This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important.

And you claimed the CDC is one of the few organizations that could do a proper job.... till they did a study and said they could find no correlation between restrictive gun laws and any reduction in gun crime/violence.

So it seems you only approve of agencies that come to the conclusions that you support.

Easily disproved STRAW MAN.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3771931#3771931

The CDC's conclusions were, incidentally, not exactly what you claim (surprise!):

CDC identified a number of problems with reaching any correlation due to data inadequacy. Among the problems:


Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.


Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that “denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.”


Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.


Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.


Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that “rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence.”

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important.

And you claimed the CDC is one of the few organizations that could do a proper job.... till they did a study and said they could find no correlation between restrictive gun laws and any reduction in gun crime/violence.

So it seems you only approve of agencies that come to the conclusions that you support.

Easily disproved STRAW MAN.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3771931#3771931

The CDC's conclusions were, incidentally, not exactly what you claim (surprise!):

CDC identified a number of problems with reaching any correlation due to data inadequacy. Among the problems:


Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.


Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that “denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.”


Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.


Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.


Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that “rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence.”

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. "

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Well the point here at least is the items I list are everyday items, like guns (only guns are more regulated)

Guns are my everyday items pretty much the same way as nuclear bombs are.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

and then you like to ingnore or step on the 2nd Amenedment.

So what? This would not be the first time the Constitution is being amended.

But it may not be even necessary. What it basically says according to Heller is that some people (and the government can restrict who) can own firearms (and the government can restrict what) in a way permitted by the government (i.e. not necessary carrying). Which is very similar to what Russian weapon law says.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

and then you like to ingnore or step on the 2nd Amenedment.

So what? This would not be the first time the Constitution is being amended.

But it may not be even necessary. What it basically says according to Heller is that some people (and the government can restrict who) can own firearms (and the government can restrict what) in a way permitted by the government (i.e. not necessary carrying). Which is very similar to what Russian weapon law says.

What Heller *actually* said was:

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

Nice spin, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What Heller *actually* said was:

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

"like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Which is what I said.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What Heller *actually* said was:

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

"like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Which is what I said.

Like I said...nice spin. Ignore the fact that the decision struck DOWN a gun ban and concentrate on a snippet that doesn't say anything different than thousands of existing gun laws.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

and concentrate on a snippet that doesn't say anything different than thousands of existing gun laws.

This snippet is very important if you think beyond NRA mantra. I do not know a country which completely bans private gun ownership - collection and hunting rifles are privately owned in most countries in Europe, including Ukraine and Russia. The number of such owners, however, and the restrictions imposed on them make it pretty much a gun ban.

And despite NRA attempts, I still see more gun restrictions in the future.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

and concentrate on a snippet that doesn't say anything different than thousands of existing gun laws.

This snippet is very important if you think beyond NRA mantra.

Snippet != decision. Maybe you should think beyond the Brady mantra.

Quote

I do not know a country which completely bans private gun ownership - collection and hunting rifles are privately owned in most countries in Europe, including Ukraine and Russia. The number of such owners, however, and the restrictions imposed on them make it pretty much a gun ban.

Good for them. Sounds like you'd be much happier 'back home' where guns are banned and the killers only get to use hammers to do their murders.

Quote

And despite NRA attempts, I still see more gun restrictions in the future.

Don't bet the farm on it.

So, to boil it all down.... you acknowledge that availability doesn't have any affect on crime, but you still think bans lower crime.

Great logic.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So, to boil it all down.... you acknowledge that availability doesn't have any affect on crime, but you still think bans lower crime.

Nope, I only acknowledge that there is no direct evidence available so far, but based on comparison with different countries I make a conclusion that dramatically restricting gun availability and ownership indeed lowers violent crime, especially spree-type crimes.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, to boil it all down.... you acknowledge that availability doesn't have any affect on crime, but you still think bans lower crime.

Nope, I only acknowledge that there is no direct evidence available so far, but based on comparison with different countries I make a conclusion that dramatically restricting gun availability and ownership indeed lowers violent crime, especially spree-type crimes.

No, you make a wild-assed guess, since the stats don't support it. At least be THAT honest. Maybe you can point out all the spree killings in Switzerland - you know, that place where every house has to have a gun?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important.

And you claimed the CDC is one of the few organizations that could do a proper job.... till they did a study and said they could find no correlation between restrictive gun laws and any reduction in gun crime/violence.

So it seems you only approve of agencies that come to the conclusions that you support.

Easily disproved STRAW MAN.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3771931#3771931

The CDC's conclusions were, incidentally, not exactly what you claim (surprise!):

CDC identified a number of problems with reaching any correlation due to data inadequacy. Among the problems:


Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.


Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that “denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.”


Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.


Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.


Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that “rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence.”

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. "

That's essentially what I said.

