Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Home Protection
    #1113145 -

If you're thinking of buying a gun for home protection let me give you a few statistics. A member of your family is 22 times more likely to die from gunfire if you have a gun in the house than if you don't.

The idea that having a gun is the only way to ensure "home protection" is a myth. Fewer than 1 in 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home. Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

If you are truly concerned about home protection - get a dog.

- Micheal Moore


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115077 -

this article is the latest results of this kind of research - US States with More Gun Owners Have More Murders
methinks the good researcher, dr miller of harvard, will be getting a visit from the nra shortly. never fear you can get great carbon fiber kneecaps these days.
Wed Dec 4,11:10 AM

By Charnicia E. Huggins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Homicides in the United States are more common in states where more households own guns, according to researchers.



The study findings imply "that guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans," lead study author Dr. Matthew Miller of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health.


"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often adduced, notion that guns are a public good," he added.


Miller and his team investigated the association between homicide and rates of household firearm ownership using 1988-1997 data collected from the nine US census regions and the 50 states.


They found that household gun ownership was linked to homicide rates throughout the nine census regions. At the state level, the link between rates of gun ownership and murder existed for all homicide victims older than age 5, according to the report in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health.


In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.


Further, people who lived in one of the six "high gun states" were nearly three times as likely to die from any homicide and more than four times as likely to die from gun-related homicide than those who lived in "low gun states," the report indicates. Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.


On average, about half of households in high gun states had firearms, according to data reported by three of the six states, in comparison to 13% of households in low-gun states.


Although homicide rates were higher in poor areas and in states with higher rates of non-lethal violent crime and urbanization, the association between household firearm ownership and homicide remained true when the researchers took these and other factors into consideration.


Still, Miller's team notes that it is not clear whether the higher rates of household gun ownership caused or resulted from the increased number of homicides.


"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition," they write.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:1988-1993.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115183 -

I don't own a gun, but I gots lots of cutlery!  :grin:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115195 -

In reply to:
If you are truly concerned about home protection - get a dog.

This is really good advice for gun owners and non alike. There are two ways to attack this issue.
1) Outlaw guns to save lives
2) Educate gun owners about locking their arms in safes, trigger locks etc.

Number one is flawed because blanket rules play to the least common denomenatordenominatordenominatorsdenominatedenominationdenominateddenominatesdenominationsdenominationaldenominatingdenominativedemonstratordenigratordenominationallydenominativesdemonolatry. I resent blanket rules. 2 is OK. I personally like trigger locks, not because of potential laws but for the peace of mind it brings me. I own several firearms but don't use them for home safety. Hunting/range use is all I do. I respect your opinion on firearms, but don't blame a piece of metal, blame the idiot that misuses it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115338 -

The whole gun issue is a very thorny one.

Guns do cause problems. Guns are used in many crimes. Do we outlaw them
completely? I don't think we should. They do serve legitimate sporting
and protection purposes.

When people who didn't deserve to be shot, get shot, it is either because
of criminal behavior or negligence. I am not a criminal, and I am not an idiot.
So, I feel as if I should have access to a gun to do whatever I wish to
do(within the boundaries of the law), including protecting my home.


RandalFlagg


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1116461 -

Alex123 writes:

A member of your family is 22 times more likely to die from gunfire if you have a gun in
the house than if you don't.

In which country? Source please.

Fewer than 1 in 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home.

In which country? Source, please.

Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home,
in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time residents
accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

In which country? Source, please.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: mr crisper]
    #1116483 -

mr crisper quotes:

In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides...

Note that "homicide" also includes suicide.

Further, people who lived in one of the six "high gun states" were nearly three times as likely
to die from any homicide...

and

Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived
in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.

How is this explained by gun ownership? These statistics alone clearly demonstrate there is more
going on in these states than a simple "cause and effect" phenomenon. A more logical
inference to be drawn is that for whatever reason, inhabitants of these states are more prone to violence than inhabitants of other states.

Note that in Switzerland, where gun ownership is nearly universal, the incidence of homicides
(or ANY crimes) involving guns is virtually zero. Even in Canada, which on a per capita basis has nearly as many households with guns as does the United States, gun-related homicide is a
small fraction of the US rate.

Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.

"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun
in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often
adduced, notion that guns are a public good,"

How can someone who claims to have produced a study with valid conclusions not be aware of
the studies done by Professor Lott et al which show quite clearly that states which have instituted
"concealed carry" laws have had a corresponding drop in the rate of gun-related crimes than
those which haven't?

Drawing valid conclusions from raw statistical data involves more than compiling isolated strings of
numbers and jumping to conclusions.

pinky





--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1116690 -

In which country? Source please.

The source is at the bottom of the post.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1116825 -

Ah. So the source is a sensationalist movie director notorious for playing fast and loose with facts and who has freely admitted he exaggerates in order to "pound home the point more effectively".

Treating Michael Moore's proclamations as factual is as senseless as treating Rush Limbaugh's proclamations as factual. I presume you cut and pasted from some website? Perhaps you could provide a link to it -- there is a slender chance that Moore might have mentioned where he got those numbers.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1117188 -

Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.

Source please.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1117470 -


Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.


Source please.


You don't need a source to prove this. Guns don't pick themselves up and
shoot people. People do this. Don't blame the instrument, blame the person
who perpetuated the action. And, don't infringe upon responsible and law-
abiding owners of this instrument, just because others happen to misuse it.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1117556 -

Shit, speaking of the gun control debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=gun_control_debate


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1118639 -

dr miller certainly seems to have an agenda, hence my kneecap comment.
personally i dislike guns, especially when other people are pointing them at my head. but if i lived in the usa and had a family, i would own a gun for protection, so many violent assholes to contend with. :grin: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1119020 -

yes but the fact the guns exist themselves causes opportunity for violence. I doubt anyone would die nearly as much because of melee weapons if guns weren't around, cuz guns are so easy to kill someone with. And then we got some milk and eggs in the dairy section. "Are you kids shopping?" Samson asked. Oui?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1119080 -

You don't need a source to prove this.

I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this. How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle? The rifle created the opportunity for him to kill 13 people. If he'd been trying to do it without a rifle it would have been far more difficult.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1119417 -

I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this.

Reading comprehension, Alex, reading comprehension.

Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans. Some use poison to kill others, some use edged weapons, some drown others, some use bludgeons, some use swords, or arrows, or darts, some use ligatures, some use firearms, some use bombs, some run others over with a vehicle, many use no weapons at all other than their hands and feet.

How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle?

That's hard to say. How many was Tim MacVeigh able to kill without a rifle? Or Ted Bundy? Would the Washington sniper have exceeded their score if he had chosen to kill with bombs or strangulation rather than a firearm? We'll never know.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1119436 -

What????? You mean those darn guns don't leap up by themselves and just kill people?

Well who would have thought!

And what's this about hands, knives, poison, etc? Your saying that bullets aren't the only way to kill others? Does everyone know about this?

Next thing I know you'll be saying people should take responsibility for their own actions.

:laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1119577 -

Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans.

Please try and understand. Would you be glad to see everyone in america given a nuclear bomb? If not, why not?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Grav]
    #1119588 -


guns exist themselves causes opportunity for violence. I doubt anyone would die nearly as much because of melee weapons if guns weren't around, cuz guns are so easy to kill someone with.


Anything that can be used to kill a human being, WILL be used to kill a human
being, because there are people out there who will kill people. Whether you
were a caveman with only rocks and stick at your disposals, or a modern day
man with an assault rifle at his disposal, the one fact remains, some people
habitually act violently and irresponsibly. We need to punish those people.
We however should not punish people who have had nothing to do with any
crime. If anybody tries to take my gun away because of other people's actions,
I will fight tooth and nail.

From my cold dead hands.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1119594 -


You don't need a source to prove this.


I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this. How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle? The rifle created the opportunity for him to kill 13 people. If he'd been trying to do it without a rifle it would have been far more difficult.


You have yet to answer my question; when a person commits a heinous act with
a tool(a tool which has legitimate uses when in the hands of law-abiding citizens),
should we infringe upon the rights of law-abiding people and ban that tool, or should we punish the actions of the perpetrator of the crime?

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1119601 -

You have yet to answer my question

You have yet to answer mine. Would you like to see a nuclear bomb in the hands of every citizen in the US? If not why not?

Would you like to see every citizen armed with a tank and a helicopter gunship? If not, why not.

Thanks,



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1119647 -

It seems as if our gun-control debate is spilling over into two seperate
threads.

You have yet to answer my question


You have yet to answer mine. Would you like to see a nuclear bomb in the hands of every citizen in the US? If not why not?

Would you like to see every citizen armed with a tank and a helicopter gunship? If not, why not.


I answered this question in the "Bowling for Columbine" thread. However, I
will copy and paste my answer and put it in this thread as well.

Begin paste:

There is not a legitimate use for an F-16 or an attack helicopter, by a normal
citizen. However, there are uses for firearms by normal citizens. I believe it is an
essential right for the law-abiding section of the populace to have access to
REASONABLE weapons, so that if a circumstance were to arise, they would be
able to protect themselves.

End paste:


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1124041 -

your wasting your time on Alex...he will never answer your questions....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1124337 -

"Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans. Some use poison to kill others, some use edged weapons, some drown others, some use bludgeons, some use swords, or arrows, or darts, some use ligatures, some use firearms, some use bombs, some run others over with a vehicle, many use no weapons at all other than their hands and feet."

Who makes guns pinky? little fluffy bunnies from out of space?



--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1124344 -

the need and desire for guns is the mark of those still stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.

I say to all those of us above - Stamp on their fingers hard!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1124357 -

I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here -


The truly free know how ludicrous this really is.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1124375 -


the need and desire for guns is the mark of those still stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.


Ah...The compulsion to ridicule and patronize those that happen to not to
be as "enlightened" as you think you are. Does it smell like "arrogant liberal" in
here to anybody else?

It is my opinion that responsible people need to have access to guns for
protection, because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us.

Why do you engage in one sentence posts that have no meaning, instead
of exploring a very complicated issue in-depth, as you should?


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1124596 -

Alex123 writes:

Would you be glad to see everyone in america given a nuclear bomb? If not, why not?

a) No one has the right to be given anything, be it a nuclear bomb or a screwdriver.

b) Not everyone in America owns a firearm, nor is it likely that everyone ever will own one.

c) Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as nuclear bombs are correctly considered by the international community to be in a category separate from firearms for a legitimate reason -- they are by their nature incapable of being used selectively, hence are inappropriate as tools for individual self-defense.

I realize you won't answer the following question, because you never answer questions that show your position to be an untenable one, but I will continue your reductio ad absurdium chain of questions from another thread. I apologize for not cutting and pasting it verbatim, but I can't recall in which thread it appears, so I will paraphrase it as accurately as I can:

You asked in another thread something along the lines of

Would you like to see everyone in America given a nuclear bomb? No? How about an F-18? Or an assault helicopter, or a tank, or an artillery piece or a missile launcher, etc.?

If you answered no to all of the above, how can you logically support giving everyone a firearm?

Why stop there, Alex? Why not continue working your way down the chain? I now ask you:

If you think it is wrong for private citizens to own firearms, (and you obviously do) do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow? A longbow? A TASER? A stungun? A blowpipe? A javelin? A sword? A machete? A knife? A cudgel? MACE or pepper spray?

If not, why not?

Note that in England all of the above have been outlawed. In the eyes of English legislators it is no longer merely a war on firearms, it is a war on the right of individuals to defend themselves from predators. The English government believes that individuals who defend themselves from predators are criminals, as numerous prosecutions (and the harshness of the accompanying prison sentences) have illustrated unequivocally. English citizens must rely on The State to prevent bodily harm from being inflicted on them by others.

There would be far less crime in a society where every adult citizen were permanently armed. The armament need not necessarily be a firearm -- a stun gun capable of rendering a human instantly unconscious at a distance for five minutes or so would suffice.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1125024 -

hence are inappropriate as tools for individual self-defense.

Hold on, for the last 6 months you've been insisting the populace needs to be armed to defend itself against tyrants or "invasion". 38 specials arn't going to do the job. Surface to air missile launchers WOULD be a deterrance to any tyrants. Have the courage of your own convictions.

Note that in England all of the above have been outlawed.

We can still buy knives in england. You cut bread with them.

English citizens must rely on The State to prevent bodily harm from being inflicted on them by others.

You fail to explain how making sure every yahoo in the country is packing heat would prevent bodily harm. 14000 gun deaths a year in the US, 14 in the UK. Clearly there arn't many "predators" using guns in the UK.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1125267 -

As predicted, you failed to answer the question. Why am I not surprised?

However, as always, I will address all of your points.

Hold on, for the last 6 months you've been insisting the populace needs to be armed to defend itself against tyrants or "invasion".

First of all, that wasn't me claiming that, although I do agree with others in this forum who feel it is an important component of the right to self-defense. If one has the right to try to prevent a criminal from initiating force against oneself, it follows that one also has the right to prevent a jackbooted SS thug or an invading soldier from doing so. As for protecting against an invasion, that is mainly the job of the military. Individuals can (and do) assist in the defense, of course.

38 specials arn't going to do the job. Surface to air missile launchers WOULD be a deterrance to any tyrants. Have the courage of your own convictions.

Clearly SAMs are not particularly hard to come by, judging from the estimates of the number of loose ones floating around in various places in the world. At any rate, seizing an armory outright is possible to accomplish by a group armed with nothing more than rifles, and robbing one is even easier.

We can still buy knives in england.

Oh, they haven't got around to outlawing breadknives yet? Only clasp knives and sheath knives have been outlawed so far? Give it another year or two, then.

You fail to explain how making sure every yahoo in the country is packing heat would prevent bodily harm.

Simple. Each time a predator tries to harm a peaceful individual, he is incapacitated, then packed off to prison. In the case of those intended victims who are less than perfect marksmen, the predator may even be killed, boo hoo hoo -- heaven forbid Ted Bundy's first victim had killed him! That would have put a real dent in the True Crime book sales.

14000 gun deaths a year in the US, 14 in the UK.

And 6 in Switzerland, which has a gun in almost every household.

Clearly there arn't many "predators" using guns in the UK.

The term "predator" includes more than murderers. It is not necessary to fire a gun to victimize an innocent with it; brandishing a gun in the face of a completely unarmed individual is a pretty effective way of assuring compliance. An armed criminal may rape and rob at will with no fear of retaliation.

I read in a back issue of The Economist that there are currently an estimated 3 million unregistered handguns in the hands of English criminals, with thousands and thousands being smuggled into the country on an ongoing basis. The numbers are not firm of course -- merely extrapolations from seized shipments. If the same percentage of smuggled guns are seized as heroin and cocaine, the figure of 3 million may even be on the low side.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1125580 -

well randall, before you remark on my one sentence posts perhaps you should keep up with the other 2 or 3 threads regarding the issues of guns where I made my points at great length.

The need to categorize people with silly labels such as "arrogant liberal" is also a hallmark of the dying paradigm. Its nice and easy to categorise people isnt it?

I never said I was enlightened - you did. But i know that i can live my life without the need of resorting to barbaric measure to try and "protect" myself. I dont need to explain why this is so, thats just the way it is. And if I get shot? so what.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1125592 -

I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here ="because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us. "

Thanks Randall!




--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1125626 -

Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons.

Randall thinks that becasue he isnt an idiot no accidents would occur whilst he was in control of a gun! wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.

Silly, sillly, silly.

I dont care - you'll only shoot yourselves anyway. Thats the beauty of the group mind.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1126843 -


The need to categorize people with silly labels such as "arrogant liberal" is also a hallmark of the dying paradigm. Its nice and easy to categorise people isnt it?


It is easy to categorize people when they seem to make every effort to fit into the
category in question.


I never said I was enlightened - you did. But i know that i can live my life without the need of resorting to barbaric measure to try and "protect" myself. I dont need to explain why this is so, thats just the way it is. And if I get shot? so what.


If you and the rest of the English population wish to live like that, go ahead. I
certainly hope what has happened in your country never happens in mine.

Freedom does bring about danger. When people are free to do things, sometimes
people will get hurt because of the actions. This is life. Life would be very safe if
we were all confined to cells, and never allowed out. But, would the lack of
freedom make life worth living? As citizens of a democracy, we have to decide
what amount of freedom, and what amount of safety we want in our lives.
And, hopefully we will be able to properly balance the two.

When we are discussing whether a tool should be legal or illegal, we have to
carefully weigh every possible aspect of every possible avenue of action.

Yes, guns are used in a lot of violent crimes. Guns do cause a lot of problems.
But, I still think their legal use by responsible people, is of enough importance
to warrant having to deal with some of these problems. Much like having the
freedom to drive places in your car, exposes you and everyone else to possible
danger, but the benefits outweigh the risks.


Here are my gun opinions in a nutshell:

1. Why guns should continue to be legal in America

-Sporting reasons
-Protection reasons
-When someone wants to kill somebody, it is the fault of the person that
commits the crime, not the tool itself. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal
building in Oklahoma. He used fertilizer and deisel fuel. Should we ban these
things(which have legitimate uses) because of the actions of a criminal? When
we consider guns, I think we need to punish the actions of criminals, while
protecting the rights of peaceful law-abiding gun-owners who had nothing
to do with any crime.

-There are legal things in this country which kill many more people than guns.
Are you going to outlaw cars next?(which result in at least fifty-thousand
deaths a year) Tobacco(kills about half a million a year)? Fatty Food(kills
at least a million a year)? As I said before, in a democratic society, you must
make decisions that limit people's freedom in order to serve public safety.
Some decisions are easy to make, such as prohibiting a persons freedom
to murder someone else. Some are not so easy to make, because the thing
that is in danger of being outlawed has valid uses.

2. Why the banning of guns in America would not work

-There are too many guns circulating and being owned by people. If you were
to make manufacturing of guns illegal, and seize all the guns that you could on
top of that, there would still be a shitload of guns out there.

-Criminals are criminals because they don't obey laws. Do you think they will
care if a ban on guns is passed? They don't obey any of the laws we have
now, what makes you think they will obey this new one? The only people
who would be affected by a ban on guns are law-abiding citizens who
will be stripped of a valuable protection tool.
-Any person with a brain realizes that when you make something illegal that is
in demand, bad things happen. A violent underground takes over the
manufacture and trade of the thing in question. The price goes up, quality is
oftentimes suspect, and people get killed in battles to control the market. This is
prohibition. This is exactly what has happened with drugs.


These are not elaborated on as well as I would like, because I have to still go
through a shitload of "Political Forum" threads. God, I spend hours on here. I need
to get a life...

RandalFlagg

Edited by RandalFlagg (12/09/02 10:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1126973 -


I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here ="because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us. "


To understand that crime exists, to be wary of it, and to want to protect myself
from it....makes me paranoid??? It sounds more like common sense than paranoia
to me.


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1127261 -

Gazzbut writes:

Randall thinks that becasue he isnt an idiot no accidents would occur whilst he was in control of a gun! wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.

Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.

Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons.

I'm glad to see you (unlike a certain compatriot of yours) acknowledge the logic of my argument. Why then do you support your government's systematic disarmament of its constituents? This would seem a glaring contradiction.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1127332 -

Why am I not surprised?

Because you only see what you wish to see?

I will address all of your points.

Where? In another thread? You didn't address them in this one.

Clearly SAMs are not particularly hard to come by, judging from the estimates of the number of loose ones floating around in various places in the world.

This is utterly irrelevant. Should americans be allowed to buy SAM's in stores or not? If not, why not. Reading comprehension...

Only clasp knives and sheath knives have been outlawed so far?

You mean knives with no other use but killing people? You can't cut bread with clasp knives.

And 6 in Switzerland, which has a gun in almost every household.

Still 14,000 in the US tho.

btw, try comparing like cultures. The US and Britain have similar cultures. One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.

heaven forbid Ted Bundy's first victim had killed him!

Ted Bundy was american. What happened to your idea that having legal guns means rape doesn't exist? In fact, wait a minute, america tops the league in serial killers! Some theory.

3 million unregistered handguns in the hands of English criminals, with thousands and thousands being smuggled into the country on an ongoing basis

Most of which are re-activated handguns which have an excellent chance of blowing your hand off if you fire them. Most burglars in the UK have never seen a gun in their lives. I can't remember the last time a rapist carried out an attack with a gun over here.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1127608 -

Alex123 writes:

Where? In another thread? You didn't address them in this one.

I addressed every point in the post of yours I replied to. Please point out which one you feel I missed and I'll repeat my reply to make it easier for you.

Should americans be allowed to buy SAM's in stores or not? If not, why not.

In my opinion, no, since they are not required for defense against anything other than aircraft. If things ever reach such a state that the American government is using aircraft to attack its own citizens, I fully support the right of Americans to seize SAMs from existing armories inside America, or to purchase them on the international arms market.

Now it's your turn. Should Americans be allowed to own crossbows or stun guns or swords or javelins, etc.? If not, why not?

You mean knives with no other use but killing people? You can't cut bread with clasp knives.

I have carried a clasp knife for decades, and use it on almost a weekly basis for something or other, including, on occasion, cutting bread on a camping trip. It's not my preferred implement for cutting bread, but it gets the job done. I have never killed anyone with it.

The US and Britain have similar cultures.

That's not what you and Gazzbut have been claiming. You are both inordinately proud of the fact that English culture is different from American culture.

However, for once you have actually hit the nail on the head. Statistics indicate unequivocally that Americans on a per capita basis are more prone to commit homicides than are the Swiss or Canadians or English, guns or no guns, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in threads that I KNOW you have read. If you remove ALL gun deaths in America, INCLUDING suicides and accidental deaths, from the annual total, the homicide rate is STILL multiples of the homicide rate in almost any other country. Even Michael Moore pointed that out (though he certainly didn't dwell on it) in his latest movie. Clearly there is more going on in America than the availability of firearms.

One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.

Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England? You must remember that post -- you tried to use it to claim that the sharp jump in England's crime rate after the latest round of legislation in 1997 had nothing to do with gun confiscation, but was instead related to some economic measures or something.

Ted Bundy was american.

Jack the Ripper was English.

What happened to your idea that having legal guns means rape doesn't exist?

I never said that, Alex. Reading comprehension is an important skill. I did say "There would be far less crime in a society where every adult citizen were permanently armed. The armament need not necessarily be a firearm -- a stun gun capable of rendering a human instantly unconscious at a distance for five minutes or so would suffice.

Note the phrases "FAR LESS crime", "EVERY adult" and PERMANENTLY armed.

In fact, wait a minute, america tops the league in serial killers!

Almost none of whom used guns. Most American serial killers use strangulation as their preferred method of killing. Let's outlaw pantyhose and clothesline!

And England (according to UN figures) now tops the league in every other category of crime save homicide and rape, although the gap in the rape statistics is steadily narrowing. The rate of muggings in London is now six times higher than that of New York.

Most of which are re-activated handguns which have an excellent chance of blowing your hand off if you fire them.

Wrong. Most of which are new firearms smuggled in from the continent. England is a lucrative market for gunrunners -- ask the Belgians.

By the way, how is it possible for there to be more than a million and a half (in other words, more than 50% of 3 million) "reactivated" handguns in England, when the legislation demanded the confiscation of starter pistols, air guns, and even "replica" guns? It seems unlikely the legislation would have allowed anyone to keep a "deactivated" handgun. Also, you recently claimed that before your government completely disarmed the law-abiding populace in 1997 there were only 140,000 guns in England, and the "vast majority" of those were rifles kept at shooting clubs. Are you now claiming that somehow the populace managed to keep a million and a half handguns with their firing pins removed hidden from the authorities? If so, it would seem a lot of law-abiding citizens opposed your government's legislation.

Even if this WAS the case, where did the other million and a half handguns come from? They must surely be recent imports if there were only 140,000 guns in England pre-1997. Who is buying those imports; law-abiding citizens or criminals?

Most burglars in the UK have never seen a gun in their lives.

I find that hard to believe, but I will concede that it could be POSSIBLE. I see no way of proving that one way or the other. What's your point?

I can't remember the last time a rapist carried out an attack with a gun over here.

Don't you read your own newspapers? However, even if you have never read of such a thing happening, it doesn't negate my point. A rapist doesn't NEED a gun if he is assured by his government that his victim is unarmed. A breadknife will do the job of terrorizing his prey quite handily.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1127641 -

err talk about putting words into my mouth!!

where did I say "Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it."

I certainly dont agree with that. I know cars are dangerous, but that is not their purpose. A gun is fulfilling its destiny when it kills someone. If you cant see the difference yourself im not going to wear out my keyboard explaining it to you!

Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face! The logic is so flawed it doesnt really merit being labelled as logic. I think you knew that though!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1127649 -

PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH - I HAVE NEVER SAID I AM INORDINATELY PROUD OF ENGLISH CULTURE.

ITS ALL THE SAME TO ME - WESTERN IMPERIALISM


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1128401 -

Gazzbut writes:

where did I say "Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it."

Sorry. I just assumed you either owned a car or had at least driven one at some time in your life. My bad.

You missed the point, however. Your assumption was that Randall is too big an idiot to prevent gun accidents from occurring. This is an incorrect assumption. There are millions of guns in America which will never be involved in an accident, or even ever fired anywhere other than at a gun club. On a percentage basis, far more cars (orders of magnitude more) will be involved in accidents than guns.

A gun is fulfilling its destiny when it kills someone.

Or an animal. I've never killed anyone with a gun, though I have killed (and eaten) birds and rabbits.

Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face!

Ah. Sarcasm. How is my logic flawed?

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say that technology advances to the point where it becomes possible for every human to be issued a "protective drone" at birth -- a little gizmo about the size of a bumblebee which hovers somewhere over the shoulder of every human on the planet. Inside the drone is a scanner, a transmitter, and an energy weapon similar to a "phaser" as seen on Star Trek. The scanner feeds to a megacomputer somewhere.

Whenever a human attempts to attack another human, the megacomputer notices and sends a signal to BOTH drones to zap the attacker. The attacker is instantly rendered unconscious for a few minutes.

Do you agree that this would lower the rate of violent crime?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1128411 -

>Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face! The logic is so flawed it doesnt really merit being labelled as logic. I think you knew that though!

Why don't you go look up the crime rates in Israel and Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Anonymous]
    #1128557 -

In reply to:
Why don't you go look up the crime rates in Israel and Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.


Well, that wouldn't support the contention that the mere presence of a gun causes crime. Please do not attempt to bring reason to those governed by emotion, it distresses them.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Evolving]
    #1129072 -

Go play with your guns. Evolution will disarm us all or we will end up dead. Either way I'll enjoy the ride.



--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1129090 -

Guns are pretty damn fun though, I like to play with them around the house. You trying to take away my fun? Just like drugs and alcohaul kill people and they are fun too. The only way to be completly safe in this country is not not have any fun.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: ehud]
    #1129118 -

YAAAH DDUUDE< LETS GO DRINK A 40 AND SHOOTS SOME CATS!!111 FUCK THE MAN

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1130824 -

Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England? You must remember that post -- you tried to use it to claim that the sharp jump in England's crime rate after the latest round of legislation in 1997 had nothing to do with gun confiscation, but was instead related to some economic measures or something.

Reading comprehension pink, reading comprehension. The gun ban affected about 140,000 people out of 60 million. There was gun-control in England before 1997. This is typical of how you deliberately distort points tho.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1132282 -

Alex123 writes:

Reading comprehension pink, reading comprehension. The gun ban affected about 140,000 people out of 60 million. There was gun-control in England before 1997. This is typical of how you deliberately distort points tho.

Sigh. Not only can I comprehend what I read, Alex, I am capable of grasping the priciple and the context of what someone is trying to express. Would that you could. I wasn't DISPUTING your claim that gun deaths in England were low before the latest round of disarmament, I was AGREEING with it. Let's review, shall we?

You said (comparing America to England):

One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.

I then said (throwing your own claims back at you):

Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England?

In other words, YOU had said (quite correctly) in a previous post that even BEFORE the latest round of disarmament (which you say affected only 140,000 people), Engand's annual death toll from guns was way, WAY less per capita than America's. I went even further than that by stipulating that even before England had ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL (pre 1920) the gun death toll in England was way, WAY less per capita than America's.

So we both agree that far, far fewer people in England murdered each other with guns than in America, GUN CONTROL or NO GUN CONTROL, just as far fewer people murder each other with guns in Switzerland (where gun ownership per household is near universal) or in Canada, where gun ownership (per capita, of course) is almost as high as in America. It has nothing to do with GUN CONTROL, it has to do with the nature of the inhabitants of a given country, AS YOUR PREVIOUS POST illustrates.

If the mere presence of guns in households is responsible for gun deaths (as you contend) how do you explain Switzerland or Canada?

So, the final step in the complete disarming of the law-abiding citizenry of England did little to affect the toll of gun related deaths -- there were almost none to begin with. It DID, however, coincide with a sharp increase of what the UN reports call "serious" crime. I contend the reason for this increase is because criminals know there is now no danger whatsoever of being harmed during the commission of a crime. You contend that the increase has to do with changes around the same time in English economic policy or something.

I can't help but note that you are still evading my question:

If you think it is wrong for private citizens to own firearms, (and you obviously do) do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow? A longbow? A TASER? A stungun? A blowpipe? A javelin? A sword? A machete? A knife? A cudgel? MACE or pepper spray?

If not, why not?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1133457 -

I contend the reason for this increase is because criminals know there is now no danger whatsoever of being harmed during the commission of a crime..

It affected 140,000 people out of 60 million. Don't be ludicrous.

It has nothing to do with GUN CONTROL, it has to do with the nature of the inhabitants of a given country

You seem to be making two completly opposite arguments. You have just argued that criminals decided to commit crime only after 1997. Now you say gun control makes no difference whatsoever.

Which is it?

do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow

Expand more on this. Wrong for an individual to use a crossbow at a sporting club or wrong for him to walk down the street with one? btw, don't try and compare mace and guns. You cannot walk into a school and slaughter 17 kids with mace.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1134197 -

Alex123 writes:

It affected 140,000 people out of 60 million. Don't be ludicrous.

Ah, but which 140,000 people did it affect? The very last private citizens still in possession of their means of self-protection. Surely even you must be capable of telling the difference between a quantitative change and a qualitative change.

Up until the final stage of complete disarmament of the law-abiding English populace, a predator could never be certain if the particular victim he was targeting was armed. That house he was entering may have contained an irate citizen armed with a match rifle or a skeet gun, for example -- one of the last 140,000 gun owners, in other words. But now (post 1997) that predator has complete assurance that he need not worry about coming to harm -- his victim cannot even spray him in the face with MACE.

You seem to be making two completly opposite arguments. You have just argued that criminals decided to commit crime only after 1997.

Sigh. I most certainly did not. I said that the rate of crime increased sharply once the citizenry had been completely disarmed. I never said that there was no crime prior to complete disarmament.

Now you say gun control makes no difference whatsoever.

First of all, I didn't say that, although readers of this thread cannot fail to note that you continue to evade the examples of Switzerland and Canada. "Gun control" is not equivalent to complete disarmament. There are literally thousands of laws in the United States specifying what hoops a law-abiding citizen must jump through in order to manufacture, sell, obtain, own, modify, carry, and use a firearm. All of those laws are gun control laws.

But in the case of England, we are not talking about gun control, we are talking about gun elimination. There is currently not a single law-abiding citizen in England in possession of a firearm, or even a sword. And the predators know that.

Expand more on this. Wrong for an individual to use a crossbow at a sporting club or wrong for him to walk down the street with one?

Since you chose to call this thread "Home protection", let's start there. Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?

btw, don't try and compare mace and guns. You cannot walk into a school and slaughter 17 kids with mace.

True. So why has England's government made it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to own MACE or even pepper spray?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1134654 -

a predator could never be certain if the particular victim he was targeting was armed.

I don't think many of your average friendly neighbourhood "predators" would have had a clue that handguns were still in the hands of a tiny minority. It was never an issue until Thomas Hamiliton wiped out the school at Dunblane. I'd certainly never seen the subject mentioned anywhere in the media. It was just a tiny, tiny minority hobby.

That house he was entering may have contained an irate citizen armed with a match rifle or a skeet gun, for example -- one of the last 140,000 gun owners, in other words.

I don't think the average burglar would give a shit either way to be honest. They'd just watch the house until the owners had gone out. Simple.

I said that the rate of crime increased sharply once the citizenry had been completely disarmed

I'm not much of a believer in "sharp increases" in everyday crime. People don't suddenly decide en masse "Lets all start committing crimes". Most of the "sharp increases" can usually be put down to different ways of recording crime, changes in making up the statistics etc.

So why has England's government made it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to own MACE or even pepper spray?

I suppose because the government classes them as offensive weapons.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1136106 -

It was never an issue until Thomas Hamiliton wiped out the school at Dunblane. I'd certainly never seen the subject mentioned anywhere in the media. It was just a tiny, tiny minority hobby.

But after Dunblane the media covered the final disarmament of the law-abiding citizenry pretty thoroughly. It would have been pretty tough to miss the triumphant claims of the politicians that England was safe at last. Or is it your contention that criminals don't read the papers or watch the telly or listen to the wireless?

I don't think the average burglar would give a shit either way to be honest. They'd just watch the house until the owners had gone out. Simple.

One would think so, but strangely enough many burglars don't.

I suppose because the government classes them as offensive weapons.

One must wonder what the English government classes a defensive weapon. Apparently they feel there is no such thing.

Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1136521 -

But after Dunblane the media covered the final disarmament of the law-abiding citizenry pretty thoroughly.

But your point was about what "predators" thought BEFORE dunblane.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1136718 -

But your point was about what "predators" thought BEFORE dunblane.

Precisely. Before Dunblane, they knew that people owned guns, swords, pit bulls, crossbows, etc. Even the ones who never read the papers spoke with fellow lowlifes who did read the papers.

After Dunblane, it was, "Hey Alfie! D'ja hear our working conditions just got a whole lot better?"

Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?

pinky


--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (12/12/02 07:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1136795 -

Something Ive just remembered about the Dunblane thing - A Couple of years later I was reading Robots Rebellion by David Icke, Im 90% sure Icke is a nutball but in there he was saying that an incident with a lone gunman would proabaly be used as a pretext for disarmament and this would involve the masons. The next day I got a lift in my sister's boyfriends car, he was a real slob and had old newspapers in the back seat, one was a daily mirror from not long after the Dunblane shooting. I thumbed through it and there was an article linking the dude who did the shooting to the masons aaaarrrgghhh!

So perhaps Pinky is not so paranoid after all. Still doesnt change my posistion on the matter. Even if gun laws are changed for questionable motives eventually it will be for the better!!

lumps of iron that shoot searing lumps of iron at people or animals are stupid. I dont care if it makes some guys hard. Its stupid.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1136805 -

Pinky this little drama you have concocted of the criminal underclass reading the papers and watching TV to discover that no one is allowed to carry guns and then triumphantly passing this info on to all their criminal friends so they can then go on a carefree crime spree is to say the least laughable, construed to suit your arguement and 1 dimensional.

You have made a correlation with no facts to back it up. You wont be too pleased to know that around the time the gun laws changed in the UK, custodial sentences for certain crimes were also decreased, more community service was also given out in place of custodial sentences. This meant being caught was alot less of a worry for the criminal. Now even you would have to admit that this may have played a large part in the increase in crime in this country, maybe more so than the change in gun law.

Also, if the disarning of the populace has left us at the mercy of the armed criminals why dont we hear more stories of people being shot in their homes? I honestly can remember a single story of burglary where a victim has been shot. The only one I can think of is the case of Tony Martin, an armed homeowner who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old in the back. The lad was commiting a crime admittedlly, but Martin had already scared him off, he was running away and then was shot.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1137408 -

Before Dunblane, they knew that people owned guns, swords, pit bulls, crossbows, etc.

Pt-bulls and crossbows are as rare (or even rarer) than guns. The odds of coming across a gun pre-1997 was 140,000 in 60 million. I don't think most burglars would be put off by those odds. And of course cases of homeowners being gunned down by these "predators" since 1997 are non-existent. Like Gazz says, i've seen one case in the last 10 years and that was a homeowner shooting a burglar as he tried to run away.

After Dunblane, it was, "Hey Alfie! D'ja hear our working conditions just got a whole lot better?"

I don't think that would have even crossed their minds.

Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?

What for? If he's following a sport then sure. If it's some yahoo who'll spend most of his time shooting cats and swans with it then no. And seeing the damage kids do to wildlife with airguns every day, I'd prefer they had as little access to weaponry as possible.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
    #1137784 -

Gazzbut writes:

Pinky this little drama you have concocted of the criminal underclass reading the papers and watching TV to discover that no one is allowed to carry guns and then triumphantly passing this info on to all their criminal friends so they can then go on a carefree crime spree is to say the least laughable, construed to suit your arguement and 1 dimensional.

What is more laughable is your contention that not a single criminal in the country was aware that people kept defensive weapons in their houses. Do you really expect anyone to swallow that? Criminals are not always the brightest specimens, but they are not completely deaf, dumb, and blind. Most burglars (for example) have broken into many houses in their lifetimes, and have seen many a ceremonial sword hanging on the wall, or a match rifle tucked away in a closet, or had to sedate a pitbull or two. If they themselves have not, their cohorts certainly have. There is such a thing as the "criminal fraternity" and "known criminal associates", you know. People talk to each other -- that's what people do, even criminals. Further, statistically speaking, most criminals will be arrested at least once in their careers. Who do you think they talk to while imprisoned? Why, surprise, surprise -- OTHER criminals!

Ever heard the term "jailhouse lawyer"? The average criminal is far, FAR more conversant with criminal law than the average citizen. This is not something I'm making up, this is FACT. Ask any cop or prison warden. To believe that the average English criminal was unaware of the exact legal status of defensive weaponry allowed to the homeowner both pre- and post-Dunblane is absurd.

You have made a correlation with no facts to back it up. You wont be too pleased to know that around the time the gun laws changed in the UK, custodial sentences for certain crimes were also decreased, more community service was also given out in place of custodial sentences. This meant being caught was alot less of a worry for the criminal. Now even you would have to admit that this may have played a large part in the increase in crime in this country, maybe more so than the change in gun law.

If the two legislations changed at around the same time, then certainly that would have an effect on the crime rate. That's the problem with a single point on a data curve -- in and of itself it is impossible to explain. One can make reasonable guesses, but drawing a firm conclusion from a single data point is risky. I agree that it is entirely possible part (even a large part) of the sharp increase in England's crime rate post-Dunblane had nothing to do with the fact that all law-abiding citizens are both defenseless and subject to prosecution for defending themselves. What is NOT in dispute is that there WAS a sharp increase in crime post-Dunblane.

But there is more than one point on the data curve. There is also Australia's gun control legislation. They experienced a similar sharp upswing in crime immediately after implementing their disarmament program. Coincidence? Perhaps. I must also mention yet again Switzerland, which has almost universal gun ownership and extremely low rates of crime. Canada springs to mind as well. Coincidence? Perhaps. Even MORE points on the curve appear when you add in the studies by Prof Lott et al re: concealed carry legislation and crime rates. Coincidence? Perhaps. But all of them support the same reasonable hypothesis: the more access law-abiding citizens have to defensive weaponry, the less likely they are to be victimized by criminals.

Is it possible that all of this is sheer coincidence? Yes, it is possible. After all, in an infinite universe, anything is possible. But is it probable? I submit that it is improbable that there is no connection between all these facts.

Finally, even though Alex seems to have a hard time grasping the concept, let me ask you -- why has the English government seen fit to outlaw virtually every form of defensive weaponry in the country? Not just GUNS, but clasp knives, chemical repellants, ornamental swords, blow pipes, stun guns, etc. Does the government really think some madman is going to enter a school and slaughter seventeen kids with a stun gun or a can of pepper spray?

The final crusher is that even FAKE guns have been outlawed. Explain to us how you can mow down the customers of a MacDonald's with a fake gun, please. But I know for a fact that brandishing a convincing-looking fake gun is often all it takes to get an intruder to flee. Fake guns are completely ineffective at killing people, but they do have some effect in protecting people.

The English government has sent a very clear message to the English populace, one that only the dimmest of the dim can fail to grasp:

"You as individuals have no right to defend yourselves, your loved ones, or your possessions, from dangerous predators. That is OUR job, and our job alone. If you attempt to purchase defensive implements, you will be imprisoned amongst those very predators. If you actually succeed in HARMING one of those predators, kiss your family goodbye for a very long time."

And some people wonder why I prefer private industry to government!

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1137807 -

Alex123 writes:

And of course cases of homeowners being gunned down by these "predators" since 1997 are non-existent.

Are you claiming that no one in England has been killed at home by an intruder since 1997? That is what "non-existent" means. And don't try to weasel about the difference between "gunned down" and "strangled", "stabbed", "bludgeoned to death" etc., because that is my entire point -- it is not necessary anymore for a criminal to carry a gun in order to harm anyone. Since all the law-abiding citizens have been completely disarmed, now any weapon is all that is required by a criminal.

I don't think that would have even crossed their minds.

The extent of your naivete is breathtaking.

What for? If he's following a sport then sure.

Nope. Since the title of this thread (YOUR title, remember) is "Home Protection", the crossbow was purchased in order to defend the home against intruders. It will never be fired at a cat or a swan.

Stop wriggling about and address the issue you yourself introduced -- home defense. It is quite clear from your continued evasions that you do in fact agree with your government's position that a law-abiding citizen has no right to defend himself from intruders.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1137821 -

Most burglars (for example) have broken into many houses in their lifetimes, and have seen many a ceremonial sword hanging on the wall, or a match rifle tucked away in a closet, or had to sedate a pitbull or two.

The vast majority of burglars are not going to bother sedating pitbulls for christsakes.They are going to go in, rifle around for cash and get out as fast as they can. They have no desire to duke it out with homeowners.

Who do you think they talk to while imprisoned? Why, surprise, surprise -- OTHER criminals!

Have you ever met a burglar? A heroin addict? Do you really think if you told them "You mustn't burgle you know, there's a tiny, tiny, tiny chance that if you break into a house the owner might have a gun". They are going to sit there and go "Really!! Oh, I'd better take that job at macdonalds right now!"

Finally, even though Alex seems to have a hard time grasping the concept

No problem grasping it, I've told you the reason so many times I'm numb telling you. Give people offensive weapons and they start using them inappropriately. Even airguns and fireworks are a nightmare. Swans, cats, dogs, kids are regularly shot by assholes with airguns. Fireworks are shoved through old peoples letterbox's. And you want to give these assholes more of the same? Forget it.

The final crusher is that even FAKE guns have been outlawed.

Becase they were being used in so many robberies it was becoming a pain in the arse for the police, and people were getting shot by armed police for brandishing fake guns. It made sense to ban them.

You as individuals have no right to defend yourselves

14000 gun deaths in the US, 14 in the UK. For a people with no right to defend ourselves we seem to be doing a helluva good job!


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1137832 -

Are you claiming that no one in England has been killed at home by an intruder since 1997?

No, read it again. Tell me what it says. And nope, I havn't read a single case of a burglar breaking in and shooting a homeowner.

The extent of your naivete is breathtaking.

Coming from you I'll consider that a compliment.

It will never be fired at a cat or a swan.

Oh, and we're supposed to take every assholes word for that are we? Tell me, when I go down to my local nature reserve and see the swans laying dead with airgun pellets do you think the kids who shot them assured everyone they would not kill a single swan or cat? If you can make me a cast iron 100% guarantee that an offensive weapon will NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE be used irresponsibly then you are welcome to them.




--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1137955 -

In reply to:
Have you ever met a burglar? A heroin addict?


Hey Alex, I've met them, also murders, rapists, robbers, car thieves, millionaire drug dealers and many other sorts. You know what they do in jail? They share information, they plan to get together when they are out, they tell each other which police departments are hard asses vs. which areas are easy to work in, they practice fighting techniques - particularly aimed at combatting police officers, they become affiliated with gangs such as the Aryan brotherhood, the Crips, the Bloods, or some faction of the Mexican Mafia (if they aren't already), they make criminal connections so when they get out they know where to purchase black market items - including weapons, they share techniques for commiting various crimes, for defrauding people, for using the tort system toget free money. Hell, the authorities can't even stop the drug trade IN THE JAILS! Yet you are naive enough to believe that criminals will be prevented from getting weapons when weapons are illegal.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (12/13/02 07:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Evolving]
    #1138212 -

Yet you are naive enough to believe that criminals will be prevented from getting weapons when weapons are illegal.

Nothing to do with belief. Just the simple fact that I can't remember ever reading about a case of a burglar shooting a homeowner over here. There are 14 gun deaths a year, clearly the vast numbers of criminals you insist are armed arn't shooting anyone. So either they have massive self-control (not a common trait of many criminals) or your theory is a crock.

You know what they do in jail?

Masturbate.

they practice fighting techniques

Why when you insist they all have guns? And i don't meet too many buff heroin addicts to be honest. You can blow most of them over.

Hell, the authorities can't even stop the drug trade IN THE JAILS!

Wait a minute, so they're all doped up on smack? I thought they were practising fighting techniques?

The reality is most prisons realise the benefit of a happy prison population. Crack down on drugs and you end up with a powder keg ready to explode.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1138396 -

In reply to:
Why when you insist they all have guns?


What gave you the idea that all the prisoners have guns? You really have a reading comprehension problem.

In reply to:
And i don't meet too many buff heroin addicts to be honest. You can blow most of them over.


What does this have to do with anything? How many heroin addicts do you know? I have known several 'buff' heroin addicts, but I've known many more people who are buffed who've used PCP or Cocaine or just Pot.

In reply to:
Wait a minute, so they're all doped up on smack? I thought they were practising fighting techniques?


Did I state that 'they're all doped up on smack?' No, I didn't. I listed several things that go on in a prison population.

In reply to:
The reality is most prisons realise the benefit of a happy prison population. Crack down on drugs and you end up with a powder keg ready to explode.


The reality is that guards can be bribed and new people coming in can smuggle drugs in internally. No one in charge of a prison population wants the inmates using drugs. The reality is that you don't know what you are talking about, you live in a fantasy world where passing a magic legal wand will make the world perfect. It doesn't work that way.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Evolving]
    #1139532 -

No one in charge of a prison population wants the inmates using drugs.

You truly have no idea.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1139537 -

they knew that people owned guns, swords, pit bulls, crossbows, etc. Even the ones who never read the papers spoke with fellow lowlifes who did read the papers.

Incidentally pink can you see the catastrophic flaw in your "logic"? You insist that "predators" don't commit crime if there's a chance the homeowner may be armed. Yet you insist that there are thousands upon thousands of guns coming into the country and that all "predators" are armed. Clearly this would mean there is a good chance of breaking into another "predators" house even with gun control. Why hasn't this fear stopped burglary?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1142211 -

In reply to:
No one in charge of a prison population wants the inmates using drugs.

You truly have no idea


You must be speaking to yourself, I have firsthand knowledge of which I speak, you have only conjecture and fantasy.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1142527 -

In reply to:
14000 gun deaths in the US, 14 in the UK. For a people with no right to defend ourselves we seem to be doing a helluva good job!




Aren't there like 1000 times as many Americans as there are people in your little Put-put golf course of a country?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1144120 -

Aren't there like 1000 times as many Americans as there are people in your little Put-put golf course of a country?

No.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1151650 -

In reply to:
I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this. How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle? The rifle created the opportunity for him to kill 13 people. If he'd been trying to do it without a rifle it would have been far more difficult.


How many people did Jeff Dahmer kill with a rifle? How many?

Alex, you may want to live in a communist paradise but most of us don't. They want to live here in the land of the free. Like Cuba, they have gun controland universal health care. They're also coming here in droves...


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1151663 -

In reply to:
14000 gun deaths in the US, 14 in the UK. For a people with no right to defend ourselves we seem to be doing a helluva good job!


Gun deaths are not an analysis of violent crime rates. Your nation has now become the violent crime capital of the world with more rapes, robberies, muggings, and aggravated assaults, and other violent crime than any other industrialized nation in the world. Your nation couldn't be doing a worse job!


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #1152180 -

Rail_Gun writes (about England):

Your nation has now become the violent crime capital of the world with more rapes, robberies, muggings, and aggravated assaults, and other violent crime than any other industrialized nation in the world.

Sorry, Rail_Gun, but the United States is still ahead of England in homicides and rapes, although the gap is narrowing in rapes. Otherwise, you are correct, if you are speaking on a per capita basis.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1152257 -

Per capita the UK has 4 times as many rapes. Their per capita violent crimes per 100,000 citizens far exceeds the US rates.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #1152486 -

Per capita the UK has 4 times as many rapes.

Not if we are talking about REPORTED rapes, at least not according to the sources I have come across so far. Before I accept your figure, I'd have to see a link to a credible source.

Their per capita violent crimes per 100,000 citizens far exceeds the US rates.

According to the sources I have come across so far, their rate of "crimes against persons" exceeds that of the US, true. But the US is still far ahead in homicides (note that "homicides" includes suicides), and is still ahead in rapes.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1157983 -

Don't matter,Americans will not give up their guns.At least this one won't


--------------------
Once the mighty oak,was a nut who held his ground.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War Northernsoul 1,182 12 03/18/03 09:34 AM
by angryshroom
* nuclear disarmament wilshire 725 10 11/19/05 09:02 PM
by kilgore_trout
* I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Poid 7,476 172 11/28/09 09:40 PM
by Poid
* The disarming facts Xlea321 332 0 10/02/03 11:36 PM
by Xlea321
* Series on Protecting Your Privacy Online Lana 3,767 2 12/09/02 09:01 AM
by isam
* White House declares itself immune from federal whistleblower protection laws Andy21 1,205 7 09/12/06 06:50 PM
by Konnrade
* Protecting free trade not about protecting big business.
( 1 2 3 all )		 z@z.com 4,713 48 01/14/05 02:57 PM
by Anonymous
* Senate Will Vote on Bill Protecting 2 Million Acres of American Wilderness.
( 1 2 all )		 Pandeist 1,228 21 01/16/09 04:46 PM
by TGRR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,774 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.