I didn\'t wanna bring it up, BUT...

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by JakeSh
Yes, we should all arm ourselves. That way we can all fly off the handle when we percieve any imagined threat. The \"lets all arm ourselves and this won\'t happen\" idea is ridiculous, yet gun nuts always spout it off.

I guess that\'s my perspective. Sure I could carry a sidearm to defend myself, but I can\'t promise you that I won\'t fly off the handle someday and use it wrongly. Unlikely in my case, I\'m pretty mellow, but that\'s how I see it.

I can however sympathize with the desire to have a weapon for self-defense in a country awash with firearms and violence, after all in Iraq many regular families now have an AK stashed in the house for that reason. America let the genie out of the bottle by enshrining the 2nd amendment (for what at the time were obvious reasons), the end result was a massive business in selling arms to civilians, and now it\'s no wonder people feel their homes and lives are threatened when there are probably as many automatic rifles and pistols in the US as there are people.

 

[funnymouth]

ill avoid most of the big issues, and instead be insensitive.

ok, 33 people got poped by a madman. its sad, but lets get some perspective.

on a bad day we lose that many in the war. young people.
its just a number on the ticker at the bottom of the screen.

in iraq 138 civilians were killed yesterday in a string of bombings, and more the day before. about 65 thousand in 3 years. the children are suffering from stress disorders because there are bodies in the street.
how about darfur?

what could we do?
if i wanted to go crazy, a few stupid laws arent going to stop me, and either is some hero custodian.

you have to stop it before it even starts, if you can.

BTW, where the efk were the campus police? they waited until squads of dudes showed up? how about growing some balls and saving some lives without the cavalry. burocracy at its worst. i bet they were standing around deciding what to do while he shot the place to pieces.

 

[JakeSh]

Originally posted by funnymouth
ill avoid most of the big issues, and instead be insensitive.

ok, 33 people got poped by a madman. its sad, but lets get some perspective.

on a bad day we lose that many in the war. young people.
its just a number on the ticker at the bottom of the screen.

in iraq 138 cuvilians were killed yesterday in a string of bombings, and more the day before. about 65 thousand in 3 years. the children are suffering from stress disorders because there are bodies in the street.
how about darfur?

I agree.

It is a terrible situation, but, to quote Vonnegut, \"...so it goes.\"

 

[lono]

Originally posted by funnymouth
BTW, where the efk were the campus police? they waited until squads of dudes showed up? how about growing some balls and saving some lives without the cavalry. burocracy at its worst. i bet they were standing around deciding what to do while he shot the place to pieces.

Campus police at my university were just a collection of morbidly obese blokes, sat in a glass box, who spent their time leering at all of the girls wandering around and, on the odd occasion, looking sternly at the residents in halls that manged to accidentally set off their smoke alarms.

Oh, and there was one dude who was rumoured to be a bit of a stoner, and had a habit of trying to threaten passing students into relinquishing any drugs he may be lucky enough to catch them with.

I imagine there would be heart attack risks assosciated with them having to do anything mildly strenous, let alone deal with an armed lunatic.

 

[Rigged4Mini]

Really is a terrible thing that happen in VT. Hope that kid burns in hell forever..if there is one of course...

As for the pro-gun and anti-gun discussion.. both sides can\'t make a valid point..so no use adding to the wasted words.

 

[freakinacage]

what i love is the way (according to the news so i can only go by what they say) that he is allowed to tick the box about any past mental health! of course, someone who is mentally disturbed would never lie!! oh the thought!

i think guns have their place - they should just be VERY hard to get. if a crim wants someone dead, he\'ll find a way fo doing it, the fact that a gun is illegal will be the leadt of his/hr worries if murder is on their minds. don\'t forget - more people are stabbed in the uk each year - we don\'t ban knives do we?

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
The criminals dont seem to respond to the over 20,000 gun laws on the books.

Maybe if we outlaw fire extinguishers there wont be any more fires.

Shawn, you can be a bit of a tit at times.

And when I consider that you, a bloke who is happy to tell everyone about his depression, wants to see everyone armed to make the world safer, I really do begin to worry about your mindset. I\'d never trust anyone with a gun who seems so gung-ho.

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by steelcult
Ahh, but Nelson, while the Brits may have a denser population, they also have a smaller one - one would not expect a country with approximately 1/5 the population of the US to have 4 times the violent crime per 100,000 even if the population density is approximately 10 to 1.

You would, because more people live in the same spaces. It\'s no wonder. If the UK was 5 times the size you\'d see a reduction no doubt. We\'re a small couple of islands and people live on top of each other. I bet most of the incidents were booze related at least lol

 

[Ritual]

Arming the population only raises the overall level of violence. If no one has guns a mugger won\'t need a gun to mug you. If he has reason to believe you carry a gun he will shoot you first, then mug you.

A nut bent on taking as many people with him would hardly run into a room with just two hand guns if there are 20 people packing guns in there, would he? He would adjust to the situation and use a more effective method. Explosives or something like that.

A friend of mine who has worked in a prison told me that the inmates there, who were generally brutal people without scrouples, generally avoided guns. Not because they would hesitate to use them, but because they don\'t need them and having one only makes them get harder sentences when they get caught.

Criminals, and to an extent, nut cases are rational people in a way. They may have severely warped values and, in the case of nuts, no grasp of reality, but they aren\'t incapable of rational thought within their own mind frames. So, the idea that arming the population only leads to \"good guys\" taking out the \"bad guys\" before they can do much damage strike me as very naive. The bad guys will use the necessary means to achieve their goals.

 

[Infidel Castro]

See, now that\'s a good response.

 

[petey]

Originally posted by Ritual
Arming the population only raises the overall level of violence. If no one has guns a mugger won\'t need a gun to mug you. If he has reason to believe you carry a gun he will shoot you first, then mug you.

This is the best response I\'ve heard. Wide gun ownership escalates violent situations.
Another thing I\'ve noticed is people referencing gun users who kill as criminals, and everyone else as good people. Obviously there are some very evil, dangerous criminals out there, but they\'re a tiny minority. A lot of gun users just make a mistake, or get caught in the heat of the moment and instead of a scuffle and a black eye you get a dead person.

 

[Beelzebrush]

Originally posted by philologus
Once again the myth that Gun control makes for a safer society. Once again I will provide the facts that indicate otherwise:

British Home Office crime stats



US FBI UCR violent crime stats

If you compare by population and look at violent crime per 100,000 it appears that the US averages about 470-500 violent crimes per 100,000 while the UK averages about 2300. Apparently the British report covers Sept. 2005 to September 2006. It is NOT 2 years worth of data being compared to 1 year.

Okay, that may be true. I would also hazard a guess that the majority of violent crime in the UK involves drunken punch-up\'s outside pubs etc...

Here\'s some figures I just quickly searched... they are from 2002 so they are obviously different now...
---------------------------------------
Gun related deaths in 2002 -

UK: 81
Canada: 816
US: 30,242
Figures do not distinguish between crime-related and accidental or self-inflicted deaths
------------------------------------------------------

If the stats that you linked to suggest that the UK is a more violent society, it just goes to prove, by the small amount of gun related deaths in the UK, that they make an enormous contribution to crime in the US.

It doesn\'t take a genius to work out that having virtually free access to handguns makes gun crime a lot more likely than having tight restrictions.

 

[Infidel Castro]

This is where Bill Hicks was good. He took the piss out of the whole thing really well but also left you thinking \'shit, why does America still allow guns so readily?\' His take on the massive disparity in gun deaths was brill. US, guns easily available, ##,### deaths. England (in this case), no guns allowed unless hunting or whatever, ## deaths by guns. I\'m not sure of the numbers, but the amount of figures themselves are right where I put the pretty little hash thingies. He suggested that the deaths over here might well have been pissed off Americans:

Call this a pizza? You boiled it!

It\'s the way we do things here!

(cue his gun noises)

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by DaN
Argh! Not another \"Tony Manero - do you like guns\" thread! Nooo

PS. My only comment on off-topicness:
@Phil - You can\'t make a true comparison with just two random lots of statistics.
You need to take into account population density and other such factors, as well as what actually constitutes \"Violent crime\" for both sets of stats.

And not all violent crimes are gun-related.

My point in this thread and in the last was that the stats use the same categories for violent crime. In both cases the crime only has to be attempted and not committed. The UK doesn\'t report crime by under 16-year olds against other under 16\'s, The UCR stats include ALL ages. This is as close as apples to apples as one can get with crime
reporting.

This is taken from the report. If you look at the UK report you have the same categories of violent crime.

\"Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program\'s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.\"


If you look at each definition of the four \"Violent Crimes\" you see that :\" Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of-or threat to use-a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.\"

For \"robbery\" : \"(UCR)...defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.\"

Again no injury necessary for reporting.

For the rape category:\"Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included\"


Murder implies that the attack was fatal but: \"The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults. \"

UK has a smaller population less guns and still more incidences of violent crime per 100,000.

 

[Beelzebrush]

Originally posted by philologus

UK has a smaller population less guns and still more incidences of violent crime per 100,000.

But very few gun related deaths... which I think is the point of this thread no?? I\'m also struggling to understand the relevance of comparing the UK to the US.

If handguns were readily available in the UK, I would imagine that the figures would be different. They aren\'t legally readily available... consequently, the occurence of gun crimes/accidents/suicides are vastly lower.

@ Rev.... that Bill Hicks routine is great

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by phiIologus
UK has a smaller population less guns and still more incidences of violent crime per 100,000.

Many of the pro-gun arguments in this thread suggest that if the UK\'s populace was armed, then there\'d be less violent crime. Anyone want to take that chance?

A bit off-topic, but; I\'m curious: does the US have an equivalent to UK football violence?

 

[uberdark]

ok so here i go with my one little blurb. then back to the wonderful world of mini\'s. as sad as it is to say i believe that many guns should be outlawed. i dont see a reason for a hunter to go out looking for a squirrel with an ak47. we all know what that stuff is for: killing people and efficiently at that. now i also grew up in a family with lots of guns. my dad is a hunter and not only does he kill animals but 90% of them he eats, not to mention donating at least 2 deer a year to a needy family in the area. so yeah i am fine with outlawing pistols, ak47\'s and the like. but the guns that have been in my family for hundreds of years and still are workable should be kept. i believe but am not quite sure if thats how they do it in england. so please let me know if i am right on that level.

now that said: plain and simple: if a nutter like this cho guy really wanted a gun then he would find a way to get one. the underground black market with guns in america is wild and crazy as i imagine it is across the world. over time you WILL find someone who has an ak47 to sell you. my best friend adam killed himself with a gun, his dad owned one. does that mean he wouldnt have killed himself. not necesarilly. he could have found something else to do the job.

criminals will always find a way to harm ppl if they can. look at prison life and all the weapons made in jail. i dont refute the statistics in america and it is sad but to out and out change things immediately will only worsen the situation and it is something that needs to be dealt with over a longer period of time. i appreciate the comments some have said in favor and even against firearms but in the end we will never quite konw the answer to all of these questions until somehting happens. so instead of talkign do something. i have already begun to send letters to my state congressman talking about stricter gun laws. so i feel i have the right to make this comment.

its like they say. \" you have the right to complain who won or lost an election only if you voted.\"

i guess the same can be said here.

so now that i probably have ticked off half of c\'mon i apologize to anyone who\'s feelings i hurt and hope we can move on and keep going.

A ROUND ON ME AT THE BAR ALL!!

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by reverend
I\'d never trust anyone with a gun who seems so gung-ho.

Funny, that\'s how I feel about people in positions of leadership

 

[fortunesfool]

Originally posted by Modderrhu

Originally posted by phiIologus
UK has a smaller population less guns and still more incidences of violent crime per 100,000.

Many of the pro-gun arguments in this thread suggest that if the UK\'s populace was armed, then there\'d be less violent crime. Anyone want to take that chance?

A bit off-topic, but; I\'m curious: does the US have an equivalent to UK football violence?

No they don\'t really have an equivalent. And I would have to say that giving guns to the general populace in the Uk scares the crap out of me. That\'s because I see a lot more cases of beligerence and random assault over here than I ever did in the States. People are accustomed to not being responsible for their actions over here (in most cases because of the alcohol culture over here).

I would however argue that putting guns in the hand of most populaces is an acceptable approach. My favourite example was given me by a friend of mine who lives in Switzerland. Military service is mandatory over there (or was at the time we talked). After fulfilling your time in the service you still maintain all of your gear (including firearms) on the off chance that the government will need to draft you back into the military.

The big question is would you attempt to rob/attack/etc. someone who not only was trained with weapons (as every male is) but more than likely had a fully automatic weapon in their home?

Just out of curiousity does anyone know the current violent crime stats for Switzerland? How do they compare to the States and the UK?

In my opinion, anything that teaches you responsibility is good. Anything that takes responsibility away is a bad thing (except in case of an individual who is incapable in some manner).

 

[Sand Rat]

From \"Guns, Crime, and the Swiss\" by Stephen P. Halbrook -

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to \"criminal tourists.\"

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned

Admitedly the data is 14 years old - but it is the newest data I could find on the net about the Swiss.

link here - http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

For those of you who want to read the whole piece.