced crime are not related to each other... Is it easier to kill someone with a gun, yes... but there are no guns in prison, murders still happen...
if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, they will do it with whatever tool is available...
if someone wants to do harm to someone that has a gun, they may think twice and either not do it or risk being defeated in their attempt...
taking guns out of the hands of law abidding people, leaves them only in the hands of outlaws... not a place I would want to be...
try to take the guns away from law abidding people... I think you don't want to see the cause and effect there...
The government and anti-gun groups should spend their time and money trying to take the guns away from criminals, using the laws already on the books, not trying to enact new ones.
Josh
if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, they will do it with whatever tool is available...
if someone wants to do harm to someone that has a gun, they may think twice and either not do it or risk being defeated in their attempt...
taking guns out of the hands of law abidding people, leaves them only in the hands of outlaws... not a place I would want to be...
try to take the guns away from law abidding people... I think you don't want to see the cause and effect there...
The government and anti-gun groups should spend their time and money trying to take the guns away from criminals, using the laws already on the books, not trying to enact new ones.
Josh
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
billvon 3,070
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I've taken a fair amount of karate in my day and I don't know
>anyone anywhere who is faster than a bullet.
It is this attitude that would allow him to disarm you. Do you allow people to come closer than 24 inches to you when walking down the street? If so, then he could have you on the ground in less than a second and have your gun in another second. Yes, if you were forewarned that the guy in the white robe and the black belt were going to attack you, you might be able to see him and draw in time. Real life generally doesn't work like that.
>If you kept this guy at say fifteen feet and told him not to move or
>he was going to get shot, there is a chance that he might get you
>but the odds would be stacked way in my favor.
I agree, and a lot of advanced training ensures that that very situation never happens. If your house was ever invaded by someone with Steve's training, you'd be stacking a gun in the dark against 15 years of training in close combat, a good chunk of which is how to disarm someone who is trying to shoot them. You'd lose.
That's not to say you shouldn't get a gun. If your house is ever broken into by a drunken idiot, chances are that you will be able to shoot him. The above is to point out that a gun is far from the universal deterrent (or universal protection) some people think it is. A good quote from the rec.gun FAQ, written by someone who is presumably very pro-gun:
"A firearm is not a bulletproof shield; if a gun makes you feel ten feet tall and invincible, you are better off without it. It will get you into trouble you should have walked away from. "
>anyone anywhere who is faster than a bullet.
It is this attitude that would allow him to disarm you. Do you allow people to come closer than 24 inches to you when walking down the street? If so, then he could have you on the ground in less than a second and have your gun in another second. Yes, if you were forewarned that the guy in the white robe and the black belt were going to attack you, you might be able to see him and draw in time. Real life generally doesn't work like that.
>If you kept this guy at say fifteen feet and told him not to move or
>he was going to get shot, there is a chance that he might get you
>but the odds would be stacked way in my favor.
I agree, and a lot of advanced training ensures that that very situation never happens. If your house was ever invaded by someone with Steve's training, you'd be stacking a gun in the dark against 15 years of training in close combat, a good chunk of which is how to disarm someone who is trying to shoot them. You'd lose.
That's not to say you shouldn't get a gun. If your house is ever broken into by a drunken idiot, chances are that you will be able to shoot him. The above is to point out that a gun is far from the universal deterrent (or universal protection) some people think it is. A good quote from the rec.gun FAQ, written by someone who is presumably very pro-gun:
"A firearm is not a bulletproof shield; if a gun makes you feel ten feet tall and invincible, you are better off without it. It will get you into trouble you should have walked away from. "
wmw999 2,534
***Is it easier to kill someone with a gun, yes... but there are no guns in prison, murders still happen...
if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, they will do it with whatever tool is available...
------------------------------------------------------------
I have a feeling (unsubstantiated by anything other than some understanding of human nature) that it's that very "easier" that helps make our murder rate higher.
