Stop Gun Deaths

[Joe Steel]

It’s time to end America’s gun madness.

Take the pledge (http://www.stopgundeaths.org/).

[darin]

It’s time to end America’s gun madness.

Take the pledge (http://www.stopgundeaths.org/).

I'd take that pledge, but it's missing a few important parts - It should include words which mention "helping remove "Gun-Free-Zones" at schools and other places." It should also mention helping preserving right-to-carry laws, and marksmanship training for youths.

[glockmail]

It’s time to end America’s gun madness.

Take the pledge (http://www.stopgundeaths.org/).

Why is it that when guns are banned in cities the murder and burglary rates go up?

[Hagbard Celine]

Why is it that when guns are banned in cities the murder and burglary rates go up?

:link: That's bs.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'd take that pledge, but it's missing a few important parts - It should include words which mention "helping remove "Gun-Free-Zones" at schools and other places." It should also mention helping preserving right-to-carry laws, and marksmanship training for youths.

I don't think removing gun free zones in schools is a good idea. Schools should be places of learning and sanctuary and shouldn't have anything to do with firearms. The solution is to allow SRO officers to carry guns.

[glockmail]

:link: That's bs. http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/20/murder-capital/

[glockmail]

I don't think removing gun free zones in schools is a good idea. Schools should be places of learning and sanctuary and shouldn't have anything to do with firearms. The solution is to allow SRO officers to carry guns.

Tell that to the V Tech students. All the rent-a-cops and regular cops where outside counting shots and wondering when the guy would run out of bullets.

[LOki]

It’s time to end America’s gun madness.

Take the pledge (http://www.stopgundeaths.org/).In other words: Put your name on the list of retards that believe the criminally violent are the least bit deterred from doing violence, by the notion that their victims have been prohibited from keeping and bearing the very best means of self defense available.

[diuretic]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/20/murder-capital/

It quotes John Lott :lol:

[glockmail]

It quotes John Lott :lol: Is there anything John says that is incorrect?

[diuretic]

Is there anything John says that is incorrect?

Apparently so. He copped a flogging over some of his research and he coughed up about it, which is good. His credibility is therefore suspect. Any serious analysis of firearms control would do well to avoid Lott now.

[LOki]

It quotes John Lott :lol:It beats quoting Kellerman or Bellesiles.

[glockmail]

Apparently so. He copped a flogging over some of his research and he coughed up about it, which is good. His credibility is therefore suspect. Any serious analysis of firearms control would do well to avoid Lott now.

Somehow I suspect that you are exaggerating. But you could bolster your cred by proving otherwise.

[diuretic]

It beats quoting Kellerman or Bellesiles.

As they say in the classics - you have me at a disadvantage, sir - I'm ignorant of both of those good people.

[diuretic]

Somehow I suspect that you are exaggerating. But you could bolster your cred by proving otherwise.

I'm not exaggerating and you're quite right that my credibility would be enhanced if I could prove it.

My problem is that I'm naturally not a person who incites or invites confrontation. At a personal level I'll fight like a Kilkenny cat to prosecute my case but I don't like to attack people or demolish an individual. Most of the sources that query Lott's research do so in a frankly hysterical and to me a personally offensive manner. And in many cases they miss the point anyway.

Look here - http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/lottresearchblog.html

I also find myself in a difficult position in that I'm wary of being a smartarse about domestic issues in another country. I'm not anti-gun, I've used one much of my working life and I used to own firearms, so I'm not scared of them (except when I've been on the wrong end of one). I'll defend my jurisdiction's/country's gun control laws enthusiastically but I hesitate to critique others as it's a bit like immigration - not my business. But I had to pipe up when I saw Lott mentioned.

[Mr. P]

:link: That's bs.
How many times does this have to be posted? Geezzzzzz


Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

[Joe Steel]

How many times does this have to be posted? Geezzzzzz



http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

Until it means something.

[Hagbard Celine]

How many times does this have to be posted? Geezzzzzz



http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

This is due to the stark polarization of the population in DC. Everyone knows that it has a huge lower class black population--same as Detroit, LA, Atlanta, N.O. and every other place that has lots of poor people and lots of violent crime. If you banned fire arms in a majority white place like Kansas or Norway, violent crime would go down. The moral is to carry a gun when you're white and living in a lower class place.

[Mr. P]

This is due to the stark polarization of the population in DC. Everyone knows that it has a huge lower class black population--same as Detroit, LA, Atlanta, N.O. and every other place that has lots of poor people and lots of violent crime. If you banned fire arms in a majority white place like Kansas or Norway, violent crime would go down. The moral is to carry a gun when you're white and living in a lower class place.

BS..Ban guns in a majority white place or any other place and the crime WILL increase because the criminals will flock there, like white on rice.

[Mr. P]

Until it means something.

I have a feeling that for you that's never. Most "reasonable" folks can see the facts.

[Little-Acorn]

Has anyone explained yet, how taking guns away from law-abiding people but leaving them in the hands of lawbreakers, is supposed to reduce gun deaths?

Or do I have to check the whole thread in case someone actually found a way to explain it?

[Mr. P]

Has anyone explained yet, how taking guns away from law-abiding people but leaving them in the hands of lawbreakers, is supposed to reduce gun deaths?

Or do I have to check the whole thread in case someone actually found a way to explain it?

Nope, like always no explanation of position..Just guns are bad take em...everything will be better then..MORONS!

[Gunny]

It’s time to end America’s gun madness.

Take the pledge (http://www.stopgundeaths.org/).

Here's a pledge for you. When you can verify the destruction of any and all firearms on the face of the Earth with no excpetions, I'll gladdly be the last to hand mine over.

Until then, disarming the American public leads to situations such as happened at VT. One criminal with a gun, who purchased those weapons by lying on his ATF form, can kill a LOT of unarmed, innocent people.

People who blame the tool and not that hand that wields it are dumbasses.

[LOki]

As they say in the classics - you have me at a disadvantage, sir - I'm ignorant of both of those good people.Kellerman is the guy who says a gun is used in self defense only if the assailant is killed, and Bellesilles is the guy who says there were hardly any guns in civilian hands in America during the end of the 18th century. It might be genuinely fair to accuse Lott of being biased in his conclusions, but he's not so disingenuous in his presentation as Kellerman is, and he doesn't just make shit up from nothing, and then claim the dog ate his homework, as Bellesiles does.

When it come down to it, every single gun control advocate (not just Kellerman, Bellisilles, ... or the Brady Bunch) is accusing you of being at best an irresponsible gun owner, and at worst, a deranged sociopath. The psycological term for this is known as "projection." They cannot trust themselves with a deadly weapon, so they insist that no-one else can be trusted with one either. The truth of this is manifest in their propaganda and their legislative intent.

Rarely do they advocate for firearm safety training for children in schools, when it is also commonly held as true that an early education can help curtail the mortal dangers appurtenant to irresponsible substance abuse, irresponsible sexual activity, and irresponsible automobile operation. Rarely do they advocate for sensible, decent law-abiding folk to remain unmolested in their desire to choose the means of self defense that suits them best. Instead, where education is surely effective, they demand enforced ignorance; where sensible, decent law-abiding folk are to be the victims of the habitually violent, they demand victim disarmament.

The reason for this is that they are themselves, the very irresponsible, and potentially vilolent sociopaths that they claim you are. They are the ones who live in fear of sensible, decent, law-abiding folks being armed against them when they attempt to use force of violence to effect their desires where their rationality of argument is weak.

[Joe Steel]

Has anyone explained yet, how taking guns away from law-abiding people but leaving them in the hands of lawbreakers, is supposed to reduce gun deaths?

Or do I have to check the whole thread in case someone actually found a way to explain it?

It reduces the total number of guns in circulation thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone.

[manu1959]

It reduces the total number of guns in circulation thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone.

eliminating criminals would do the same thing....or fingers for that matter

[Gunny]

eliminating criminals would do the same thing....or fingers for that matter

The idea that the criminal is the deciding factor, and not the weapon he chooses, will NEVER be acceptable to knuckleheads like good ol' Joe who presumes to know what's best for everybody.

[manu1959]

The idea that the criminal is the deciding factor, and not the weapon he chooses, will NEVER be acceptable to knuckleheads like good ol' Joe who presumes to know what's best for everybody.

well you see, those criminals were raised in broken welfare homes and if we just gave them more money................they would buy better weapons and.........well you get the idea

[Gunny]

well you see, those criminals were raised in broken welfare homes and if we just gave them more money................they would buy better weapons and.........well you get the idea

Well, you have to admit, if guns are outlawed, all the criminals will line up, turn theirs in, and there'll be a run on the Home Depot brick dept.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Well, you have to admit, if guns are outlawed, all the criminals will line up, turn theirs in, and there'll be a run on the Home Depot brick dept.:laugh2:

it is what was resorted to at the corner of whatever and whatever when they rioted during the rodney king trials....brick to the head and a little jig....

[Gunny]

it is what was resorted to at the corner of whatever and whatever when they rioted during the rodney king trials....brick to the head and a little jig....

I'm considering a box of pencils myself. A package of twelve will yield a dozen victims.:death:

[manu1959]

I'm considering a box of pencils myself. A package of twelve will yield a dozen victims.:death:

ah g gordon liddy style.....if you don't break them off you may get a two fer.....

under the chin or behind the ear......

[Gunny]

ah g gordon liddy style.....if you don't break them off you may get a two fer.....

under the chin or behind the ear......

In the ear, throat, eyeball or diaphragm.:D

[manu1959]

In the ear, throat, eyeball or diaphragm.:D

diaphragm is a hard shot.....

[Gunny]

diaphragm is a hard shot.....

sharpen pencil, angle upward at a 45-degree angle just below the sternum. You can kill tht way with a finger strike.

[manu1959]

sharpen pencil, angle upward at a 45-degree angle just below the sternum. You can kill tht way with a finger strike.

under the chin is an easier shot

[Little-Acorn]

Has anyone explained yet, how taking guns away from law-abiding people but leaving them in the hands of lawbreakers, is supposed to reduce gun deaths?
It reduces the total number of guns in circulation thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone.

I have this charming vision of Joe at the scene of trench warfare in WWI. Joe's the one telling all the French troops to throw away their guns and ammo, on the theory that if they do so, this will "reduce the total number of guns in circulation, thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone". Of course, he neglects to persuade the German of this. He thinks that by merely persuading the French to disarm, he'll have done something the French should find beneficial.

Did even the most depraved lunatic in 1917, think this way? Or is Joe Steel truly unique?

.

[glockmail]

I'm considering a box of pencils myself. A package of twelve will yield a dozen victims.:death: Re-use em, just like your rope. :poke:

[Trigg]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Interresting article regarding Englands gun laws and the outcome.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.

[Gunny]

Re-use em, just like your rope. :poke:

Now THAT's actually a good idea. Handiwipe and pencil sharpener ought to do the trick.:banana:

[MtnBiker]

It reduces the total number of guns in circulation thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone.

Well by that logic we should reduce the number of motorized vehicles as well. The cause of death by motorized vehicle as compared to firearms is about 2 to 1.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

[Mr. P]

Pencils should be BAN! Only the government should have pencils, then we could be sure they wouldn't be used! Wait! Bad idea...some gun-ho know nothing GS- 5 could get hold of one and write some dumb ass policy. Never mind. :)

[nevadamedic]

I'm considering a box of pencils myself. A package of twelve will yield a dozen victims.:death:

Sounds like a lot of work to me! :laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

You will not find many anti-gun posters here. This is a forum where people enjoy death. Columbine and Virginia Tech produced enormous chubbies that still pulse with memories. Every time a child get killed by a gun, it's a victory for the right to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned that one day, every family would own a Uzi and an AK-47. The next you blast someone with a hand gun for cutting you off on the freeway, you will thank God that you have the legal right to own a gun. Women can have a lot of fun with vibrators, but I am sure it is nothing compared to the ecstasy of rubbing a loaded Glock over your male parts. Guns are the ultimate phallic symbol. How can you be a man without a gun? Think of all the pussy countries that do not allow people to own guns. They will never know the thrill of a good massacre.
Gun ownership is America. It's why the world loves us. We are a living Splatter Movie.

[Pale Rider]

Did anyone hear about the crazy bitch they busted in that meth lab yesterday. Yeah... she was ranting about a gun that jumped up and shot a bunch of people, ALL BY ITSELF! Talk about hallucinating. Well what'a ya expect? Just another fucked up, low rent, liberal moonbat all wasted away on drugs and frothing at the mouth about figments of her imagination.

[stephanie]

You will not find many anti-gun posters here. This is a forum where people enjoy death. Columbine and Virginia Tech produced enormous chubbies that still pulse with memories. Every time a child get killed by a gun, it's a victory for the right to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned that one day, every family would own a Uzi and an AK-47. The next you blast someone with a hand gun for cutting you off on the freeway, you will thank God that you have the legal right to own a gun. Women can have a lot of fun with vibrators, but I am sure it is nothing compared to the ecstasy of rubbing a loaded Glock over your male parts. Guns are the ultimate phallic symbol. How can you be a man without a gun? Think of all the pussy countries that do not allow people to own guns. They will never know the thrill of a good massacre.
Gun ownership is America. It's why the world loves us. We are a living Splatter Movie.


Your post are so totally hysterical .........

Look at countries who have guns outlawed...

Now, their working on outlawing......knives, ice picks, bats, bricks will be next...

Hell lets go for rolling pins and frying pans....:laugh2:

I'd rather slap the ole chap across the head with a frying pan, watch all that blood and brain splatter......... then waste a bullet on them.....:rolleyes:

:cow::poke:

[Rahul]

Gun rights are an important right provided to all US citizens by the Constitution. The initial purpose (or at least one of the purposes) was to stop the government from turning into an autocratic, repressive one.

While there are quite a few US policies I don't agree with, I am fully for the right to bear arms. I believe that taking guns away from law abiding citiznes does no good whatsoever, since the criminals get access to them anyway (illegally).

In addition, most gun owners use their guns responsibly, and one Cho shouldn't even be a reason to restrict gun ownership.

Stricter controls or tougher gun laws? Maybe, but I would never advocate taking away the right of legal residents to own firearms for personal protection.

[LOki]

You will not find many anti-gun posters here. This is a forum where people enjoy death. Columbine and Virginia Tech produced enormous chubbies that still pulse with memories. Every time a child get killed by a gun, it's a victory for the right to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned that one day, every family would own a Uzi and an AK-47. The next you blast someone with a hand gun for cutting you off on the freeway, you will thank God that you have the legal right to own a gun. Women can have a lot of fun with vibrators, but I am sure it is nothing compared to the ecstasy of rubbing a loaded Glock over your male parts. Guns are the ultimate phallic symbol. How can you be a man without a gun? Think of all the pussy countries that do not allow people to own guns. They will never know the thrill of a good massacre.
Gun ownership is America. It's why the world loves us. We are a living Splatter Movie.Like I said, "projection (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=84461#post84461)."

[diuretic]

Kellerman is the guy who says a gun is used in self defense only if the assailant is killed, and Bellesilles is the guy who says there were hardly any guns in civilian hands in America during the end of the 18th century. It might be genuinely fair to accuse Lott of being biased in his conclusions, but he's not so disingenuous in his presentation as Kellerman is, and he doesn't just make shit up from nothing, and then claim the dog ate his homework, as Bellesiles does.

Kellerman - well I disagree there. If my producing a firearm causes a would-be mugger to not mug me then I've defended myself successfully. Bellesilles - I wouldn't know. I do know that the NYPD only armed in response to armed criminals and I think that was in the 19th Century (Cops and Bobbies: Police Authority in New York and London, 1830-1870. by Wilbur R. Miller).




When it come down to it, every single gun control advocate (not just Kellerman, Bellisilles, ... or the Brady Bunch) is accusing you of being at best an irresponsible gun owner, and at worst, a deranged sociopath. The psycological term for this is known as "projection." They cannot trust themselves with a deadly weapon, so they insist that no-one else can be trusted with one either. The truth of this is manifest in their propaganda and their legislative intent.

I'm in favour of gun control, not banning - control.




Rarely do they advocate for firearm safety training for children in schools, when it is also commonly held as true that an early education can help curtail the mortal dangers appurtenant to irresponsible substance abuse, irresponsible sexual activity, and irresponsible automobile operation. Rarely do they advocate for sensible, decent law-abiding folk to remain unmolested in their desire to choose the means of self defense that suits them best. Instead, where education is surely effective, they demand enforced ignorance; where sensible, decent law-abiding folk are to be the victims of the habitually violent, they demand victim disarmament.

Given that firearms are an important part of America's culture, I agree with you, firearms safety training in school and upwards is a good idea.




The reason for this is that they are themselves, the very irresponsible, and potentially vilolent sociopaths that they claim you are. They are the ones who live in fear of sensible, decent, law-abiding folks being armed against them when they attempt to use force of violence to effect their desires where their rationality of argument is weak.

I think they're more out of touch with reality.

[diuretic]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Interresting article regarding Englands gun laws and the outcome.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.

Good article, thanks for posting the link. The problem in the UK is that the drug trade, combined with an influx of Russian organised criminals into the UK, has seen a huge importation of black market firearms. The government and the police were caught asleep on the job. But it's worse than that. Police aren't routinely armed (apart from Northern Ireland) and the average copper (according to the Police Federation of England and Wales) doesn't want to be armed. That's just madness.

[diuretic]

You will not find many anti-gun posters here. This is a forum where people enjoy death. Columbine and Virginia Tech produced enormous chubbies that still pulse with memories. Every time a child get killed by a gun, it's a victory for the right to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned that one day, every family would own a Uzi and an AK-47. The next you blast someone with a hand gun for cutting you off on the freeway, you will thank God that you have the legal right to own a gun. Women can have a lot of fun with vibrators, but I am sure it is nothing compared to the ecstasy of rubbing a loaded Glock over your male parts. Guns are the ultimate phallic symbol. How can you be a man without a gun? Think of all the pussy countries that do not allow people to own guns. They will never know the thrill of a good massacre.
Gun ownership is America. It's why the world loves us. We are a living Splatter Movie.

I wouldn't feel comfortable rubbing a Glock on my - er - male parts, I do try to adhere to range rules and common sense with firearms. But I have to agree that using a firearm is a total buzz (on the range I mean). Funny thing is that the few times I've used one to defend myself I didn't get a buzz at all - just a sense of relief that I didn't have to shoot anyone (and it goes without saying, not getting shot myself).

[Joe Steel]

I have this charming vision of Joe at the scene of trench warfare in WWI. Joe's the one telling all the French troops to throw away their guns and ammo, on the theory that if they do so, this will "reduce the total number of guns in circulation, thus eliminating the possibility they will be used to kill someone". Of course, he neglects to persuade the German of this. He thinks that by merely persuading the French to disarm, he'll have done something the French should find beneficial.

Did even the most depraved lunatic in 1917, think this way? Or is Joe Steel truly unique?

.

That was really stupid.

Do you understand the difference between war and peace? Do you think driving down to the QuikTrip for bread and milk is just like trench warfare?

[glockmail]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Interresting article regarding Englands gun laws and the outcome.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.

So now they should ban all forms of personal defense, right?

Don't you love it when the liberals have nothing to say after they've been slam-dunked?

[Pale Rider]

Gun rights are an important right provided to all US citizens by the Constitution. The initial purpose (or at least one of the purposes) was to stop the government from turning into an autocratic, repressive one.

While there are quite a few US policies I don't agree with, I am fully for the right to bear arms. I believe that taking guns away from law abiding citiznes does no good whatsoever, since the criminals get access to them anyway (illegally).

In addition, most gun owners use their guns responsibly, and one Cho shouldn't even be a reason to restrict gun ownership.

Stricter controls or tougher gun laws? Maybe, but I would never advocate taking away the right of legal residents to own firearms for personal protection.


And what concern is any of this to you living over there in cow worship land?

Why don't you find an india board and lecture them about what goes on where YOU live? I don't see any sense in you here lecturing us. We know what goes on here, and don't need you to tell us, foreigner.

[darin]

Without Guns we can't indiscriminately shoot Polar Bears! :)

[MtnBiker]

Without Guns we can't indiscriminately shoot Polar Bears! :)

Or quite on purpose. :boom2:

[diuretic]

So now they should ban all forms of personal defense, right?

Don't you love it when the liberals have nothing to say after they've been slam-dunked?

That's not quite right - all forms of personal defence being banned I mean. It's explained quite well here - http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html

[Trigg]

So now they should ban all forms of personal defense, right?

Don't you love it when the liberals have nothing to say after they've been slam-dunked?

This paragraph is further down in the article I provided. It does look like they were trying to get rid of ANY form of personnal protection.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them

[Trigg]

Do you think driving down to the QuikTrip for bread and milk is just like trench warfare?

When was the last time you walked down a street in say St. Louis or Detroit?? It may not be trench warfare, but I'd feel a heck of a lot better knowing I have something with me in case I needed to defend myself.

[glockmail]

That's not quite right - all forms of personal defence being banned I mean. It's explained quite well here - http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html Great. Let's say I'm a 70 year old woman, 4'11" tall and 95#, and there's some guy trying to break into my house, he's 25 years old, 6'4, 240#, and he's got an ax handle. I had locked the door but he's kicking it in and about 1/2 way through the door frame. How do you suggest that I defend myself?

[diuretic]

Great. Let's say I'm a 70 year old woman, 4'11" tall and 95#, and there's some guy trying to break into my house, he's 25 years old, 6'4, 240#, and he's got an ax handle. I had locked the door but he's kicking it in and about 1/2 way through the door frame. How do you suggest that I defend myself?


What you're after is for me to say that the little old lady should immediately grab her trusty handgun and wait for the bloke to burst through the door whereupon she should empty the magazine into him. Right?

And then you can say, no good, she hasn't got a trusty handgun (English law prohibiting it of course) and therefore she can't defend herself against the invader and is going to find herself beaten to death by a lunatic with an axe handle. But if she'd had a trusty handgun she could be tried by twelve rather than be carried out by twelve.

To which I respond - Can you explain the connection between this scenario and the CPS document looking at the law of self defence in England and Wales?

[Yurt]

Its like you're on drugs, sometimes your posts make sense, other times....


gabosaurus;84689]You will not find many anti-gun posters here. This is a forum where people enjoy death.

How is it you make the logical leap that becaues there are not many anti-gun posters here, that this is a forum that enjoys death? Absolute fraudulent and bullshit statement. I do not own a gun. I have friends that do and have shot their guns. I respect them for it and have used the guns. They have every right to own their gun(s). Protected by the constitution. Your sick attitude will not change that.



Columbine and Virginia Tech produced enormous chubbies that still pulse with memories. Every time a child get killed by a gun, it's a victory for the right to own guns.

I really don't like cursing in text, but fuck. What the fuck was that? Do you have any fucking clue how many people get killed with knives every single fucking day? And do you know that many of those knives are kitchen knives? Why aren't you out there advocating we make knives illegal?

Your ignorance is sadly astonishing.


Our founding fathers envisioned that one day, every family would own a Uzi and an AK-47.

As far as I know, they are legal.



The next you blast someone with a hand gun for cutting you off on the freeway, you will thank God that you have the legal right to own a gun. Women can have a lot of fun with vibrators, but I am sure it is nothing compared to the ecstasy of rubbing a loaded Glock over your male parts. Guns are the ultimate phallic symbol. How can you be a man without a gun? Think of all the pussy countries that do not allow people to own guns. They will never know the thrill of a good massacre.

Are you saying there were no massacres before guns? Swords are sold in ANTIQUE stores, what is wrong with you? You are a sick puppy, seriously, seek help or something.... I have never seen such a grotesque display of sexually frustrated posting in my entire life. A gun is not shaped like a penis, sorry, but I hope I am not the first to tell you.


Gun ownership is America. It's why the world loves us. We are a living Splatter Movie.

If I was a doctor, I would write you a prescription...

[glockmail]

What you're after is for me to say that the little old lady should immediately grab her trusty handgun and wait for the bloke to burst through the door whereupon she should empty the magazine into him. Right?

And then you can say, no good, she hasn't got a trusty handgun (English law prohibiting it of course) and therefore she can't defend herself against the invader and is going to find herself beaten to death by a lunatic with an axe handle. But if she'd had a trusty handgun she could be tried by twelve rather than be carried out by twelve.

To which I respond - Can you explain the connection between this scenario and the CPS document looking at the law of self defence in England and Wales?

The connection is that the woman needs a gun to defend herself. Nothing else will work. So what is she supposed to do?

[Yurt]

One word:

Knives

[glockmail]

One word:

Knives

Shit. I wouldn't attempt that against the guy in my scenario. And you want granny to?

[Yurt]

Shit. I wouldn't attempt that against the guy in my scenario. And you want granny to?

Knives kill, we should outlaw them....

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

In a bigger picture....regarding protecting ones self or even against terrorism ....I am sure to bet that there will not likely be an attack in a mall or other public place where it is legal for citizens to carry a concealed weapon, as the perpetrators may very well be dispatched before law enforcement even shows up.....but those places where it is illegal will unfortunately end up catching the brunt of militants attacks.....If I were in their (the terrorsts) planning organization, that is what I would do.....avoid the places where I would be killed before I could reach martyrdom on my own terms, rather than have a .45 round pierc my grape that has been slathered with bacon grease in Texas or Florida or any of the other 33 states that allow their residents to have a weapons permit.

[diuretic]

The connection is that the woman needs a gun to defend herself. Nothing else will work. So what is she supposed to do?

But what if she lived in Arizona and still didn't have a handgun in the house?

[Yurt]

But what if she lived in Arizona and still didn't have a handgun in the house?

Would your great country ever have supported banning swords? Knives?

[diuretic]

Would your great country ever have supported banning swords? Knives?

If there was a vote in it they'd do it tomorrow :D

Damn my cynicism. I have to get over it.

In my state if you are found carrying an offensive weapon (which includes a knife and definitely a sword) then you have to prove you have a lawful reason for doing so, otherwise it's an offence to do so. Of course it's context-dependent.

[Pale Rider]

Its like you're on drugs, sometimes your posts make sense, other times....

How is it you make the logical leap that becaues there are not many anti-gun posters here, that this is a forum that enjoys death? Absolute fraudulent and bullshit statement. I do not own a gun. I have friends that do and have shot their guns. I respect them for it and have used the guns. They have every right to own their gun(s). Protected by the constitution. Your sick attitude will not change that.

I really don't like cursing in text, but fuck. What the fuck was that? Do you have any fucking clue how many people get killed with knives every single fucking day? And do you know that many of those knives are kitchen knives? Why aren't you out there advocating we make knives illegal?

Your ignorance is sadly astonishing.

As far as I know, they are legal.

Are you saying there were no massacres before guns? Swords are sold in ANTIQUE stores, what is wrong with you? You are a sick puppy, seriously, seek help or something.... I have never seen such a grotesque display of sexually frustrated posting in my entire life. A gun is not shaped like a penis, sorry, but I hope I am not the first to tell you.

If I was a doctor, I would write you a prescription...

A very noble attempt to talk rational to the liberal moonbat Yurt. But I believe you'll find it's an exercise in futility. She's not here to listen to reason. She's just here to puke out her wild, sensationalized, lunatic fringe, diatribe. Most people here know that by now and ignore her.

I'll give ya rep for trying though, but my advice is, treat her like the nut job she is, or simply ignore her.

[Joe Steel]

Kellerman - well I disagree there. If my producing a firearm causes a would-be mugger to not mug me then I've defended myself successfully.

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best. We've never had a ban on guns in commercial establishments in the U. S.; store-owners can have as many as they want. The prospect of facing an armed store-owner, though, hasn't stopped armed robberies. The robbers just get more and bigger guns. Street thugs, no doubt, will do the same thing or they'll just shoot first. That's the safe tactic for the mugger.

[Mr. P]

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best. We've never had a ban on guns in commercial establishments in the U. S.; store-owners can have as many as they want. The prospect of facing an armed store-owner, though, hasn't stopped armed robberies. The robbers just get more and bigger guns. Street thugs, no doubt, will do the same thing or they'll just shoot first. That's the safe tactic for the mugger.

Wrong again Joe...

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

[Pale Rider]

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best.

If that were even REMOTELY true, then why do we arm our military?

[Joe Steel]

If that were even REMOTELY true, then why do we arm our military?

To kill people and blow-up stuff after someone starts a war.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong again Joe...

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

That stuff has been debunked so many times no one even mentions it anymore. I surprised you have.

[Kathianne]

That stuff has been debunked so many times no one even mentions it anymore. I surprised you have.

Really? Where?

[Gunny]

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best. We've never had a ban on guns in commercial establishments in the U. S.; store-owners can have as many as they want. The prospect of facing an armed store-owner, though, hasn't stopped armed robberies. The robbers just get more and bigger guns. Street thugs, no doubt, will do the same thing or they'll just shoot first. That's the safe tactic for the mugger.

That is just about as ignorant as it gets. When you blow a .45 inch hole in a would-be assailant's head, he's been DETERRED.

[Gunny]

That stuff has been debunked so many times no one even mentions it anymore. I surprised you have.

Not by you. Step to it. :link:

When you get done debunking Mr P's fact, you can debunk my statement in the post preceeding this one.

[glockmail]

But what if she lived in Arizona and still didn't have a handgun in the house? Then that would be entirely her problem, wouldn't it? If the government bans guns the the government is complicent in her subsequent robbery/ rape/ torture/ death.

[diuretic]

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best. We've never had a ban on guns in commercial establishments in the U. S.; store-owners can have as many as they want. The prospect of facing an armed store-owner, though, hasn't stopped armed robberies. The robbers just get more and bigger guns. Street thugs, no doubt, will do the same thing or they'll just shoot first. That's the safe tactic for the mugger.

If that's so then it's an argument for no firearms control at all - using street crime as the determining factor I mean. If it doesn't matter, if the mugger and the crook will always have a gun and will become more ruthless in its use then why bother with gun control? Let everyone have one and be done with it.

When I think of firearms control I think not so much about crime and self-defence as minimising of harm in society in general.

[diuretic]

Then that would be entirely her problem, wouldn't it? If the government bans guns the the government is complicent in her subsequent robbery/ rape/ torture/ death.

It would be a problem for her. She might have to improvise. She could flee of course, if she were able. Or she might be able to find a pitchfork in the house and she could run him through the guts with it.

If she had a firearm she's not guaranteed to be safe anyway. What if in her panic she forgets to take off the safety (assuming pistol)? What if she has a revolver and misses him with all six shots?

[glockmail]

It would be a problem for her. She might have to improvise. She could flee of course, if she were able. Or she might be able to find a pitchfork in the house and she could run him through the guts with it.

If she had a firearm she's not guaranteed to be safe anyway. What if in her panic she forgets to take off the safety (assuming pistol)? What if she has a revolver and misses him with all six shots?

Although a pitchfork is an awesome weapon, it doesn't conceal well, nor store easily in a kitchen drawer.

A good self defense pistol should not have a safety, IMO. Also if you're going to own one you should train yourself how to operate it. Setting the saftey off and hitting the chest of an attacker at close range is really not that difficult, anyway. Its certaintly easier than trying to defend yourself with a pitchfork.

Of course, as always, my argument always goes back to personal responsibility. I think people should have it. With rights comes the responsibility to manage those rights.

[glockmail]

It would be a problem for her. ... I have to add this. Every month in The American Rifleman, an NRA magazine, there is a section titled "The Armed Citizen", with 6 or 7 short stories about a law-abiding citizen defendng himself with a firearm. Nearly all of these are old people, being attacked by younger, stronger criminals.

So it is fair of me to ask, why do gun grabbing liberals despise law-abiding old people? Why do they defend criminals who prey on the weak and the old?

[Pale Rider]

To kill people and blow-up stuff after someone starts a war.

There ya go... "to kill people." The number one way to defend yourself is... "to kill your assailant." What part about that is too hard to understand? It's that way in war, as you mentioned, and that's also the way it is when it's one person attacking another. No difference in action, just in scale.

[glockmail]

On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters.[45] Moreover, civilians use guns effectively against criminals. If a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robbery will succeed 88 percent of the time, and the victim will be injured 25 percent of the time. If the victim resists with a gun, the robbery "success" rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery--from using a knife, to shouting for help, to fleeing--produces such a low rate of victim injury and robbery success.[46] In short, virtually all Americans who use guns do so responsibly and effectively, notwithstanding the anxieties of gun control advocates. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

[diuretic]

I have to add this. Every month in The American Rifleman, an NRA magazine, there is a section titled "The Armed Citizen", with 6 or 7 short stories about a law-abiding citizen defendng himself with a firearm. Nearly all of these are old people, being attacked by younger, stronger criminals.

So it is fair of me to ask, why do gun grabbing liberals despise law-abiding old people? Why do they defend criminals who prey on the weak and the old?

It's fair to ask of course. But I don't know if I can give a useful response.

Not being a gun-grabbing liberal I don't know if they despise law-abiding old people or defend criminals who prey on the weak and the old. I'm just as likely to get government to arm every citizen over a certain age (which qualifies as "old" - careful there, "old" is relative :D) who requests it and give them tactical firearms training so that they can protect themselves. But I suppose that might mean that there would be even more stories in The American Rifleman and some of them might not be happy ones. I'd have to think about that policy I suppose. Don't want that law of unintended consequences to stick the boot in.

[glockmail]

...... Don't want that law of unintended consequences to stick the boot in.

That law always imposes itself. That's why its nearly always better to let the individual law-abiding citizen decide on owning a gun, driving what type of car, choosing a health care plan, or what have you.

[diuretic]

That law always imposes itself. That's why its nearly always better to let the individual law-abiding citizen decide on owning a gun, driving what type of car, choosing a health care plan, or what have you.

The law of unintended consequences exists regardless of policy context. The arguments for those things must stand by themselves.

[glockmail]

The law of unintended consequences exists regardless of policy context. The arguments for those things must stand by themselves. That is why I prefer as few laws as possible, as well as a limited government, as the Founders intended.

[diuretic]

That is why I prefer as few laws as possible, as well as a limited government, as the Founders intended.

Government should be limited, I agree, it's what it should be limited to that's the question and of course that's where opinions diverge. Good luck on the "as few laws as possible" though. You know legislators, they love control.

[Kathianne]

Government should be limited, I agree, it's what it should be limited to that's the question and of course that's where opinions diverge. Good luck on the "as few laws as possible" though. You know legislators, they love control.

One would hope that the victories over Harriet Miers, UAE ports deal, and (illegal) Immigration Reform would give some metal to the backbones of the populace to stand up to the usurpers.

[Mr. P]

One would hope that the victories over Harriet Miers, UAE ports deal, and (illegal) Immigration Reform would give some metal to the backbones of the populace to stand up to the usurpers.

INDEED! And I think it's NOW or NEVER!

[glockmail]

Government should be limited, I agree, it's what it should be limited to that's the question and of course that's where opinions diverge. Good luck on the "as few laws as possible" though. You know legislators, they love control. That's why term limits is such a good idea.

[LOki]

The deterrent value of guns is minimal at best.A bullshit opinion asserted without substantiation.


We've never had a ban on guns in commercial establishments in the U. S.; store-owners can have as many as they want.Store owners are no less as regulated than the rest of us.


The prospect of facing an armed store-owner, though, hasn't stopped armed robberies. Tell that to the DOJ. This is just another bullshit opinion asserted without subtantiation.


The robbers just get more and bigger guns. Street thugs, no doubt, will do the same thing or they'll just shoot first. That's the safe tactic for the mugger. Another bullshit opinion asserted without substantiation.


That stuff has been debunked so many times no one even mentions it anymore. I surprised you have.And yet another one of your bullshit opinions asserted without substantiation.

Why don't you try this on for size?<blockquote><b>Marvin E. Wofgang:</b>
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
-- "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)</blockquote>

[Joe Steel]

Why don't you try this on for size?<blockquote><b>Marvin E. Wofgang:</b>
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
-- "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)</blockquote>

Kleck is burdened by unavoidable and uncorrectable false positive error. His work is of little value.

[LOki]

Kleck is burdened by unavoidable and uncorrectable false positive error. His work is of little value.Apparently another unsubstantiated opinion--you seem to have an infinite source of these.

[Joe Steel]

Apparently another unsubstantiated opinion--you seem to have an infinite source of these.

The trouble with gun nuts and wingnuts is that they want everything to fit on bumper stickers or into soundbites. I'm sure you'd like to have a paragraph of two completely explaining everything. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way.

That's just the way it is.

There's nothing I can do.

[LOki]

The trouble with gun nuts and wingnuts is that they want everything to fit on bumper stickers or into soundbites.Fuck you and this straw-man you're beating up on.

The problem with retards is that they think that all their opinions are self evident truths that don't require substantiation in fact or reason.


I'm sure you'd like to have a paragraph of two completely explaining everything. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way. I would like any substantive support for your opinions presented as fact. I won't be holding my breath though.


That's just the way it is. ...for retards without a substantive argument.


There's nothing I can do. Sorry about your luck.