Insufficient evidence does NOT mean no correlation. It means more data are needed. Unfortunately the NRA cronies in Congress put a stop to that line of inquiry.

60 years ago there was insufficient evidence to show that smoking causes cancer. That doesn't mean smoking wasn't causing cancer.

15 years ago there was insufficient evidence to show that HRT correlated with breast cancer. Doesn't mean HRT wasn't correlated with breast cancer.

In 1958 there was insufficient evidence to correlate Thalidomide with birth defects. Doesn't mean Thalidomide wasn't causing birth defects.

550 years ago there was insufficient evidence to show that the planets have elliptical orbits around the Sun. Doesn't mean they weren't in elliptical orbits.

Take a stats course, for all our sakes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, you make a wild-assed guess, since the stats don't support it. At least be THAT honest.

The way I view it, the stats indeed support that. Even you acknowledged that the gun crime rate is lower in Europe - you just claimed that it is because of the "culture difference", and not because of guns.

Quote

Maybe you can point out all the spree killings in Switzerland - you know, that place where every house has to have a gun?

Gunman kills 14 in Swiss assembly. Didn't you heard about this one? It was the major reason of discussing changes in gun laws in Switzerland.

Shooting Spree at Swiss Islamic Center. Note that "the man used his military weapon and ammunition, according to the police statement"

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No, you make a wild-assed guess, since the stats don't support it. At least be THAT honest.

The way I view it, the stats indeed support that. Even you acknowledged that the gun crime rate is lower in Europe - you just claimed that it is because of the "culture difference", and not because of guns.

That's correct - once again, you evidently didn't read what info you were given.

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can point out all the spree killings in Switzerland - you know, that place where every house has to have a gun?

Gunman kills 14 in Swiss assembly. Didn't you heard about this one? It was the major reason of discussing changes in gun laws in Switzerland.

Shooting Spree at Swiss Islamic Center. Note that "the man used his military weapon and ammunition, according to the police statement"

Wow, all those guns everywhere and TWO killing sprees. Doesn't make much of a case for your assertion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

No, you make a wild-assed guess, since the stats don't support it. At least be THAT honest.

The way I view it, the stats indeed support that. Even you acknowledged that the gun crime rate is lower in Europe - you just claimed that it is because of the "culture difference", and not because of guns.

Mike always resorts to the "culture difference" argument when the data don't support his preconceived ideas. He does it with guns, he does it with healthcare. I'm sure he'd do it with climate change too if he could think of a way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, you make a wild-assed guess, since the stats don't support it. At least be THAT honest.

The way I view it, the stats indeed support that. Even you acknowledged that the gun crime rate is lower in Europe - you just claimed that it is because of the "culture difference", and not because of guns.

Mike always resorts to the "culture difference" argument when the data don't support his preconceived ideas. He does it with guns, he does it with healthcare. I'm sure he'd do it with climate change too if he could think of a way.

Yeah, John, because the 'youth crime' that has been discussed in the news and by the gov't for the last few DECADES are just because of all the guns laying around in the street, right?

From Congressional testimony in 1995:

Quote

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Should've read the link.

Here's a towel - you'll need it for the egg on your face.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That's correct - once again, you evidently didn't read what info you were given.

This phrase makes little sense to me unless you meant "agree" instead of "read". Same as I read your posts, but not necessary agree with them.

Quote

Wow, all those guns everywhere and TWO killing sprees. Doesn't make much of a case for your assertion.

Your "doesn't make much" sounds like excuse, and begs the question like "how much would you consider significant"?

However it indeed makes a case if you take the population and population density into account. The fact is that there WERE sprees as well, committed by legitimately owned weapons, and this led to discussions and proposed gun law changes.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That's correct - once again, you evidently didn't read what info you were given.

This phrase makes little sense to me unless you meant "agree" instead of "read". Same as I read your posts, but not necessary agree with them.

I beg your pardon for not being more clear - yes, I agree that it is societal/cultural issues.

Quote

Quote

Wow, all those guns everywhere and TWO killing sprees. Doesn't make much of a case for your assertion.

Your "doesn't make much" sounds like excuse, and begs the question like "how much would you consider significant"?

Well, YOUR argument in the other thread was that gun ownership was useless because ALL spree killings weren't stopped by private individuals.

Based on YOUR criteria for acceptability, what do you think mine should be?

Quote

However it indeed makes a case if you take the population and population density into account. The fact is that there WERE sprees as well, committed by legitimately owned weapons, and this led to discussions and proposed gun law changes.

Population? Population density? Careful, George...you're getting dangerously close to some societal issues, there.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

I won't speak for others, but my position has always been that guns deter violent crime.

As I read it, this comment (from post # 44) was put forth as a subjective belief. That’s totally fair. We all have our opinions and a right to them. I respect that.