Bubba Joe gets mad at Billy Bob. Bubba Joe has a gun, goes and gets it from his car (or pulls it out) and blows Billy Bob away from 10 feet away. Yes, he's drunk. No, he shouldn't have. But he did.
Bubba Joe is more likely just to get the shit kicked out of him if he takes a swing at Billy Bob. Even if he goes to his car to get a baseball bat or his pigsticker, he has to get close enough to Billy Bob to actually do some damage.
Yes, he COULD throw either the baseball bat or the knife. But the probabilities go way down.
Not an argument against guns necessarily; just an argument against easy availability of guns to drunk idiots.
Wendy W.
if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, they will do it with whatever tool is available...
------------------------------------------------------------
I have a feeling (unsubstantiated by anything other than some understanding of human nature) that it's that very "easier" that helps make our murder rate higher.
Bubba Joe gets mad at Billy Bob. Bubba Joe has a gun, goes and gets it from his car (or pulls it out) and blows Billy Bob away from 10 feet away. Yes, he's drunk. No, he shouldn't have. But he did.
Bubba Joe is more likely just to get the shit kicked out of him if he takes a swing at Billy Bob. Even if he goes to his car to get a baseball bat or his pigsticker, he has to get close enough to Billy Bob to actually do some damage.
Yes, he COULD throw either the baseball bat or the knife. But the probabilities go way down.
Not an argument against guns necessarily; just an argument against easy availability of guns to drunk idiots.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Kennedy 0
QuoteAgain, no one on this thread has suggested that you not be allowed to carry a gun.
Actually, a few people here mentioned that.
QuoteThe thread started over whether it might make sense for the police to be able to identify the gun you are carrying if it is ever used in a crime,
Bill, theoretically, I would agree with you. With a limited, non-intrusive, trustworthy government, I wouldn't necessarily be against registering firearms either. But, we've established for the most part that this does not work as proposed and is not supported by police officers by and large.
Now just show me a limited, non-intrusive, trustworthy government.
That begs the question why register firearms. You'll notice the people [if we can call politicians that] suggesting implementing "ballistic fingerprinting" are the same ones that support gun control up one side and down the other.
Now, not that anyone has mentioned it, there is a bill before both houses suggesting a study on the effectiveness and implementation of ballistic fingerprinting. It's been there since sometime in 2001. I'm all for this bill [and so is the NRA by the way], though I can predict the outcome of the studies if they are done impartially.
They'll come back with a great big thumbs-down.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
steve1 5
If your house was ever invaded by someone with Steve's training, you'd be stacking a gun in the dark against 15 years of training in close combat, a good chunk of which is how to disarm someone who is trying to shoot them. You'd lose.
........................................................................
Do they really teach this now in Karate? I was always taught that the best thing to do in a situation where a person had a knife was to run, or if they had a gun was to do what they asked, because there was very little chance of survival doing anything else. I don't care what belt this guy has I'd like to see him fight off a well trained person with a gun. This is just another example of why a lot of stuff taught in karate is fake and unrealistic. Again in the right situation this guy might win. I mean there are a lot of scenarios where he could. Such as with the element of surprise and in the dark, but I'd have a much better chance of survival with the gun than without. As I said before a gun is not an end all for every situation. There's probably lots of scenarios we could dream up, where maybe a gun wouldn't work too well. That doesn't mean a gun would not be very effective in saving your life in most home defense situations. And no the guy wouldn't have to be a staggering idiot. Steve1
........................................................................
Do they really teach this now in Karate? I was always taught that the best thing to do in a situation where a person had a knife was to run, or if they had a gun was to do what they asked, because there was very little chance of survival doing anything else. I don't care what belt this guy has I'd like to see him fight off a well trained person with a gun. This is just another example of why a lot of stuff taught in karate is fake and unrealistic. Again in the right situation this guy might win. I mean there are a lot of scenarios where he could. Such as with the element of surprise and in the dark, but I'd have a much better chance of survival with the gun than without. As I said before a gun is not an end all for every situation. There's probably lots of scenarios we could dream up, where maybe a gun wouldn't work too well. That doesn't mean a gun would not be very effective in saving your life in most home defense situations. And no the guy wouldn't have to be a staggering idiot. Steve1
billvon 3,070
>That begs the question why register firearms. You'll notice the
> people [if we can call politicians that] suggesting
> implementing "ballistic fingerprinting" are the same ones that
> support gun control up one side and down the other.
The governors of Virginia and Maryland both support ballistic fingerprinting; they also support private gun ownership. (Understandably, the issue has come up for them recently.)
>Now, not that anyone has mentioned it, there is a bill before both
> houses suggesting a study on the effectiveness and implementation
> of ballistic fingerprinting.
I'd be all for this too.
> . . .I can predict the outcome of the studies if they are done
>impartially. They'll come back with a great big thumbs-down.
I suspect that rather than giving a thumbs-down, they will come back with a result that the pro-gun lobby uses to try to kill fingerprinting, and the pro-control lobby uses to support fingerprinting. Business as usual, in other words.
> people [if we can call politicians that] suggesting
> implementing "ballistic fingerprinting" are the same ones that
> support gun control up one side and down the other.
The governors of Virginia and Maryland both support ballistic fingerprinting; they also support private gun ownership. (Understandably, the issue has come up for them recently.)
>Now, not that anyone has mentioned it, there is a bill before both
> houses suggesting a study on the effectiveness and implementation
> of ballistic fingerprinting.
I'd be all for this too.
> . . .I can predict the outcome of the studies if they are done
>impartially. They'll come back with a great big thumbs-down.
I suspect that rather than giving a thumbs-down, they will come back with a result that the pro-gun lobby uses to try to kill fingerprinting, and the pro-control lobby uses to support fingerprinting. Business as usual, in other words.
steve1 5
"A firearm is not a bulletproof shield; if a gun makes you feel ten feet tall and invincible, you are better off without it. It will get you into trouble you should have walked away from. "
...........................................................................
Wouldn't it be nice if we were all like McGiver on television. I mean if we were all just so smart all we had to do was just say no to guns and outwit someone who meant us harm. Wouldn't that be wonderful. I mean we need to get real here. Is it possible to just always walk away from trouble as the quote above says. Suppose someone is armed and dangerous and inside your home. Are you just going to walk away.
Kennedy 0
Prohibition: Where did the violence come from? Racketeering. What caused the racketeering? The black market in booze. What caused the black market in booze? Prohibition. Hence, prohibition caused an increase in crime.
War on drugs: see above caption substituting gang-banging for racketeering and drugs for booze.
And this, in large part is why we have a monstrous murder rate. You said it yourself kallend, the people knocking each other off in record numbers are drug dealers and gang-bangers. I don't need statistics to tell me that.
I am still 100% convinced, the more the government butts out, the better things will run. The government that governs least governs best.
War on drugs: see above caption substituting gang-banging for racketeering and drugs for booze.
And this, in large part is why we have a monstrous murder rate. You said it yourself kallend, the people knocking each other off in record numbers are drug dealers and gang-bangers. I don't need statistics to tell me that.
I am still 100% convinced, the more the government butts out, the better things will run. The government that governs least governs best.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteI am not anti-gun, I am pro-truth.
Then you must hate the media, huh? I mean, people use firearms in defense of self all the time. We all remember the day-trader from Atlanta who went out and blew away all those people, right? Well, who here knew about that the very next day in the very same town, someone used a gun to defend himself and seventeen others from a suicidal homicidal? [the suicidal homicidal left a note saying he was going to take a bunch of others with him]
It's only telling the truth if you tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Not according to US DOJ and FBI reports. ONLY in homicides with firearms is the USA the clear winner.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites