Gun Crime - Knife Crime

[Sadena Meti]

In the United Kingdom, gun crime is almost unheard of. It makes national news. Knife crime is what they are trying to crack down on now. Laws against carrying knives, etc. There was actually a serious attempt to outlaw all knives over 6", which would make many kitchen knives illegal! It didn't pass.

[enough]

1. A teenager killed a dear young friend of mine and two other people in a random shooting

a few years ago. That kid could never have killed any of those people with a knife. He didn't have the physical or psychological power to do that. But the gun gave this cowardly little creep the godlike power of life and death.

[rl6214]

2. You can buy a machete at Walmart for $10

Doesn't take much strength to kill with one of those.

Just a big knife.

[Starboard Tack]

3. Try killing someone with a machete at a distance

without getting blood splatter. A gun is the coward's weapon of choice.

[rl6214]

5. You do know you can cover 21ft in about the same amount

of time it takes to pull your cell phone from where ever you might have it.

Google the Tueller 21 foot rule.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I'm familiar with the Tueller 21 rule.

Guns are still the weapon of choice for cowards. By saying that, I am in no way suggesting that all gun toters are cowards, just that cowards find guns preferable and I can't blame them if their intent is to do harm without getting harmed themselves. And for self-defense, Tasers work well up to 35 feet, but unfortunately the public are limited to 15 foot max.. If I felt the need to be armed, I'd still opt for a 15 foot Taser against an assailant armed with a knife, machete or gun.

[rrneck]

14. What about

multiple assailants? How many tasers do you plan to carry. And more importantly, would you support legislation that required teasers only?

[Sadena Meti]

15. How often are you set upon by a pack of roving thugs?

And even if you were, is your aim and speed up to take them all out?

[rrneck]

16. Google "wilding".

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution?

[Sadena Meti]

17. Actually I was refering to defending yourself with a firearm. Think you can shoot a pack of 5...

targets before they rush you. I was a fast and good shot with my 5-shot .38 special but 5 moving and closing targets... I don't know.

[rrneck]

19. Answer the question. nt

[Sadena Meti]

22. Yeah, sprinting.

[rrneck]

24. LOL!

You got nothing. That was too easy.

[Sadena Meti]

27. Seriously, fight or flight. It's the other option and it's a valid one.

[rrneck]

29. Explain how

a fifty five year old female with a bad leg could outfight or outrun a twenty year old rapist.

[Sadena Meti]

31. But a twenty year old female could outrun a fifty-five year old rapist with a bad leg.

You can pick whatever scenario you want to prove your point. But unless you are advocating 100% armament (which is in an interesting thought) of the populous, it doesn't really work.

[rrneck]

32. Nice dodge.

Keep working on it and you'll catch up to the rest of TS. In about ten years

[Sadena Meti]

34. And answer my question, do you think a pistol is going to save you from a mob?

[rrneck]

35. Still dodging eh?

I don't know. But it's my choice to make. You're the one proposing unworkable legislation. Put up or shut up.

Ill give you credit though, you've discredited yourself faster than most.

[Sadena Meti]

36. I've defended my standpoint admirably without faltering and regret nothing.

[rrneck]

38. Uh,

Everything you've written is public record.

:rofl:

[Sadena Meti]

37. The point is against a mob a gun is no better than a taser or a knife. So your example just doesn't

hold water.

[rrneck]

39. What's your point?

My risk. My solution. How would you make your policy proposals work? There are several questions pending that you continue to Dodge.

[Sadena Meti]

41. Are you refering to questions in this thread or the other one? If this thread, list them, simply.

If the other thread then go there.

[rrneck]

42. Peekaboo. I see you. nt

[YllwFvr]

43. with the 52 rounds I have on me?

quite possible

[Sadena Meti]

44. Factor in reload time.

[YllwFvr]

45. very low

im required to be quick

[Sadena Meti]

74. Are you talking about 52 rounds already in magazines? I was thinking loose, because that's a lot..

of clips to be carrying around.

[YllwFvr]

82. one in the gun, two spare

plus one in the chamber. 17 round mags. I normally wouldnt choose a 9mm to carry but in the academy they provide you with free ammo, if its another caliber you have to pay for it yourself. Thats a deal I couldnt pass up so I traded my firearm at the time for a 9mm, and may carry it after I get out on the job. Depends on what the dept is willing to provide ammo wise.

[rrneck]

48. Faster than you can stand up and turn around. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

120. Reloading takes about one second.

The Luby's killer, the VT killer, and the Ft. Hood killer all reloaded several time each. The VT killer reloaded at least 17 times.

[Sadena Meti]

132. Reloading takes a hell of lot longer than one second.

Eject spent clip.
Open jacket.
Retrieve new clip.
Insert new clip.
Chamber first round.

[beevul]

139. Take your pick.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fast+reload&aq=f

"Eject spent clip."

Uh huh...

"Open jacket.

(Because only those wearing jackets can reload...)

Retrieve new clip.

Uh huh

Insert new clip.

Uh huh..

Chamber first round

Who much longer (in spite of video evidence above) is "a hell of lot longer than one second", expressed in seconds?

[Sadena Meti]

141. After performing a few silly reenactments in my room, I'd say 3 seconds minimum.

[beevul]

142. Everyone else is not you.

Which is clear from the video evidence that you apparently chose not to watch any of.

[inkool]

163. What did you use for your reenactments? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

147. About one second.

Eject spent magazine - This is done with one hand. Thumb of right hand presses the magazine release button.
Open jacket (I don't wear a jacket. Texas summers are too damn hot.)
Retrieve new magazine. - This is done with the left hand at the same time as the spent magazine is ejected. Can be done in advance.
Insert new magazine. - Takes a fraction of a second.
Chamber first round - The slide does not have to be worked for this. The slide locks back after the last round is fired. As the fresh magazine is inserted the thumb of the left hand hits the slide release lever.

Total time, with some practice is about one second. Faster if you really practice and do it well.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. Yes. Shoot the first one, the rest run away. N/T

[Euromutt]

62. Oh come on, how many times has that scene been played out in the movies?

Bad guy: There are only n rounds in that gun, and there are n+1 of us!
Good guy: So who wants to go first?

With a Taser, you get one shot, and that's only going to incapacitate that one target as long as a current is applied, which in the models Taser sells to private citizens is at most 30 seconds.

A knife presents a slightly more credible threat, since it doesn't need to be reloaded, but you can't use it until they're on top of you.

But with a handgun, you have a chance to inflict severe injury on at least one them before they're within striking distance, and chances are that none of them want to be the one you do manage to take down. Guns are powerful deterrent without even being fired. Which is one reason they're popular.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. Thugs aren't combat soldiers.

When the first one gets shot the other almost always turn tail and run. Goetz got all four of his attackers.

[gejohnston]

40. with a taser the thugs know you only have one shot

and one of them only have to pull out the darts while the rest are beating the crap out of you. Bullets are different. You shot one with a J frame revolver, are they not likely to see who 2-5 will be.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Maybe, maybe not. But if one or more are unable to walk away, I chalk that up a 'win'.

You see, violent criminals are a minority in our population. Take them out 1:1 and they vanish before we do.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I might use my loud noise maker on multiple assailants.

Regarding legislation, which I'm not really big on (kind of a last resort thing, like guns), no. In fact, I think Tasers are already overly legislated, though teasing has been known to be very effective in certain societies.
I went to opening day of JazzFest yesterday in New Orleans. Great day, sunny, several hundred thousand people, no guns, no cops, no fights. I think good music is the answer.