Quote

You can never assume that anyone will act rationally. Ever.

Assuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime is a bad idea.

As I read it, this assertion (from post #150, to which I replied) was put forward as more objective (rather than subjective opinion).

Bringing the two quotes together highlight something of a puzzle for me.

Deterrence requires some minimum level of rationality. If the argument is that “guns deter violent crime,” but “(a)ssuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime” is incorrect ... aren’t those two ideas contradicting or conflicting?

Or is the argument that an ambiguous threat of a certain level of reciprocal violence induces rationality, even in people who would otherwise commit crimes … i.e., the idea that armed societies are nicer? That still requires potential criminals or people who would otherwise not behave ‘nicely’ to make rational choices to behave in one way.

This is not the first time that I’ve observed the puzzle between the two arguments … even on here. This was just a concise example of the two within the same thread. Can anyone explain how the two ideas are reconciled?

/Marg

Wow. I go out of town for a few days and PeeWee Herman and his clones take over

Nerdgirl - In this apparent paradox, the illusion is because of the level of rationality.

The old advice "Give them what they want and they won't hurt you" is actually false. FBI stats have shown that resisting (in any manner, including running away) has a lower chance of injury than compliance. In this area the rationality of the criminal (keeping the implied agreement of "give me what I want or I'll hurt you") is highly suspect.

They might hurt you because you move too slow, or move to fast, or have an "attitude", or don't have enough of value to satisfy them, or they think you have more, or just because they feel like it.
Last fall a clerk in NYC (CT really) was shot and killed after giving the robber the money News story.
The link includes another similar robbery/shooting where the clerk survived.

While criminals may not be rational at keeping the "Give me your money or I'll hurt you" bargain, they usually have a pretty strong self-protection instinct.
Like choosing easy victims, or recognizing a threat to their lives when a gun is pointed at them. It doesn't take much rationality to understand "Go away or I'll kill you", and they easily recognize the threat that is nearly identical to the one they themselves use.

It is interesting to read (First hit from Google of "self defense shootings") how many criminals continue their attack in the face of an armed victim.
Lack of rationality?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I beg your pardon for not being more clear - yes, I agree that it is societal/cultural issues.

Yes, that's what you think. And I disagree with that, and believe the role of gun ownership is much more significant there.

Quote

Well, YOUR argument in the other thread was that gun ownership was useless because ALL spree killings weren't stopped by private individuals. Based on YOUR criteria for acceptability, what do you think mine should be?

No, my argument was that gun ownership did not look beneficial for me, because at maximum 4 out of 44 school shootings during last ten years were stopped by an armed private individual (I'm being generous here, as only two cases can be really considered "being stopped"; in two others the best you can guess is that further murders were prevented, but it gonna be just a guess).

"All or none" is typically a pro-gun argument, so you probably confused me with someone else.

Quote

Population? Population density? Careful, George...you're getting dangerously close to some societal issues, there.

Neither has anything to do with cultural issues, and I have no idea what "societal issues" is - sound very abstract to me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I beg your pardon for not being more clear - yes, I agree that it is societal/cultural issues.

Yes, that's what you think. And I disagree with that, and believe the role of gun ownership is much more significant there.

You REALLY should have read that link. Or even the excerpt I provided above. ESPECIALLY given the OTHER link that shows they can't prove correlation.

You're arguing from emotion, not from logic.

Quote

Quote

Well, YOUR argument in the other thread was that gun ownership was useless because ALL spree killings weren't stopped by private individuals. Based on YOUR criteria for acceptability, what do you think mine should be?

No, my argument was that gun ownership did not look beneficial for me, because at maximum 4 out of 44 school shootings during last ten years were stopped by an armed private individual (I'm being generous here, as only two cases can be really considered "being stopped"; in two others the best you can guess is that further murders were prevented, but it gonna be just a guess).

You *DO* know that civilian gun owners do NOT have police powers, right? They're not required to saddle up their white charger and save the day. The purpose of the gun is defense of yourself and family, primarily.

Quote

"All or none" is typically a pro-gun argument, so you probably confused me with someone else.

"Man shot with own gun" thread, post 25:
"Looking on recent history, I remember several shoot spree cases in U.S., and not a single case when a potential or existing shoot spree was stopped by a regular citizen who happen to be a gun owner"

Same thread, post 73:
"As far as I see, only one of those examples at least remotely supports a "a regular gun owner stopped a massacre" statement. And none of them actually used a gun as a gun - a dummy would work as well in all those scenarios."

I'm sure there's more, as well. Shall I continue?

Quote

Quote

Population? Population density? Careful, George...you're getting dangerously close to some societal issues, there.

Neither has anything to do with cultural issues, and I have no idea what "societal issues" is - sound very abstract to me.

