"The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals."

[hopperboo]

I wanted to share this here...though I'm not sure this is exactly the place to share it, I figured it was close enough.



1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.



Authored by Michael Z. Williamson

[denuseri]

LMAO Awsome boo just awsome i love it.

Goes back to cleaning my 38 Smith and Wesson all the while yearning for that ever elussive "hello kitty" M16. sighs

[Stealth694]

On paper and in limited area's its great.
But what about in major cities like LA or New York? Personally instead of gun control I am for Gun Responsibility, If someone commits a crime using a gun, His good Time is gone. If He Injures someone with a gun then he serves the maximum sentance with no option of parole. If he kills someone with a gun, He is in for life or execution depending on the state. As an ex-Corrections officer I can tell you the Violent cons were usually the most un-repentive, and were usually back within 6 months. Better to just lock them up and keep them away from society.

[denuseri]

Basic fact:

bad guys dont care if we make laws about guns, they are bad, they will break the law as they see fit.

Gun laws that would keep law abiding citezens from defending themselves are just plain criminal.

I am truely greatful to live in a country that allows me the liberty to defend myself.

[amosse85]

Reminds me of saying that goes something like, "Politicians don't fear criminals with guns. They fear law-abiding citizens with guns."

Well put. =)

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]bad guys dont care if we make laws about guns,

That's not quite accurate. Criminals are probably the biggest proponents of gun control. The fewer civilians who are armed, the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes without the risk of getting shot.

[Muskan]

I agree with Thorne!

[Tufty]

Excellent! We have very strict gun control laws in the UK...so strict, in fact, that I can go out right this minute and buy an illegal gun for around £20/$40

[hopperboo]

Excellent! We have very strict gun control laws in the UK...so strict, in fact, that I can go out right this minute and buy an illegal gun for around £20/$40
That, to me, is what is so terrifying.

I support whole heartily CCW's and the ability for any law abiding citizen to have access to owning a firearm (and carrying) if they go through the legal methods.

How many owners of pistol's, who own CCW's run around shooting people?

I am guessing it is an extremely low number.

[lucy]

Does anyone of you happen to know how many criminals are shot by law abiding citizens in the states versus how many law abiding citizens get shot by accident (or out of sheer dumbness) by just another law abiding, tho unlucky (or just plain stupid), citizen?

[hopperboo]

I'll see if I can Google it, maybe someone else could too.
________________________



Okay, here we go, straight from Wiki;

"Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007, 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[45] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[46] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007.[47]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small. North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[48]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4200 permits for any reason. [49]"


________________________

Now, the couple things I put in bold is as close to what I found to a "problem" with with CCW carriers. i.e. Them doing something stupid or shooting someone who doesn't deserve to be shot.

(I think I might actually buy the book the second Wiki link is about, it has the stats in them).



Link to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry)

Link to Wikipedia: More Guns, Less Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime)

[Ragoczy]

Does anyone of you happen to know how many criminals are shot by law abiding citizens in the states versus how many law abiding citizens get shot by accident (or out of sheer dumbness) by just another law abiding, tho unlucky (or just plain stupid), citizen?

I don't have a recent, legitimate study. I do know that the frequent "you're x-times more likely to be killed by your own gun than to kill a criminal" stats are cooked. I have yet to see one of those studies where they're actually comparing home- or self-defense. They study only deaths, leaving off the fact that most home-/self-defense incidents don't result in death or injury to the criminal -- the person defending themselves isn't typically looking to fire the gun, only to keep themselves from being hurt, so the criminal retreats unscathed.

When Florida instituted its carry-permit law, the Dade County Sheriff started a program to track criminal incidents and accidents involving people with permits. Seven (I think) years later they closed the program because it had less than ten entries.

[Thorne]

Excellent! We have very strict gun control laws in the UK...so strict, in fact, that I can go out right this minute and buy an illegal gun for around £20/$40

And from what I've read, if you even point that gun at a criminal committing a crime, you're likely to do more prison time than he is!

[Tufty]

And from what I've read, if you even point that gun at a criminal committing a crime, you're likely to do more prison time than he is!

Oh yes...that's very true!

The criminals certainly have more rights than the non-criminals over here - or it does seem that way.

Even without a gun, if I tackled an intruder in my home and injured him/her, I would be open to prosecution for assault and probably have to pay compensation to the criminal as well :(

Crazy World!! :mad:

[Ozme52]

I is a proponent of gun control...


'Cuz if you cain't control it...

You cain't hit what you'll aiming at.

(bad dialect aside... ;) )

[StormKat]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

[Tufty]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

Absolutely right!!

[Stealth694]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

Exactly Right StormKat.
Like yourself I have been drilled and re-drilled in gun safety, Personally I feel before someone gets a CCW they have to pass a gun safety course, lots of states feel the same way.

[Thorne]

Even without a gun, if I tackled an intruder in my home and injured him/her, I would be open to prosecution for assault and probably have to pay compensation to the criminal as well :(

That seems insane! It's like giving criminals carte blanche to commit crimes, as long as they don't use a weapon!

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Even so, lore has it that, if you are going to shoot a criminal breaking into your home, make certain you kill him. You can always claim that he threatened the lives of your family. If he's dead it's hard for him to contradict you.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of American law, but at least I don't have to fear being sent to prison for defending my person and/or property.

[Ragoczy]

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.

[Thorne]

Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.

Ahh, yes, all too true, I'm afraid. Part of the vagaries of the jury system. If that businessman had had jurors who were also businessmen, the outcome might have been different, I'm sure. But juries today feel that insurance companies will pay the costs anyway, so no harm done.

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

And, of course, I can countersue the guy who damaged my barbed wire fence, forcing me to pay for biological clean up to remove his carelessly spilled blood, couldn't I?

Truth is, I don't know if any of those examples you noted would hold up on appeals.

[Ragoczy]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

It has to do with differing burdens of proof. You're not actually ever found innocent in a criminal case, simply "not guilty" due to the State's failure to meet its burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence".

So a criminal jury must have a significantly higher degree of certainty than a civil one.

[Ozme52]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

I railed against that too... and still do... regardless of whether or not he did the deed... but it is one of the many reasons we don't judge guilt or innocence... we judge guilty or not guilty.

And apparently, in this case, the semantics are everything.

Your peers must agree unaminously to judge you criminally guilty and must believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.

They must merely agree that there is a preponderance of evidence to judge you civily liable. (I'm not even sure it need be unaminous in all cases.)

[Thorne]

Ragoczy and Oz,

Thanks. You both gave similar responses, and I do understand the differences. That still doesn't mean it feels right. And I did not agree with the criminal trial's finding of Not Guilty, either. I'm sure there is a vast amount of legalese which would eventually boil down to some sort of semi-intelligent rational for this, but to my non-legal mind it still seems like double jeapordy.

[Kuskovian]

Fuck them, if they want my guns they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

[hopperboo]

Fuck them, if they want my guns they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.
Depending on who is voted in that may be well happening down the road.

:|

Scary.

[fellintobed]

Hopperboo, thanks for posting that list. I am a gun owner, but my family is rabidly anti-gun, of the "ban all guns because a kid accidentally shot himself!" variety. Right now they don't know that there are guns in my home, and I don't particularly care to tell them and deal with the ensuing fight, but now at least I have something to show them (should the need arise) to hopefully at least get them to think a bit more.

[Ozme52]

I was discussing this with stormkat and suddenly realize that though I own guns, I wouldn't really call myself a gun owner.

It sounds more like an arsenal. :rolleyes:

[Daddy54]

I am a Gun Owner and am Pro Gun. My Wife and Children have been Extensively Taught over and over Again Gun Safety. The Biggest Mistake I have seen in the Gun Classes that my Children have Attended is they Never Say to **ALWAYS KNOW THE CONDITION OF THE FIREARM WHEN YOU FIRST PICK IT UP** They Tell them to Handle a Firearm like it is Loaded at All Times (which is Good), but they Should Stress to Everyone; Check the Firearm as Soon as it is in your Hand and Make Sure it is Loaded/Unloaded and Never Assume Anything when it comes to a Firearm. My Children were Taught at Home from the Ages of 5 to Clean and Inspect Firearms of All Calibers and Makes. The Instructors of the State Sponsored Classes have said to me that my children Handle Firearms Safer tha Anyone they have Ever had in their Classes. The Largest Number of Accidents and Deaths from Firearms Not Used in Crimes are from Supposedly "Unloaded Guns". If 1 Parent could Stay Home and Supervise the Children, then there would be less Problems with Firearms and Other Problems in Society all together. I have what some would consider an Arsenal Also.

[MMI]

Checks to make sure we're on the political thread ... yep ... Right

It is an undeniable fact (at least, I've never seen anyone deny it convincingly) that anyone who purposely acquires a gun, or who decides to keep one that comes into his possession, contemplates killing.

Apart from the "self-defence" defence, in civilised countries, only the government has the right of life or death over its citizens. In the much more civilised countries, governments will give up that right. Self-defence is the use of minimum force sufficient to save your own life or that of another, which must be under real and immediate threat (not "possible" or "eventual" threat, for then you can take other avoiding actions).

For most intents and purposes, if you don't happen to be carrying your gun at the time (and why would you be?), but you have time to (say) go upstairs to find it before confronting the "threat", you are not going to satisfy the "imminent threat" requirement. If the threat was "imminent" you would already be dead. If you had time to get your gun, load it, and kill your assailant, you murdered him in all probability.

Gun are killing machines. They have no other purpose or function. If you have a gun, and you are not a frivolous person, then you are an actual or intending killer. Target practice is just to improve your killing efficiency, even if you dress it up as sport. There is nothing good about killing - even if the person you kill is subhuman by your criteria. All guns do is raise the stakes. In a confrontation where no-one is armed, no-one is likely to get seriously hurt. In a confrontation where one person has a knife, the chances of death or injury resulting are greater, but not certain. Most likely the unarmed person will comply, and (in a mugging, for example) loose a watch, a mobile phone, or his wallet, but keep his life and his body whole, or (in a sexual assault) be raped.

... carrying knives without good reason should be made illegal ...

In answer to the first post, the woman who submits to rape is infinitely superior to the woman who attempts to kill her attacker. Chances are she will survive to take her revenge later. The chances are also that the attacker will kill any woman who attempts to find her weapon, make it ready, point and fire. Usually she will die long before she has the opportunity to kill him.

A confrontation where one person is armed with a gun is likely to have the same outcome as the same situation where a knife is involved. Generally speaking, people don't kill without cause - not even Americans!

A confrontation where both sides are armed is going to have an uneasy climb-down by one side or the other - and it will be the most sensible person who gives in, not necessarily the one who is "in the right". In this instance stupidity wins. Which of you pro-gun advocates is willing to admit to such stupidity?

Alternatively - and just as stupidly - the outcome will be the death (or injury if you are lucky) of one side or the other, as both sides fire (probably, in the confusion, randomly). Again, victory will not necessarily go to the righteous, for who could be righteous in a gunfight that both sides have deliberately entered into and, no doubt, contemplated the outcome, or at least, an outcome?

OK - I will accept that some people, even in the States, really do hunt for survival. They can justify their guns. But people who kill for recreation? How despicable is that?

I reject absolutely the argument that, because a person is committing a crime, and if provoked, is capable of committing a worse one, must be dispatched summarily. That's mob law at best. A thief does not deserve to die at the hands of an American vigilante any more than he deserves to be mutilated on the orders of a Sharia court.

Death is, of course, irrevocable, whereas a miscarriage of justice by a Sharia court can be compensated for by payment of compensation, or a term of imprisonment wrongfully imposed by a western court can be made up for similarly. But if you kill an innocent visitor, or a passer by, how can you make up for that?

Still worse, if your child finds your gun and shows it to his friend, and one of them innocently shoots the other, how would you cope? Could you bury your child knowing you were responsible for its death - or would you rationalise it by saying it's the cost of an imprtant right? Could you attend your neighbour's child's funeral - assuming you were allowed to?

In the UK, we have relatively few incidents where someone "freaks out" and goes on a killing spree. (I write this just a few days after British police killed a person suspected of having a gun and intending to go to an important visitor attraction. He was killed by armed police.) As I say - relatively few such incidents, but even our gun laws don't prevent them all. Nevertheless, we feel free to move around in the sure knowledge that we are not likely to be held up at gunpoint, or shot by a lunatic who has suddenly broken. We are happy with our gun laws: we would recommend them to all. And when we see students killing scores of other teenagers, our hearts bleed for the parents of the victims. But we wonder why these poor bereaved people cannot get rid of privately-owned weapons and we marvel at the horrific cynicism of organisations like the NRA who insist that the only defence against such occurrences is to keep your own private arsenal. So blatantly putting profit before life, and endorsed by the paranoid victims of such evil propaganda.

I could go on ... and maybe I will be invited to. We'll have to wait and see. I'll finish by recalling that in another post, I suggested Americans ought not to citicise the British for having a social conscience and a far better attitude about co-operating with each other. I accept, therefore, that I shouldn't criticise America for wanting guns in order to perpetrate war amongst themselves. That is their society. I just don't want it anywhere near here.

I just wonder why it is that I like America and Americans so much when I find so much about them to disagree with.

It's a mystery.

[denuseri]

As a survivor of a very violent crime myself having been raped and much worse at the hands of some very bad people who by the way cared less if I submitted to apease them or not:

If given the choice, if I had possessed a gun I at the time, I would have been more than happy to shoot kill maim and or otherwise or blow the hell out of them a hundred times over to prevent what was done to me and I am sure I woundnt be bothered by any lack of sleep compared to the nighmares I still have to this day.

You may laud us who were forced to submit to survive the horror our perpetrators commited against us, all you want, but I can tell you with all sciencerity your praise sounds hollow and empty to the ninth degree.

As far as claiming to like "us" Americans so much it is rather obvious when all of one's posts speak otherwise.

I believe to "hold your hands up and scream please dont hurt me" to be farcical in it's naivety.

[Matin]

That seems insane! It's like giving criminals carte blanche to commit crimes, as long as they don't use a weapon!

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Even so, lore has it that, if you are going to shoot a criminal breaking into your home, make certain you kill him. You can always claim that he threatened the lives of your family. If he's dead it's hard for him to contradict you.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of American law, but at least I don't have to fear being sent to prison for defending my person and/or property.

lol you should. if you live in washington state, and several others - i'll get back to you with their names.

no self defence law, no defence of property law. none. zip. that crazy junkie in your house with a gun threatening your kids? run away.

your america, people. not mine, due to gang mentality in my younger years i'm no longer considered a citizen, and have no civil liberties :)

here's an ex-con's opinion, and one who went down for armed robbery; i didn't rob anyone who might be packing. and thats the truth. an armed populace tends to be a politer one.

and the problem with gun control, as i see it. the only people who lose their guns are the decent people and the collectors - crooks can get anything anywhere.

because lets face it; red tape doesn't bother the criminally minded segment of the population lol

[MMI]

denuseri,

I do not take that as an invitation to reply, and if it was one, I cannot, because I do not and cannot know what you went through. I'm truly sorry that you had to endure such a horrific crime.

I'm sure that I don't hold the views I have expressed to encourage things like that, however, but if you blame the anti-gun lobby for what happened to you, then, as one of them, I apologise.

I do like America and Americans. That doesn't mean I have to approve of everything they do or say, nor does it prevent me from speaking frankly. Besides, I think there are enough liberal-minded Americans who support my point of view to demonstrate I am not anti-American. I just find the entrenched views of right-wing reactionaries distasteful.

I know I'm just as obstinate and most right-wing Americans will detest what I say, but, so long as we don't draw weapons on each other, the argument is healthy and makes us justify our own points of view to ourselves, even if we have no hope of changing each other's minds.

We might just persuade the waverers.

[Matin]

i have to say something concerning self defence.

i see plenty of women encouraged to go buy mace or pepper spray or a gun, keep it in their purse, then go about secure in the knowlege that they can handle anything.

what i don't see is a great deal of training in the use of self defence measures. the human body responds instinctively to panic situations, and will only respond with the correct measure of violence if properly trained.

i don't mean the gun range.

set up the drill like sparring in a dojo; one person attacks, the other defends. drill in every manner you can concieve of until the responses come without thought. be sure to have a partner who is larger or at least stronger, to adequately simulate an attack.

a good knife with the skill to use it can save a person's life; without skill it's less than useless.

guns are different. a good loud bang, even if you can't hit an elephant at ten yards will often stop a potential attack, and during a struggle you don't have to worry about hitting anything - they're so close.

still the best defence is actual self defence. take martial arts, because your body is the only thing you can almost totally rely on in a stress situation. there are bones one can break and holds one can execute with very little strength brought to bear.

it all comes down to the preparation.

i am a huge proponent of martial arts because it will also train your mind to handle the overload during a combat situation. because in my experience, and this is just me, by the time i've ever known it was a fight or flight thing, flight was already out the window. so the mind must be trained to respond proactively, agressively, and with the utmost violence.

obeying marquis of queensbury rules when i was a boy got me hospitalized.

do whats necessary to live with the least amount of injury to you, and let the jury sort it out later.

sorry this is so long, as you can tell its an issue i feel very strongly about.

-matin

[denuseri]

<<has taken martial arts before, it helped lil ole me about as much as shooting rubber bands at godzilla

realistically speaking my skill level would have to equal or exceed bruce lees to be able to take down guys that are litterally twice my size even if they had no training

physics are physics

I see many many women told to take matial arts and after a couple classess go about naively with the same sence of security as if they had a gun.

I have also personally heard far too many stories from those same women survivors of rape and other viloent crimes attesting as to how little if any effectivness thier training had in a real life situation defending themselves from single let alone multiple attackers intent on raping them or worse.



Some facts available on statistics if you bother to look them up:

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

For all rapes, woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.”

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm.

The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim.

All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

(Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)



So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

[Thorne]

denuseri, I'm with you. Defending yourself with a gun is far more effective than not. But trying to defend yourself with a gun can be difficult, especially if the gun is not readily accessible. I believe that learning some other form of self defense can be just as important. A knee to your attacker's groin just might give you enough time to get that gun. And if you can break his kneecap he's not likely to be able to chase you if you run.

Against multiple attackers, though, all bets are off. Unless you are ready to open fire immediately and shoot to kill you're not likely to survive the attack.

An AK-47 might help!

[Matin]

as i hope you can tell from my posts i'm all for guns, but considering that they are getting harder to obtain for law abiding citizens i felt that the martial arts plug was appropriate.

i was never a big guy (6' 130lbs soaking wet lol) until a couple years ago when i became a gym rat out of boredom. so i can tell you and anyone else and i will defend this till i turn blue that size doesn't matter. its all in the mind, the willingness to be trained and a capacity for physical violence. also choosing the right martial art matters. some are good, some are useless. all i can say on that is do the research.

i agree theres no substitute for a gun, and also emphatically with your point about the gov't disarming a potentially restless populace. i would say take that one step further and look at how this country is in general becoming a society of victims. children are encouraged to never fight, never confront, avoid conflict, seek out an authority figure for help, no matter how small the problem. we are fostering a culture of weakness.

[denuseri]

As previously stated I allready did do the "reaserch". I also took akendo first hand from a japanese sensei with an emphasis in jujistu/akido (the style known for using the opponents size against them etc), 3 years worth in okinawa with my father who also taught force recon marines hand to hand combat.

THANK GOD he also taught me to shoot.

I will certianly agree that soceity as been transvaluating values and twisting morality to "pussify" and emasculate each generation. It has been happening ever since the supposed "reniesance" and continues to this day.

[hopperboo]

soceity as been transvaluating values and twisting morality to "pussify" and emasculate each generation. It has been happening ever since the supposed "reniesance" and continues to this day.


Hahaha.

I agree. And it's working.

Sadly enough.

[Matin]

i'm a product of the pussification of america lol. i learned 'strength from an odd source; a book called zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. (it also pushed me into my current field of work) and just one little paragraph did it. it talks about a greek word/concept - arrete, meaning excellence. meaning that one strives to run like a wolf, fight like a bear, argue like a lawyer, spout poetry like led zepplin, sing like, well, led zepplin (lmfao), etc, because to do anything less than excell in all that one does would displease the gods.

books change lives. strange... and completely OT. sorry.

[moosehunter]

Anti-Gun Laws

Just how many do we need?

If you check the laws on the books you will find that most of these laws are not enforced because they are confusing to both the public and lawenforcement.

Maybe we should ban Legal E's so laws can be written and understood.

[Muskan]

Does it Make sense to you?? (http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/does-it-make-sense-to-you.html)


“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[Muskan]

as i hope you can tell from my posts i'm all for guns, but considering that they are getting harder to obtain for law abiding citizens i felt that the martial arts plug was appropriate.


Have you ever thought what a persons all skills in martial arts will do if a terrorist with AK 47 enters the mall in which he is shopping and starts shooting at Innocent people?

What will you do no matters you have all specialties of martial arts?

But if i have a simple hand-gun, I can shoot at the terrorist firing with the AK47 killing 100's of innocent. My little handgun may not kill him nor it will be of any match with his AK47 or handgrenades, but it will certainly reduce his power and madness and stop him from shooting the innocent further.
I will again promote this site Does it make sense to you? (http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/does-it-make-sense-to-you.html)

[voxelectronica]

I'm sorry but I completley disagree with MMI and a lot of this will be from my own personal experience so I apologize for not having links at this point.




It is an undeniable fact (at least, I've never seen anyone deny it convincingly) that anyone who purposely acquires a gun, or who decides to keep one that comes into his possession, contemplates killing.

When it comes to humans I contemplate stopping. Every time that I have held a gun, been taught to use a gun or gun safety (and that's been several times). I think about stopping. Stopping someone from hurting me or my loved ones. Killing has never crossed my mind as I do not wish my human attacker any permanent harm. No I want them to live, in jail.



Apart from the "self-defence" defence, in civilised countries, only the government has the right of life or death over its citizens.

My country does not decide my fate nor does it decide the fate of people who do horrible things. They make that choice. Breaking into someones home in a state such as AZ is a life or death decision. Az. is an open carry state. Going to the grocery store you see guns. If someone decides they want to pull out their gun when others are around then they are deciding their own fate.


In the much more civilised countries, governments will give up that right.

I don't believe in more "civilized countries". One country is not inherently more civilized than the next. They're just different.



Self-defence is the use of minimum force sufficient to save your own life or that of another, which must be under real and immediate threat (not "possible" or "eventual" threat, for then you can take other avoiding actions).

I have never heard that definition of self-defense. Actually what I do hear is the act of defending one's self. There is no minimum effort. Only defending.


For most intents and purposes, if you don't happen to be carrying your gun at the time (and why would you be?), but you have time to (say) go upstairs to find it before confronting the "threat", you are not going to satisfy the "imminent threat" requirement. If the threat was "imminent" you would already be dead. If you had time to get your gun, load it, and kill your assailant, you murdered him in all probability.

Being that it's been a long time since I've lived with children around the top two people I've lived with who have been really into their guns were both involved in law enforcement. Only adults came over and there guns in easy to get to places. Also intruders take much longer to get in than what you are describing... For instance...

When I was living in Az a man was watching t.v. in his living room when someone started to kick at his locked door. He immediately went to the door... not opening it and yelled at them. They refused to enter and kicked at his door some more with the obvious intention on getting inside. He then went into his bedroom. Got his gun from his gun safe, loaded it, went back into the living room and yelled "I am trained to use the firearm in my hand and if you enter I will use it". He shot them both when they managed to kick down his door. They were high on meth. He didn't even get arrested which is usual protocol for those situations.



Gun are killing machines. They have no other purpose or function. If you have a gun, and you are not a frivolous person, then you are an actual or intending killer.

Well first of all... cars are killing machines. Let's really think about what else guns kill though... like animals for food. I carried a gun with me when I walked to the store in Az, because even in Tucson there are wild animals... everywhere. There are a lot of people whose livelihoods are based around guns... like hunters. They're a tool like any other tool. I could kill someone with a wrench but it would be a lot harder to feed people with the animal that I killed with that wrench.



Most likely the unarmed person will comply, and (in a mugging, for example) loose a watch, a mobile phone, or his wallet, but keep his life and his body whole, or (in a sexual assault) be raped.

In answer to the first post, the woman who submits to rape is infinitely superior to the woman who attempts to kill her attacker. Chances are she will survive to take her revenge later. The chances are also that the attacker will kill any woman who attempts to find her weapon, make it ready, point and fire.


Well I have problem with this on two fronts. First of all it's a myth that complying with the person who is ordering you to hand over your belongings is going to let you live. There was a case in Memphis were a man at a convince store complied completely with the robbers demands and was then shot in the face. Cases like this are increasing every year.

Second of all. You're body is not kept whole when you are raped. It's actually taken from you in several ways. Though a watch can be replaced and your credit cards stopped it takes a lot of time to be able to look at yourself and not remember someone touching you like that. If it ever really goes away. Considering the number of people who take their own life after being raped I can't even really justify how it would be better to be raped then to have to deal with the emotional aftermath of rape. So I'm sorry if I don't see the court trial and having to relive what happened to you so someone might get convicted as parallel to actually stopping the attack.



Usually she will die long before she has the opportunity to kill him.

You've never actually fired a gun have you? A properly trained person and a gun will win against a violent sex crazed maniac. It is point and click technology.

I'm sorry if i didn't fully understand the scenerios you had laid out after that and thus will not respond to them.



But people who kill for recreation? How despicable is that?

Those people don't legally own guns anyway.


A thief does not deserve to die at the hands of an American vigilante any more than he deserves to be mutilated on the orders of a Sharia court.

Again that person makes their own fate. What he deserves is less important than what someone who has committed no crime deserves.


But if you kill an innocent visitor, or a passer by, how can you make up for that?

Again those crimes are committed by people who illegally own guns. The person who owns again for their safety in my experience is properly trained on it. Is skilled in using it and will use it only in self defense. That's why people go to target practice. To ensure accurate use.


Still worse, if your child finds your gun and shows it to his friend, and one of them innocently shoots the other, how would you cope? Could you bury your child knowing you were responsible for its death - or would you rationalise it by saying it's the cost of an imprtant right? Could you attend your neighbour's child's funeral - assuming you were allowed to?

The opposite of this is how could you let your child die at the hands of an intruder? Is it not the same horrible loss?


In the UK, we have relatively few incidents where someone "freaks out" and goes on a killing spree.

Actually there are a few that come to mind off hand. They just don't happen to be with guns.

The issue really is this and it's simple. You can still buy a gun in the UK, you're just a criminal for doing it. Most likely you were a criminal before you bought it too. Here people are law abiding people and buying a gun does not change that fact at all.

[voxelectronica]

So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

thanks for the stats!

I totally agree with this. I have no idea why someone would want to submit to their government. Why they would be so willing to hand over their defenses to a group of people who can't deliver a simple message effectivley.
I have yet to see a government "save it's people".

I have also yet to see a convincing argument for gun control as well.