[rrneck]

25. What's your point? nt

[Starboard Tack]

30. No point, no solution, no offense.

Just stopped by for a little chat.

[rl6214]

72. How do you know there were no guns?

Were they not allowed in the venue? Did they have metal detectors?

[Starboard Tack]

89. I observe people. Talent well honed in LE

Also almost everyone was in T-shirts and shorts or less. More like Woodstock then a teabagger convention.

[oneshooter]

85. You mean your flare gun? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

90. Good Lord you can be silly. Flare guns don't make much noise

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3CPXENJnMJGwuV4nvIJmHG9Xj89BXfTwpdyTvohsEtDR6y835Tw

[GreenStormCloud]

121. You mean no guns that you saw. LA is a shall-issue CC state. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

130. You've obviously never been to JazzFest

[GreenStormCloud]

148. I lived in New Orleans for six years, 1978 to 1984.

While I have not been a JazzFest I can safely assume that people don't go naked to it. Many handguns are quite small and easily concealed.

[Starboard Tack]

166. Let me know when you've been and seen for yourself

[GreenStormCloud]

174. I don't have to.

Logic, dear chap, logic.

A. LA is a shall-issue state. About 2% of the population has CCW permits.
B. The people do wear clothes.
C. In the last few years gun manufacturers have been concentrating on small very easily concealed handguns, such as the Kel-Tec P3AT, Ruger LCP, and similar guns.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that some of the people attending would have had guns on them.

It is up to you to provide a reason why they were all unarmed. Was it an enclosed area with metal detectors? The picture of the crowd on the website shows an open-air crowd of thousands. Pure statistics says that there were likely dozens of guns in the crowd.

[rrneck]

169. If it's anything like Mardi Gras

naked is tame.

[rl6214]

71. Cowards?

Is that your attempt at an insult today?

[Starboard Tack]

129. Where is the insult? Who am I insulting?

Do you disagree? If so, please tell me what you think a coward's weapon of choice would be.

[oneshooter]

133. A bomb, fire, automobile, poison, hired killer, many ways a coward can kill.

Most will take many other lives beside the target.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

137. Of course, but the weapon of choice is still a gun. Look at the stats

and think about it. Hired killer would probably be gun by proxy. You didn't mention knives, fists or machetes. Interesting. Probably because they're too close and personal for cowards.

Starboard Tack
Unarmed and Livin Free in Louisiana

[Sadena Meti]

151. A bomb is the calculated way to kill, and poison is elegance and risk.

[rrneck]

146. Sophistry. nt

[beevul]

149. A cowards weapon of choice?

"please tell me what you think a coward's weapon of choice would be."


Thats an easy one:

Weasel words.



:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

170. Good try, but wrong. It's a GUN!!! Ding, ding!

[beevul]

171. Sez you. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

182. Sorry, didn't quite catch that.

Did you have something to grunt?

[beevul]

191. I'm sorry, I forgot thats the only language you understand.

I'll try harder next time.

[MicaelS]

6. Coward? Horseshit.... gun control is the idea that the big man

Can always overpower the small man, or a woman, or an elderly person, simply because he's bigger and stronger.

Amazing how you want the strong to be allowed to prey on the weak, that is REAL Progressive.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. +1

[Starboard Tack]

11. How do you manage to get something so completely backwards?

Controlling the proliferation of killing tools is about trying to make society a safer place for everyone. Not about disarming the weak and vulnerable, but making it harder for the cowards and bullies to prey on them.

[MicaelS]

13. You really are dense...

A 200lb strong man doesn't NEED a "killing tool", he can use his fists. Lots of men have beaten people to death with their bare hands, or kicked them to death with their feet.

But I guess that's acceptable to you, as long as no guns are involved. Gawd, people like you utterly disgust me. :puke:

[Starboard Tack]

21. You sound like a real charmer, Michael

Do you advocate shooting people who use their fists in fights? Or just the roaming hordes of fist bearing thugs? Maybe we should just amputate the hands and feet of anyone over 200lbs who works out with weights.
I'm sorry I utterly disgust you. Have a nice cup of tea and a lie down. You'll feel much better.

[rrneck]

26. Do you have a solution or not? nt

[RSillsbee]

59. Google "one punch homicide"

[Straw Man]

67. People have been killing each other with bare hands for as long as there have been people.

Do you advocate shooting people who use their fists in fights?

We're not talking about fisticuffs and the Marquess of Queensbury here: an assault with fists can easily be fatal. Let's suppose you surprise a burglar in your home, and he begins beating you with his fists. Would you just lie back and hope he stops before you're dead, or would you deploy your flare gun? Would that circumstance be sufficiently extreme for you?

Or just the roaming hordes of fist bearing thugs? Maybe we should just amputate the hands and feet of anyone over 200lbs who works out with weights.

You do realize that you're making the RKBA case now, right? It's not the tools: it's what they do with them.

[Starboard Tack]

92. RKBA nutters don't need me to make their case

They'll come up with any reason to justify their freakish behavior. What I have difficulty with, is that seemingly otherwise normal people, a few of them Dems, will go out of their way to excuse the outlandishness of some truly certifiable gun owners like Pastor Terry Jones and his cohorts.

[Straw Man]

96. So are you disavowing your previous post...

...suggesting that behavior, not equipment, is the crucial factor to be judged? Or are you just throwing smoke and innuendo? Terry Jones? What on Earth does that idiot have to do with this topic? Were there fisticuffs involved? Did he have a knife?

When in doubt in a gun-control argument, throw up the name of a moron with a gun. Clever strategy, Grasshopper.

[Starboard Tack]

98. I didn't bring up the crazy fists argument

Terry Jones is a raving lunatic with a CC permit. How did that happen? The system is broken. Time to rethink it.

[Straw Man]

101. That's the topic being discussed, whether you brought it up or not.

♩ ♫ Tea for two, and two for tea... ♬ ♩

[Euromutt]

69. Provided the person in question initiated the fight, bluntly yes

In my experience, vanishingly few people who pick fights--even unarmed ones--do so if they don't think they have an advantage over their chosen "opponent" (read: victim), be it in size/strength, practice/experience, mental preparation (aka being "psyched up"), numbers, having a means of escape readily available, or any combination of the aforementioned. No matter how you slice it, it's still aggression, and if you don't like the idea of your victim producing a handgun and shooting you, then maybe you just need to learn to keep your goddamn hands to yourself.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Kinda expected that from you

Good luck with that kind of problem solving and remember your Miranda rights. And find a very, very, very good lawyer. He might keep you from getting the needle, but they won't let you take your gun to the slammer, where you'll see a lot of big muscles and fists.

[Straw Man]

94. Snark and ad hominem: a winning combination.

It has nothing to do with "problem solving." It has to do with protecting one's person from a violent, potentially fatal assualt. Why is that so hard for you to understand? What is one expected to do when assaulted by a strong young thug? Say "Wait a minute, I'll just get the gloves on and we'll settle this like men"?

Rest assured that juries, lawyers, judge, et al will look very carefully at the circumstances leading up to the confrontation, as well as at the relative physical fitness of the combatants. The conclusion is far from foregone, but that doesn't seem to deter you from finding in favor of the initiator of the assault. Does the one without the gun always have the moral high ground in your world?

[Starboard Tack]

97. The one without the gun has the legal high ground in the real world.

But feel free to take your chances. Reading the arguments of the toters in this forum makes me more cynical every day. You shoot the unarmed muscled thug and you go to the slammer. That's one less thug and one less gun on the streets. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[Straw Man]

99. Simply not true.

If someone breaks into your home and begins to beat you, you are under no legal obligation to allow the assault to continue. You can use lethal force to halt the attack.

Let me get this straight: You would jail the person who shot in self-defense in the above scenario? You would find it preferable that that person had been beaten to death? Would you presume to call that "justice"?

[gejohnston]

124. that is what it sounds like to me

[Starboard Tack]

127. Quite a leap there Straw Man. Started as a street fight

Now we're being attacked in our own home. No holds barred, unless you shoot him in the back on his way out.

[Straw Man]

145. Not a leap at all.

Quite a leap there Straw Man. Started as a street fight

Now we're being attacked in our own home. No holds barred, unless you shoot him in the back on his way out.

So at home lethal force is justified, but in the street one must submit to being beaten to death? I don't see your logic.

Realize that no one is defending use of lethal force by someone who initiates fights or passes up an opportunity to walk away. I'm not, in any case. But unprovoked and potentially lethal assault can happen outside the home as well.

[Starboard Tack]

168. Go ahead, blast away! Good luck with that. Whatever works for you.

[Straw Man]

176. Is that supposed to be an answer?

I'm asking you to explain your position. Your reponse is "Whatever." Is that the best you can do?

[Starboard Tack]

178. My position is that guns do not belong on the street. Period.

That does not imply that one should submit to being beaten to death. There are lots of tools available to deal with street situations, the most important being one's brain.

[Straw Man]

188. You still haven't explained the distinction between street and home.

Does the brain not work at home as well? Does it work better on the street? Is one allowed a backup in case the brain alone doesn't solve the situation? These are the pertinent questions that you seem unwilling or unable to answer.

[Starboard Tack]

194. If you don't know the difference between home and the street

I probably can't help you. If you don't feel capable of navigating the streets without a weapon then I would advise staying home.
Home is sacrosanct. Streets are for everyone. I hope this helps.

[Straw Man]

197. If anything, the street is more dangerous, depending on the neighborhood.

In a crime-ridden neighborhood, locked doors provide some measure of security. In such neighborhoods, those streets that you say "are for everyone" are often dominated by drug gangs. Your distinction doesn't hold up.

I'm perfectly capable of navigating the streets without a weapon; I do it all the time. I believe in obeying the law, and my upstate carry permit is not valid in New York City. If my name were something like Trump or DeNiro, I would be able to get a New York City carry permit. Tell me how democratic and progressive that is.

I don't want or need to carry all the time. However, no one else should be making that decision for me. Unless I'm a convicted felon or have been adjudicated mentally ill, I should be free to carry anywhere except screened, secure gun-free zones: courthouses, airliners, military installation, and the like.

I hope this helps.

[Starboard Tack]

201. I'm not sure what you're meaning

Would you feel safer being armed in streets "dominated by drug gangs"? Unless you're an on duty cop or looking for drugs, why would you be on that street and if you found yourself there by accident, do you really think being armed would help?
As the pro-gunners like to point out, most shootings in those neighborhoods are gang on gang or drug deal related. I don't think you'd be getting in the middle of that. I've lived in those neighborhoods in NYC, where there were shootings on a daily basis. It wasn't pleasant, but being armed would have only served to worsen the situation. I never felt afraid, because I knew I wasn't a potential target, but if I'd pulled a gun then I would have become a target.
I don't understand your reference to Trump or De Niro. If they have permits then I assume they were issued according to their demonstrated needs in compliance with local law. I'm sure you would be accorded the same consideration, regardless your name. Nobody is making the decision for you, but local government has the right to enact laws. That's how our system works. You decide whether you want to comply or risk the consequences. Nobody says you have to go to NYC or an airport, but I would suggest not taking a gun to either. When in Rome.....

[oneshooter]

204. In Texas it is perfectly legal

to carry concealed in an airport. As long you have a CHL recognized by the State of Texas and don't try to enter a secured area.
As for a CCL in NYC. Good luck in trying to get one. Only the rich and/or famous have ever received one, and I don't see that changing any time soon.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

206. Good for Texas and even better for NYC

[oneshooter]

209. So you are an elitist? Only the rich, or famous get the option

of a firearm for their personal defence?
Not very progressive of you is it?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

212. You've got your gun. Good for you. Does that make me an elitist?

I have no idea who else outside of this forum has a permit. If, as you appear to be claiming, only the rich and famous have CC permits in NYC, could you please show evidence of that. I see no reason why anyone would want one in NYC, but who knows.

[X_Digger]

213. Have a read..

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39383672/ns/today-entertainment

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_4kRfFSSzHmw9naIu3qNWiK

[Starboard Tack]

217. How sad that they should feel the need

Apparently they have to demonstrate that need by proving they have been threatened or carry around valuables. It sure is a whacky world we live in

[X_Digger]

219. Yes, having to prove that you need to defend yourself or property is whacky. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

220. I think it's easier to own than carry. Should be

[X_Digger]

221. I don't disagree. But should you have to be:

a) Rich
b) Famous
c) a Politician
d) a person over 21 with no serious criminal past or 'adjudication of mental defect' who has taken a test to demonstrate their knowledge of the laws concerning deadly force in their state

I go for 'd', NYC goes for 'a', 'b', or 'c'.

[Starboard Tack]

222. I go for demonstrated and credible need

Lack of a criminal past does not mean lack of a criminal future and most people have mental defects on occasion. I think emotional defects are the most common causes of people "losing it".
Bottom line, though, IMO, local jurisdictions get to decide what rules they want to live by.

[beevul]

223. I see.

"I go for demonstrated and credible need"

Do you?

"Lack of a criminal past does not mean lack of a criminal future and most people have mental defects on occasion."

Well, I imagine you'd be just peachy keen on restrictions on speech for the same reasons.

After all, Lack of a criminal past does not mean lack of a criminal future and most people have mental defects on occasion, isn't that right?

You might just incite a riot or shout fire in a crowded theater. Gags for everyone entering theaters, yeah thats it.

How are WE to know what you'll do?


Oh and that printer...you be needing credentials to own that from now on, because lack of a criminal past does not mean lack of a criminal future...you might decide to turn pedophiler tomorrow.


How are WE to know?

"Bottom line, though, IMO, local jurisdictions get to decide what rules they want to live by."


Yeah, and im absopositutely sure you'd be fine with some "local jurisdictions" asserting THOSE things on people, wouldnt you.


Maybe, just maybe, you could try...I dunno...actually thinking before you post such absurdities and making yourself look...the way one looks when one posts them?

[Starboard Tack]

226. I thought we were discussing guns and permits to carry

Every "right" has it's limits, especially when it affects the public good. How many NYC residents do you think want people toting in their city? If you've ever lived there, you would know what a ridiculous notion it is.

[beevul]

227. We were.

"I thought we were discussing guns and permits to carry"

We were.

"Every "right" has it's limits, especially when it affects the public good."

I was highlighting how ridiculous your STATED reasons for the limitation of a right were, by applying those same stated reasons to other rights - thereby showing how utterly and completely ridiculous they are.

Secondly, you've neither demonstrated that anyone hereabouts has claimed that rights dont have limits, nor have you demonstrated any significant effect ON the public good, for which to base such restrictions on.

"I don't like them doing..."...or "I dont want them doing..." just isn't good enough.




"How many NYC residents do you think want people toting in their city?"

And if new york residents suddenly decided they didn't want free speech?

Thats just not up to new york residents to decide for others, you see.

[Starboard Tack]

230. What on earth does free speech have to do with who gets a

permit to carry a gun? Why would New York city residents decide for others? Who suggested that? Each community enacts it's own rules. It's called democracy.

[X_Digger]

224. How does that work for other rights?

I mean, should RedNeckVille, AR get to decide who they hand out marriage licenses to?

[Starboard Tack]

225. If they are the ones issuing the licenses, yes

Doesn't that apply everywhere?

[beevul]

228. Wow. Just wow.

There just aren't words to describe that stance, or how disconnected from reality it is.

[Starboard Tack]

229. Really? Interesting how we have different views of how the world works

It's the world most of us live in where a democratically elected government establishes the rules we live by. Wow! How about that? Welcome to the world.

[beevul]

233. It most certainly is.

"It's the world most of us live in where a democratically elected government establishes the rules we live by. Wow! How about that? Welcome to the world."

You left out the part about "establishes rules within the powers that are granted to it, and within the constraints in place on it - it being government...or maybe you just didn't know.

Some of those constraints are universal meaning they apply to localities as well as state and federal governments. I suggest you read up on the concept of incorporation and the bill of rights. After you read up, if you understand it, you may actually be in a position to be telling others "Welcome to the world."


Now? Not so much.



We do not simply live by mob rule, in spite of what you may think.


Nor should we.

[X_Digger]

231. Am I still at U?

With a response like that, I have to check.

So RedNeckVille AR can deny a marriage license to an interracial or gay couple and that's fine with you?

[Starboard Tack]

232. It is not fine with me, but as I don't live there I don't get to decide.

I don't allow people to bring guns into my home. I don't smoke in other people's homes. We had a constitutional amendment ending prohibition, yet there are many dry areas of this country. Do you not believe in local government? You want federal law to cover everything? Like the marijuana laws?
Carrying a concealed weapon is not a constitutional right, but a privilege, accorded locally and restricted locally. You have every right to protest this in NYC or Redneckville.

[Straw Man]

208. Further explanation.

Unless you're an on duty cop or looking for drugs, why would you be on that street and if you found yourself there by accident, do you really think being armed would help?

It might. It wouldn't hurt. I would have another option for defending myself if my best thinking did not suffice.

I don't understand your reference to Trump or De Niro. If they have permits then I assume they were issued according to their demonstrated needs in compliance with local law. I'm sure you would be accorded the same consideration, regardless your name

Your faith in the fairness and even-handedness of government is as touching as it is deluded. In New York City, no one but ex-cops, celebrities, and the very wealthy gets a carry permit. It is the worst kind of elitism.

Nobody is making the decision for you, but local government has the right to enact laws.

The extent to which those local laws can limit constitutionally-based rights is a contentious issue. Remember that "states' rights" was the rallying cry of segregationists.

That's how our system works. You decide whether you want to comply or risk the consequences.

I will always comply with the law, but you left out one option: working to change unjust and oppressive legislation.

I've lived in those neighborhoods in NYC, where there were shootings on a daily basis. It wasn't pleasant, but being armed would have only served to worsen the situation. I never felt afraid, because I knew I wasn't a potential target, but if I'd pulled a gun then I would have become a target.

I think you're misunderstanding a fundamental fact of armed self-defense: you don't pull the gun unless you're already the target. It's the last resort. You would deprive people of that final chance to save their own lives when all else has failed.

[beevul]

192. Make sure you go down to your local PD and explain it to them, wont you?

In the mean time, heres an image that reflects how much your position is shared:

[rrneck]

196. So what is your solution?

You got something better than a gun?

[Starboard Tack]

199. I would hope my brain is better than a gun

It's worked very well so far. A gun would be a last resort for me. Not inconceivable, but a last resort. I think most would agree with me there, including those who decide to carry. The difference being that those who carry want to have that last resort option available and under current law they can do that. What baffles me is why they feel that need and how they think the proliferation of guns is in any way beneficial to the common good.

[rrneck]

200. So all those

tens of thousands of people who get assaulted every year just weren't smart enough to avoid it.

Then again you're not smart enough to hide your arrogance and elitism, so I fear for your safety. Of course you're lucky enough to be able to afford to live in a safe place. I guess Willie Moscone was right when he said, "I'd rather be lucky than good any day."

[Starboard Tack]

202. I'm as lucky as the next guy and I live all over the place

I lived for 10 years in some of the roughest neighborhoods in NYC. I don't know where you get off with the "arrogance and elitism" comments. My income level is marginally above the poverty line, not that it should matter, but you seem to think I live in some gated community of "liberal elitists". Nothing could be further from the truth. I find the world in general is a safe place if you treat people the way you like to be treated.
I'm not sure if I get the Willie Moscone reference, but if we're talking pool, a game I love, I think I would disagree with him. I'd rather play well and lose than be lucky and win. I'm the only one I have to look at in the mirror.

[rrneck]

207. How was Jazzfest?

I'm sure it's a wage slave mecca. Everybody I ever met who exists just above the poverty line has close friends in Europe. How many neighborhoods that hover just above the poverty level don't see a serious crime within a twenty five mile radius?

One of the worst forms of insular arrogant elitism is to measure others against your own experience and expect them to live that way. It takes a tyrant to try to force them to do so. Those who would support that for their own egotistical greed are cowards.

You got that firearm free solution yet? Or are all those people who get brutalized just not as smart as you?

[Starboard Tack]

211. Jazzfest was great. Thanks for asking.

I find your take on my life quite fascinating. Do you seriously believe that living not much above the poverty line and having friends in Europe are mutually exclusive. I wouldn't even suggest that about using your brain while toting a gun.
One of the worst forms of insular arrogant elitism is presuming to know someone you've never met and know nothing of, outside of an online discussion forum about guns. It would be easy for me to jump to conclusions about your insecurities in an attempt to analyze where your anger and vitriol come from. But they would only be assumptions based on our limited conversations on one subject.
If you would like to pursue further conversation about this, then let me buy you a beer sometime and we'll do that. I'll gladly detour on my current odyssey to accommodate if you choose a bar between Maine and California.

And no, I don't yet have a solution, besides suggesting the re-writing of 2A. I don't spend much time thinking about it. How about you?

[rrneck]

214. It's funny

how much you can learn about people with a paucity of information. And that goes to the heart of the gun carrying debate. We can learn volumes about others with a single glance - as long as we aren't looking for anything in particular. And when we take the time to get to know others they become a lot less scary no matter what they look like. It's what makes bigotry so uncivilized.

Just because someone has a gun on them it doesn't mean they are incapable of civilized behavior - unless your understanding of "civilized" means "make me feel good about myself". That attitude in endemic in our consumercentric society. In truth, to be civilized means to show consideration for other people's point of view. And to do that you have to be aware of the reality of their lives.

So when someone offers what they consider is a solution for a problem that is really just a projection of their own prejudices and then advocates the enforcement of those prejudices with the force of law I feel compelled to point out the arrogance and injustice of their opinion in rather direct terms. That's the "vitriol" that you perceive.

You wouldn't know it by anything I've written here, but in person I am understood to be irrepressibly charming, kind, and good natured. In this place, with this subject, you have to put up or shut up or sooner or later you will be reduced to sophistry and expressions of personal preference that do nothing but insult the intelligence of others and waste their time.

[GreenStormCloud]

150. The defender has the legal high ground, whether armed or unarmed.

Also factored in is the disparity of force between the two parties. I shall give some examples.

A. 6'5" 250 physically fit, 25 year old male, make and unarmed attack upon a 4'10", 95lbs, 61 year old woman. The woman gets to use a gun. Same for a male senior citizen with a disability - I get to use a gun.

B. Above woman makes and unarmed attack on the same guy. All he gets to legally do is restrain her. He doesn't need any kind of tool to defend himself against her.

C. Average man is at an ATM and is suddenly stuck by surprise and knocked to the ground by an attacker who continues to assault him. Due to the nature of the attack he can use a gun to defend himself.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Good examples which I think we can all agree on. No problem

Same 25 yr old pushes you away from his wife whom you have been rude to in Walmart. You pull a gun on him. You go to jail. Bye bye. Every situation is different. If you feel so vulnerable and live in a really sketchy area, maybe you need to carry. And apparently you do and I wish you all the best.

[GreenStormCloud]

173. Maybe.

In your example, he iniates physical force, making him the attacker. How hard does he push? How bad was my rudeness that he was responding to? Basically, since I am armed and know that I am, then I am more socially careful not to be be the one who iniates a confrontation. If I have offended then I will attempt to defuse the situation by apologizing.

[Starboard Tack]

184. And I am sure that you would respond appropriately.

Unfortunately, not all CC toters are as responsible as you, as we often see pointed out in this forum. Therein lies the dilemma. The more anti-toters, like me, argue against the practice, the more your side promotes it. The unfortunate consequence is more and more irresponsible idiots toting. They may be a tiny minority right now, but they have the potential to do a lot of damage to both society and to your cause.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. wrong. History shows that to be wrong.

Hitler and Mussolini come immediately to mind.

[Starboard Tack]

91. The Royal Wedding comes to my mind

Hundreds of thousands of those "violent" Brits. Unarmed cops, open car, everyone exposed. No guns. Very peaceful.
Interesting how they evolved and we're still stuck in an 18th century mentality.

[shadowrider]

100. No guns, THAT YOU SAW

But I'd be willing to bet there was a significant, significan amount of firepower there if it was needed.

[Straw Man]

102. Nope, no guns there.

And the carriage was drawn by unicorns. It was truly magical.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

122. soccer, anyone?

yes, the British know how to behave when they choose to do so...

[Starboard Tack]

128. Yes, they certainly do. We could learn a lot from them

[Tuesday Afternoon]

140. we did.

there was a war over it all.

[rrneck]

165. Well, to be fair

they know a lot about weddings.

Especially the hats.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Funny how they evolved since then

and we're still stuck in the 18th century

[Tuesday Afternoon]

179. we?

you got a rat in your back pocket?

[Starboard Tack]

181. Thank you. Your eloquence proves my point.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

185. so then, you admit that you do carry a rat in your back pocket.

[rrneck]

195. So you changed your mind

about CCW? Because denying people the right to carry a weapon is disarming them.

[Hoyt]

81. Like a gun in more waistbands is "progressive." Get serious.

[Oneka]

111. It's the choice

that is progressive. not necessarily the number of guns in waistbands.

[enough]

103. This situation had nothing to do with anyone overpowering anyone. This person shot

from a distance unexpectedly. Nobody was near him. He stopped shooting when something in his shooting equipment jammed.

Are you saying this kid was brave because he figured out a way to kill people unexpectedly from a distance? I'd say he was a coward. He should have killed himself.

[Euromutt]

63. I'm sure the participants of the Rwandan massacre of 1994 will be glad to hear that

Real fucking heroes, every man jack of 'em. As were the perpetrators of the Akihabara massacre, the Dendermonde day care attack, that rash of mass killings in China last year...

Look, courage, or the lack thereof, isn't determined by one's choice of weapon. If you're intent on assaulting someone, a bladed or bludgeoning implement gives you a sufficient edge over an unarmed and unprepared target that it's no less cowardly to use one of those than it is to use a gun. Platitudes like "a gun is the coward's weapon of choice" originated with professional parasitic thugs like knights, samurai and other "warriors" being unpleasantly surprised by their previous advantage against poorly armed and trained commoners being cancelled out by technology.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTyankee]

8. My neice would be alive today if a knife instead of a gun had been used

in a domestic disturbance. Her step-grandfather was angry and drunk and always kept a loaded gun at the house "for protection." He had no criminal record. If he had wielded a knife she and her mother could have brought him down. He shot and killed my neice, shot and wounded her mother and grandmother and then turned the gun on himself. This was in 1987.

I wish I could say that was my only experience knowing someone shot dead, but we had a neighbor who shot and killed her husband in their driveway. This happened in the fifties, when I was a kid.

both incidences happened in Dallas.

[cleanhippie]

9. "If he had wielded a knife she and her mother could have brought him down."

There is no way for you to know that for sure.

[CTyankee]

28. Let me put it to you this way:

You don't know a damn thing about the circumstances, what type of people were involved and what the situation was. I do. So why don't you quit while you're ahead.

[petronius]

47. I'm sure everyone sympathizes with your family tragedy, but perhaps you should stop

It's not a trump card, or proof of anything - if you don't want your anecdote discussed or hypothesized about, then don't post it at all...

[CTyankee]

49. NO! You DON'T post about hypothetical blatherings about MY family and what happened to them!

You do NOT sympathize with my family one damn bit. And you don't know one damn thing about the circumstances around her death!

STOP IT RIGHT NOW! YOU HAVE NO DAMN RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I KNOW ABOUT MY NEICE'S MURDER!

Enough!

[petronius]

51. Again, if you don't want it talked about, don't bring it up

I've seen you do this several times - you mention your family tragedy, and then immediately start calling everyone who responds unfeeling or unsympathetic. Everyone who tries to discuss your safety- or policy-related conclusions is accused of transgressing your family privacy or attempting to tell you what you know/feel. Why do you do it? What point is being served?

:shrug:

[CTyankee]

53. Just STOP. You don't know what you are talking about. Why pretend you do?

I am NOT talking about gun policy regulations. I am talking about the specifics of my family's tragedy. You and others have NO RIGHT to talk about our situation when you and they don't have any idea of what happened! How in the world do you think you know this better than I do? What is the matter with you?

[petronius]

54. Haven't you noticed? I'm not talking about your family, I'm talking about you

Why. Do. YOU. Mention. Your. Family. Tragedy. When. YOU. Don't. Want. It. Talked. About?

:shrug:

[CTyankee]

55. This is your problem.

It is not about me. It is all about YOU on DU.

I tell my story and you call for an Inquisition.

Perfect. Just what the liberals on DU want to hear.

Any more great ideas?

[petronius]

56. Are you drunk, or otherwise impaired right now? Because I know you're not stupid, so why

are you having so much difficulty with my extremely simple point? It's very easy: if you don't want to hear expressions of sympathy, and you don't want your story discussed, don't tell the story! The liberals in this forum want to discuss safety and policy, so if a story is posted, we're going to talk about it. It's why we're here in the first place.

How is that calling for an Inquisition?

[CTyankee]

57. thank you for the kindness of your response.

How interesting that I expected such.

[petronius]

58. My posts were kind, and kindly intentioned. But if you choose to seek pain

and discomfort for yourself, then I'll leave you to it. Perhaps after a bit of thought you'll see that my advice is sound...

[CTyankee]

76. I can assure you that I and my family did not "choose to seek pain and discomfort"

on ourselves. A determined, if drunk and raging, man who was quite the gun fancier himself, did that. I have to wonder why you continue with this crusade against someone who simply shared a story about gun violence. If that throws you into such a spasm of anger, which you have demonstrated in such a shameful way on this thread, then you need more than "a bit of thought" about your appalling behavior.

Trying to bully me in cyberspace will do you no good. I will tell my family's story wherever and whenever I please. If you want to avoid me, then please feel free to put me on Ignore.

[petronius]

88. Bully? Crusade? Silence? Spasm? You really need to *carefully* re-read this subthread,

because it's clear you haven't got the faintest idea of what's being said (unless, of course, you're having us on with some sort of bizarre performance-art)... :shrug:

[CTyankee]

106. Ok, stop even trying to marginalize me...you will not succeed. I will continue to

challenge you every chance I get.

What are you going to do to stop me?

[petronius]

112. Did you re-read the thread as I suggested? Actually, here's a better idea: have a non-DUing

friend read over this sub-thread. Perhaps a trusted external source can explain to you how bizarre and non-responsive your replies to me have been.

(But in case you're wondering, at this point I have absolutely no desire to silence, ignore, or marginalize you - the performance is very much worth the price of admission!)

[CTyankee]

113. Well, thank you for your praise of my so called performance!

I'm sure you will enjoy my future comments.

May I ask you a question? I was wondering how a person as devoted to guns as you are can cope when you have to travel on airplanes. What do you do without your guns?

Also, have you ever traveled in Europe? How did you manage (emotionally and otherwise) without having your trusty gun?

Just wondering, as I travel to Europe each year...

[petronius]

116. May I assume from this abrupt subject change that you now understand what I was saying to you?

I don't expect thanks (or apologies), but it would be nice to know that I helped another DUer gain some insight into her own behavior.

As for your tangential questions: my devotion is not to guns, but rather to civil rights, freedom, choice, and the Constitution - liberal values, in other words. I don't have a CCW and I've never carried a firearm outside the house. Airplanes, Europe, courthouses, etc create no issues for me, and I know of no gun owners (CC/OC practitioners or otherwise) for whom problems would arise.

It appears that you've fallen into a series of false assumptions - I have never heard of or encountered a person who has difficulty coping, or feels emotional distress, in situations where guns are forbidden (no matter how strongly that person may feel about gun rights)...

[CTyankee]

135. Your opening line gave me the first big laugh of my day!

There are some people who just never get it...I chalk it up to the way you were raised (and you can interpret that any way you wish).

Since you don't carry outside of your house, you obviously can't answer my question, except as second hand info.

[petronius]

144. You didn't want an answer, but I gave you the correct one anyway

Now you're trying to squirm away because the truth conflicts with what you want to believe... :shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

186. Guns go in checked baggage.

[oneshooter]

187. I traveled around Europe off and on for several years.

Mostly with a .45cal under my left arm. Worked for some very powerful people who needed protection. Did it for a living for over 20 years.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[CTyankee]

189. Wow. You must be a very important person!

And this proves...what???

[oneshooter]

193. I am not important. Those I guarded were.

The point is that with enough money and political pull even the most hard nosed law can be "overlooked", and "Special Operation Permits" can be issued.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

60. If you dion't want to talk about it don't bring it up NT

[CTyankee]

107. And if you don't like what I have to say, what are you gonna do about it?

nt

[RSillsbee]

152. Keep talking about your dead friend NT

[CTyankee]

190. what a charming way to refer to my deceased neice.

You are such a lovely friend to have in polite society. How very much you resemble your friends in your cause...it does give off a distinct..err...odor...

[beevul]

198. How much room do you have to lecture anyone about a polite society...

How much room do you have to lecture anyone about a polite society, whilst uttering utterances such as this:

"How very much you resemble your friends in your cause...it does give off a distinct..err...odor..."


How much?

[AtheistCrusader]

66. But you get to post hypotheticals?

That he couldn't have killed your niece with a knife?

Very convienient.

[pipoman]

70. This is a FUCKING DISCUSSION FORUM

what don't you understand about that for christ's sake? If you don't want your shit discussed don't talk about it. Get it? You bring it up it is fair game. Get it? Frankly your story is probably a lie anyway...you know, 2/3 of the shit posted on forums is afterall...

[CTyankee]

108. Speak for yourself, buddy. As for me, you don't like it, well, tough!

What the hell are you going to do about it?

[pipoman]

114. Talk about it whenever and however I wish to...

It was you who didn't like others talking about your post, I don't give a shit what you like.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. That which is asserted without evidence, can be fairly dismissed without evidence.

[CTyankee]

78. I can assure you that I know more than you do about what went on that night.

I know it thru the firsthand recollections of the only survivor of the murder/shooting, my sister in law, who was also shot but not fatally. It was also a crime scene, with attendant police investigation, part of the public record, which could be researched. There was also coverage of the murder/shooting the The Dallas Morning News, happening the night before Father's Day, in 1987 and a brief blurb in USA Today, the day after it happened (I read it on the plane flying down to Dallas). You are the person "without evidence."

I know this is not a story that you want to hear. Others, apparently, share your discomfort with my story. There seems to be mass denial here that anything like what happened to my niece could happen. What to do? blame the messenger, obviously. The oldest trick in the book...

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I will assume you are telling the truth about the incident as it occurred.

As I am not going to fly to dallas and review library newspaper records.

However, that isn't what I was talking about. You asserted, with no evidence, that the person who committed this crime could not have accomplished it with a knife. (let alone some other implement.) Can I read in the Dallas Morning News, or USA Today, that the aggressor was incapable of using any other means to accomplish the crime?

[CTyankee]

87. The murderer was drunk on his ass when he got the gun, which he kept loaded in

a drawer next to his bed. (His son always had to unload it when he brought his kids over to see their grandpa.) He was probably not aiming at my niece, just shooting indiscriminately. My niece's last words on her call to 911 were "there's going to be a shooting." She was shot in the head over her left eye and died instantly. Her mother was shot through the wrist and her grandmother, who was dying of cancer (hence needing some assistance from her dtr and granddtr), was also shot but survived the gunshot wound and died of cancer two weeks later. My niece was 24, strong and healthy. Her mother, also strong and healthy, was in her 40s. Had a knife been brandished I feel certain that the two women would have been able to knock him to the floor and keep him there until the police arrived. The presence of a loaded gun made all the difference. The murderer knew it was available, knew he did have to spend time loading it and was consumed with rage fueled by alcohol.

Besides our family's loss, my niece's new husband of 4 months lost his wife. Her sister, who was supposed to go with her and her mother to her grandmother's house, went to a party instead that night. Her guilt must have been overwhelming and she went into Divinity School after college and became an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church.

The point I am trying to make is that when there is a choice between a loaded gun and a knife, it is easier for someone who is impaired by alcohol to use the gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. I see, so a drunk guy with a knife is no danger at all.

Thousands of people killed in bars will be thrilled to learn.

[iverglas]

131. I remember

when I expected better of you than that.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. He made a very specific claim that can not be supported.

Not sure what else I am supposed to do with it. Yet another anecdote we can't do anything with to discuss useful firearms policy.

[iverglas]

138. no

I see a specific claim and a choice not to support it. That doesn't actually mean it can't be supported.

But what you said was:

I see, so a drunk guy with a knife is no danger at all.

I see ... so ... an opinion ascribed to your interlocutor that is not only without foundation, as being held by your interlocutor, but is absurd and stupid on its face ... demagoguery of the first water, old friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

154. I must disagree.

He (or she) made two unsupportable claims:

"My neice would be alive today if a knife instead of a gun had been used in a domestic disturbance."
"If he had wielded a knife she and her mother could have brought him down."

Neither of these statements are fact.

It may be unfair for me to use sarcasm so vehemently in this situation, but the premise stands: these statements are not and cannot be presented as absolute fact.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

203. More to the point...

...is that it is of first concern that a right to life is worth defending.
Further that any right worth defending is worth defending with a robust and deliberate effort.
Anything short of this smacks of cowardice and equivocation.

I submit that passing a law that assures the crippling of one's of defense in the hope that an aggressor would be likewise compromised, ignores that assailants almost always have the element of surprise, and that advantage is used to best stage the assault based on the chosen weapon.

As St. Augustine said centuries ago, "Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

[iverglas]

205. fresh burble

Always nice to have some. Except this is really quite stale.


it is of first concern that a right to life is worth defending.
Further that any right worth defending is worth defending with a robust and deliberate effort.
Anything short of this smacks of cowardice and equivocation.

And it is your place to call someone else a coward and equivocator because they make choices you would not that affect no one but themself?

Sure it is. It's just not worth your time to speak your assessment aloud, because it is of not the slightest importance or relevance to anything. What are you gonna do, compel someone else to defend themselves the way you think they should because to do otherwise would be cowardly and equivocal? Yeesh.


I submit that passing a law that assures the crippling of one's of defense in the hope that an aggressor would be likewise compromised, ignores that assailants almost always have the element of surprise, and that advantage is used to best stage the assault based on the chosen weapon.

I submit that this is unintelligible.

And that toting a gun around does not obviate an assailant's element of surprise.

If somebody who wants your wallet walks up behind you and smites you with a 2x4, the pistol in your pants isn't going to do you much good. Nor is it going to help much if the person standing in front of you already has one aimed at your gut.

The fact is that assailants in Canada, where access to handguns is very difficult for the criminal-minded, are "likewise compromised", as evidenced by statistics regarding weapons used in robberies and the rate of homicide in the course of a robbery, which is multiples lower in Canada than in the US.


As St. Augustine said centuries ago, "Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

Perhaps someone is suggesting that wrongdoers should dominate just men. Or women.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

215. Dear burble,

"What are you gonna do, compel someone else to defend themselves the way you think they should because to do otherwise would be cowardly and equivocal?"

I would never decide for another how (or if) they should defend themselves.
Anyone not self-compelled to defend themselves in some way has, in most respects, relegated themselves and their like-minded posterity for natural de-selection.

Legislation which will predictably influence the law-abiding more than the criminal is of questionable good.


Without a doubt we should restrict sales of arms from violent criminals and mentally impaired.
Anything that tightens arms import at the ports, airports and borders is a good thing.
Anything that tightens domestic arms shipments and restricts and monitors those shipments to licensed dealers is a good thing.
Anything that monitors dealer inventories and assures that each sale is to a legal buyer is a good thing.

Disarming the victims doesn't help.


"...Canada..."

Statistics about Canada, the UK or EU are irrelevant.
The non-firearm rate of violent crime here in the US is generally higher than the total violent crime rate in many other places.
To think a law will make a nation of violent folks suddenly peaceful is... well, you know.

[iverglas]

216. yeah, because ...

Anyone not self-compelled to defend themselves in some way has, in most respects, relegated themselves and their like-minded posterity for natural de-selection.

... we are all going to be set upon by murderous highwaymen at least once in our lives, eh?

:rofl:

Not all that funny is the fact that this is precisely what gun militants are trying so hard to convince everyone else is truth, when it's so far from it that it couldn't see the truth if it stood on tippy-toes.


Legislation which will predictably influence the law-abiding more than the criminal is of questionable good.

A pronouncement. How nice.

Anything that monitors dealer inventories and assures that each sale is to a legal buyer is a good thing.

And that's precisely what mandatory licensing and mandatory registration do.

Mandatory licensing and mandatory registration, over time, make it exponentially more difficult for the criminal to lay hands on firearms. It influences the criminal, at very little inconvenience to anyone else. Huh.


Statistics about Canada, the UK or EU are irrelevant.

If you want to claim that long guns are not used by criminals in crimes, you have no option but to address situations in which handguns are not readily available, because the point is that criminals will use whatever firearms they have access to, to commit crimes.

Business robberies, stranger homicides and family homicides are regularly committed by long arm in Canada.

But it is very difficult to argue that the lack of access to handguns is not a major factor in the lower rate of certain crimes in Canada than in the US, particularly of street robbery and homicide during street robberies, situations in which long arms are indeed not convenient to use.


To think a law will make a nation of violent folks suddenly peaceful is... well, you know.

I certainly do! --

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

218. an image

"To think a law will make a nation of violent folks suddenly peaceful is... well, you know.

I certainly do! --"


You wouldn't be a legislator would you?
Sometimes when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. ;)


--- Like your image...

[Straw Man]

20. I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.

However, I know a woman who used a gun to stop her husband, who was beating her bloody and may have continued until she was dead. Without that gun, she would have been helpless against his superior strength. He died. She lived.

[CTyankee]

110. I accept your condolences as sincere.

I do not agree with your conclusions as they don't apply to my family's situation.

However, you have shown your humanity in your response, even tho we do not agree on this issue. That is a huge step more forward than some others on this thread.

I appreciate your comments, sir.

[WatsonT]

79. If someone posted a personal story that painted guns in a good light

would you be forbidden to refute them?

[CTyankee]

104. I don't know what you are talking about...

[pipoman]

115. Your posts on this thread scream either

multiple personality disorder or blackout drunk...how bizarre...re-read beginning at your post #8...again, how bizarre..

[WatsonT]

126. You post a" personal" story that supports your own views

then get furious when anyone dares comment on it.

So I assume you are not a hypocrite and thus anyone else who posts a personal story is likewise immune to criticism.

[Katya Mullethov]

83. Had they mastered the Vulcan Nerve Pinch ?

I had a friend in HS that received the same injury as Giffords did , only he received a cheapo Kabar to the temple and was rendered DRT .
Stabee did three years in juvie and they let him out as an 18th birthday present .
Oh yeah , we saw that too .

[CTyankee]

105. Can you explain what you are talking about? Please???

[Katya Mullethov]

123. Stabbee is confising

It was the stabber that got off easy and continued with his wicked ways and eventually ended up dead anyway . As one could have guessed without my explaining the errant R .
Because , as stated , the kid that got stabbed in the side of the head was dead right there . Really freaked all the chicks out too .

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. what does this have to do with 2A?

[Oneka]

7. Nothing

but it illustrates the concern that gun rights advocates here in the US, have about, the Slippery slope.

[spin]

18. A trained and experienced knife fighter is far more dangerous than ...

the average street thug armed with a gun or civilian with a carry permit.

[TheWraith]

46. And the murder rate now is the same as before they banned guns.

In other words, banning innocent people from owning guns did not do one single thing to keep the public safe, to reduce crime, or to reduce murder.

[lawodevolution]

50. Chasing their tail, compared to the rest of Europe that is more gun friendly they have a high murder

And violent crime rate in the UK

[CTyankee]

52. yep, gun friendly PLUS high regulation of guns=less gun violence.

Aw, honey, you left that part out! How did THAT happen?

[spin]

61. But less gun violence does not equal less violence ...

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1L47dTueA

[Euromutt]

75. Because it's irrelevant to the comparison?

The rest of Europe does not have tighter gun regulation than the UK.

[lawodevolution]

80. The nations that restrict guns the most, nigeria, jamaica, haiti, colombia etc

are the most violent and also tend to have fewer guns. Europe has relaxed gun laws compared to most of the world.

[CTyankee]

109. And lots and lots of regulations! Oops, you forgot that! I'm sure it was an oversight!

[Euromutt]

117. If you're going to be denigrating, you could at least address the argument being made

You've now twice (by means of sarcasm) accused LoD of leaving out a crucial piece of the equation when he has in fact done no such thing. LoD's point is that the stringency of gun laws in most European countries notwithstanding, other countries exist with even tighter restrictions on private firearms ownership, in spite of which, their homicide rates are higher than the United States'. Russia and Jamaica come to mind as examples.

In other words, LoD is pointing out that there is no correlation between the degree of stringency of gun laws and the amount of violent crime in a society, and your repeated response is to ignore the evidence he's presented to support his point and insist that there is too a correlation. Is it so hard for you to even acknowledge the possibility that the reason European countries--certainly "western" European countries*--have lower levels of violent crime because they have lower levels of socio-economic inequality and a native culture that, since the Enlightenment, has increasingly accepted that homicide is not an acceptable means of settling disputes (private ones, anyway)?

* I say "western" in quotes because Finland and Greece, for example, are in terms of longitude located quite far east in Europe.

[X_Digger]

164. Careful, you'll now be treated to:

"It's my opinion, not my assertion" or "I didn't claim correlation or causation!" (only inferred it.)

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Flee a knife, charge a gun.

Both can get you dead.

[krispos42]

84. Well, thank god that the 40% increase in UK homicides...

...had fewer of them involve a bullet.


Otherwise I might be worried about the UK's increasing homicide rate.

[iverglas]

134. I do so love your pretty pictures

Now, in plain English ...

In 35 years, the UK (England and Wales?) homicide rate rose from 3/4 of a homicide per 100,000 people to 1½ homicides per 100,000 people, per year.

During the same period, the US homicide rate fell from just under 6¼ homicides per 100,000 people to just under 5¾ homicides per 100,000 people, per year.

(You include mass murders in the UK figures, but not in the US figures ...)

What an achievement! A decline of exactly 1/2 a homicide per 100,000 people in 35 years! Has anyone given you a ticker-tape parade yet??

The plain fact remains that the homicide rate in the US was still nearly quadruple the rate in the UK in 2003.

You're needing an update, too.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
US homicide rate 2009: 5.0/100,000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years

The murder rate in England and Wales has fallen from 644 to 619 over the last year to its lowest level for 12 years.
<not a rate, obviously; a raw number>

I forgot my calculator when I moved my office last week. What's that as a rate? -- Ah, here we are:

The Home Office figures published today show that England and Wales are in the middle of the European murder league at 13.5 deaths per million population.

That's 1.35/100,000.

Oops.

[GreenStormCloud]

153. Welcome back.

The quality of the anti-gun arguments has been markedly poor in while you have been gone.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. If you deduct deaths from the US rate for criminal use of firearms

you find that Americans are still over-achievers in the murder-death-kill department.

Not a refutation, just a comment.
Part of the reason I carry. Guns aside, I consider this nation far more dangerous than, say, Canada.

[iverglas]

156. I hear slackmaster misses me too ;)

Make him go look:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=858649&mesg_id=858649

(I posted it in reply to his comment about player piano rolls in another thread but I just know nobody's going to look!)

[AtheistCrusader]

159. I know why nobody's going to look.

It's the thread that ate Manhattan.

[iverglas]

160. no no no

You only read the post titles, not the posts!

[AtheistCrusader]

161. I'm confused.

As per normal.

You want me to link him from there to this thread, or?
Sorry, i'm quite dense this morning.

[iverglas]

162. and I'm the one who worked all night

Well, supposedly.

Just give him the link to that thread, with my compliments. ;)

He'll recall, I'm sure.

And make everybody else click too!

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. So why aren't England and Wales at the bottom of the Euro murder league?

Because murder rates aren't entirely congruous with gun laws and gun ownership, that's why.

Finland has the highest murder rate in the EU, and a high percentage of gun ownership- but its murder rate is only slightly higher

than that of Scotland, which shares the same strict gun laws as England and Wales. Switzerland has even more guns per capita than

Finland, but (IIRC) has a murder rate lower than the other four countries.


The US has a murder problem, and has had one for a long time. No honest person could or would deny this. It also has

a gun culture. Switzerland doesn't have much of a murder problem, and it has a gun culture as well.

[iverglas]

158. well, I certainly hope you're not imagining

Because murder rates aren't entirely congruous with gun laws and gun ownership, that's why.

that I said they were.


The US has a murder problem, and has had one for a long time. No honest person could or would deny this. It also has a gun culture. Switzerland doesn't have much of a murder problem, and it has a gun culture as well.

Ah, c'mon. Haven't I had my ration of equivocation for the day, if not the week, already?

"A gun culture". Like it means the same thing in both contexts.

We do need to keep up on our current events, though. Switzerland is not best pleased with some of the results of its gun culture these days.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. Silly me, I foolishly thought I might get a direct answer to my question

I forgot who I was dealing with....

[iverglas]

180. excuse me; "question"?

Your post said this:

So why aren't England and Wales at the bottom of the Euro murder league?
Because murder rates aren't entirely congruous with gun laws and gun ownership, that's why.

The fact that you answered your own question made it rhetorical to start with.

I believe I made it plain I didn't disagree with your statement.

What seems to be your problem now?

[krispos42]

175. Ooo, I could just tell by the subject line who this was!

:hug:


:-)


I hope you spent your time away from the Gungeon trying to keep the Canadian Conservatives from turning your country's health care system into ours?



You of course forget that the US homicide rate soared up to nearly 10 per 100k/yr during the intervening 35 years.

If I remember my fractions correctly, going from 10 per 100k/yr to 5 per 100k/yr is... half.



Also if I remember by fractions correctly, going from 3/4 of a homicide per 100k/yr to 6/4 of a homice per 100k/yr is... double. Watch those numerators!

[iverglas]

183. I failed

With 40% of the popular vote the Conservatives now have a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, I dunno, 160-something. However, the Liberals having driven themselves into oblivion, the NDP is now the Official Opposition with 100+ seats, about 3 times what we've ever had before.

We are now an officially polarized country, heading toward two parties -- but at this point, at least the two parties here are readily distinguishable. Four more years of Stephen Harper ... we may find pleas for emigration in the other direction, now.


I saw your denominators and arithmetic all perfectly well.

My point was that double a tiny number is still a tiny number. See? I'm sure you did!

And of course that it's not like any human society is going to eradicate homicide, so once you're at tiny-number level (and note, declining again recently), you kind of end up waffling around a plateau unless something happens to drive the number up.

[krispos42]

210. I'm getting my passport on Friday in case I have to join you in 2012...

...PRESIDENT PALIN!!!


:-)


Actually I'll be up in Toronto in a couple of months... my ex is living there now, so I'll be dropping him off there for a month in the summertime.




Regarding plateaus, well, it looks like we've hit the same plateau. Of course, I want it to go lower as well. But Canadian-style gun control is the slowest, most expensive, and least effective method to get there. There's lot of stuff that I think should be done that would not only lower the homicide rate but also dramatically improve the quality of life of everybody in the country.

[DWC]

143. Bad Guys are predators

and will use whatever is possible to force your compliance - possibly at the cost of your life.