I've mentioned societal as well as cultural issues many times, George - quit trying to tapdance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You REALLY should have read that link. Or even the excerpt I provided above. ESPECIALLY given the OTHER link that shows they can't prove correlation.

I do not see how it is relevant. Welfare and free social services in Europe are generally more available than in USA (i.e. even the poorest countries of Eastern Europe provide free healthcare), so it should affect crime rate in a similar way in both cases. The number of single parents is likely to be similar as well. The take-home pay in Europe is generally smaller than in U.S. (higher taxes). I do not see any valid points there if we apply the same criteria to both cases.

Quote

You *DO* know that civilian gun owners do NOT have police powers, right? They're not required to saddle up their white charger and save the day. The purpose of the gun is defense of yourself and family, primarily.

Which basically means that banning gun ownership will have no drawbacks to myself and my family, but would greatly reduce a chance for yet another to-be crazy shooter like Cho or Jing Hua Wu to obtain guns.

Quote

"Looking on recent history, I remember several shoot spree cases in U.S., and not a single case when a potential or existing shoot spree was stopped by a regular citizen who happen to be a gun owner"

You do see the difference between "there are no such cases" and "I remember ... no single case", don't you?
Nevertheless, I was corrected since that, and admitted it.

Quote

"As far as I see, only one of those examples at least remotely supports a "a regular gun owner stopped a massacre" statement. And none of them actually used a gun as a gun - a dummy would work as well in all those scenarios."

This is indeed true, as in those four cases none of them used a gun as a gun (i.e. fired it) - so they might have it uncharged or broken, it would work the same way. Again, I did not say it was never a case - just none of those four cases referenced above.

Quote

I'm sure there's more, as well. Shall I continue?

Indeed, you have to do better than that.

Quote

I've mentioned societal as well as cultural issues many times, George - quit trying to tapdance.

You'd need to clarify those issues which are different between U.S. and Europe. Welfare definitely does not count here.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You REALLY should have read that link. Or even the excerpt I provided above. ESPECIALLY given the OTHER link that shows they can't prove correlation.

I do not see how it is relevant. Welfare and free social services in Europe are generally more available than in USA (i.e. even the poorest countries of Eastern Europe provide free healthcare), so it should affect crime rate in a similar way in both cases. The number of single parents is likely to be similar as well. The take-home pay in Europe is generally smaller than in U.S. (higher taxes). I do not see any valid points there if we apply the same criteria to both cases.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal

Quote

Quote

You *DO* know that civilian gun owners do NOT have police powers, right? They're not required to saddle up their white charger and save the day. The purpose of the gun is defense of yourself and family, primarily.

Which basically means that banning gun ownership will have no drawbacks to myself and my family, but would greatly reduce a chance for yet another to-be crazy shooter like Cho or Jing Hua Wu to obtain guns.

Oh, well...as long as it's only about YOU...

Quote

Quote

I've mentioned societal as well as cultural issues many times, George - quit trying to tapdance.

You'd need to clarify those issues which are different between U.S. and Europe. Welfare definitely does not count here.

Better re-read that other link, and the one in this post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Up here in Canuckistan we have some pretty anal gun laws.
But fortunately the LIEberals have failed to ban them outright ... yet.

In the past I know I have debated some folks here on the need to have weapons and then I adopted a "I am neutral on firearms, I am not for them I am not against them" stance. But lately I seem to be changing ... that's right I am thinking of obtaining my "Possession and Acquisition License" which will allow me, someone with no criminal record the right to own a 7.62 caliber semi-automatic rifle for the primary purpose of target shooting and maybe hunting those nasty gophers farmers refer to as rats when I am on crown land. I do not feel I need a weapon for personal safety from thugs mainly because I don't go around associating with the criminal element, so they don't really know I exist ... but rest assured if society ever does take a turn for the worse and some undesirable criminals, zombies, terrorists, militias or yes even government police and/or armies ever come knocking on my door, I want to know that I will at least not be defenseless like millions and millions of Jews, Gypsies and ethic Russians were in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s (not to mention the millions of Cambodians who disappeared). But I will be sure to thank the LIEberals after I drop the first five bad guys and the sixth bad guy kills me, because Canuckistan's LIEberals have passed a law which only allows me to carry 5 rounds in the mags for any weapon I may own.

Oh here is a funny video for those who have an open mind and don't believe in 100% gun control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZS7Jdg24j4

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal

So are you suggesting that Europe has less absent fathers than USA (and Brazil has more than USA, accordingly)?

Quote

Oh, well...as long as it's only about YOU...

Well, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth as "Good Book" says.
Why should I consider interests of gun owners if they do not consider mine?

Quote

Better re-read that other link, and the one in this post.

None of those links compares situation in different countries, making it useless for our purpose.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *