Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[Dr Grump]

so you were wrong......yet again

Was I?

 

[LOki]

None of those countries are western/first world countries. Different argument too...your link includes suicide rate too...I'm talking murder. Dunno if I would say homicides include suicides. That aside, I reiterate, the countries you are talking about aren't considered western nations...

They are all western, they may not all be considered northern or first world--and suicides are not considered in any of the countries cited. Also while your article is talking gun deaths, you're talking murder--as if murder only happens when guns are used.

 

[Dr Grump]

They are all western, they may not all be considered northern or first world--and suicides are not considered in any of the countries cited. Also while your article is talking gun deaths, you're talking murder--as if murder only happens when guns are used.

They are not considered western nations (the former soviet rupublics at least). See description 6 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/western. When people talk about Western dress, you think they're talking about Bolivia? You happy that the US has a higher death rate with guns than Brazil?

That aside, that wasn't my point. The original premise by the thread starter was that guns would have saved those women. In America, the place is awash with guns, yet its murder rate is higher than England's per capita. That is the only point that matters. You can spin it, put a tail on it and call it a mule - facts are facts...

 

[LOki]

They are not considered western nations (the former soviet rupublics at least). See description 6 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/western.

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Westerncultures_map.png" width="400" height="185">
I feel pretty good about my idea of "Western Nation" even if Russia and Belarus are not on this contemporary map.

When people talk about Western dress, you think they're talking about Bolivia?

Since I don't think people are talking about lederhosen when they talk about western dress, I'd say yes.

You happy that the US has a higher death rate with guns than Brazil?

Would you be happier if they were pushed out of windows?

That aside, that wasn't my point.

It really appears that it is.

The original premise by the thread starter was that guns would have saved those women.

The actual original premise of the thread starter, as opposed to the premise you just made up, was that if those women were armed with guns, they could have defended themselves. An appurtenant premise might have been since it is illegal for these women to carry guns, they were deprived of the most effective means available for defending their lives--by their own government.

In America, the place is awash with guns, yet its murder rate is higher than England's per capita. That is the only point that matters.

Of course that's "the only point that matters" if your aggenda is to take guns out of the hands of the governed. The difference in murder rates between England and the U.S. is probably much more heavily influenced by factors other than guns. You see, the rest of us would say that the real point is violent crime, and the manner in which violent crime (gun related or otherwise) increases when regular, sensible, folks are disarmed. To us sensible folks, it does not matter at all that some violent sociopath chooses a gun over a baseball bat to commit murder--but it's "the only point that matters" for the retards with a gun grabbing aggenda.

You can spin it, put a tail on it and call it a mule - facts are facts...

You can spin it any way you like, the fact remains that violent crimes are stopped by otherwise defenseless people more often than they are committed buy those who the anti-gun crowd would abet.

 

[nukeman]

If you will look at the statistics for violent crime in the US you will note that the states with the easiest Concealed weapons permit have the lowest violent crime per capita.

The problem with gun controll it ONLY WORKS FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The criminal element will use what ever is available to them to commit their crime if thats a gun, knife, bat, rock, scissors, or just plain old bare hands, they will use what ever they feel will give them the upper hand. Now if they are concerned you might be carring a gun they are more apt to leave you alone for fear of being killed.

If everyone had to give up guns then the criminal ellement would have carte blanche to do as they would because like I stated earlier laws only work on law abiding citizens.

interesting data showing the decline in violent crime with the inacting of RTC (right to carry)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=125&issue=003

Here is another interesting sight you can dig thru each state and find actuall data for all violent vs homicide rates I do find it funny that in order to play down the numbers they swich between per 100,000 and per 10,000. Typical BS. However I have looked thru a number of states that have stringent RTC laws vs those that dont and the numbers are telling. The only state that has a very low homicide rate and strict RTC laws is Hawaii and you will all note it is extremely isolated. California and Illinois which have some of the tightest RTC laws have some of the Highest homicide rates, makes you want to go HMMMMMMM doesnt it.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri_percap-crime-violent-per-capita

You will also note the states with the highest per capita homicede rate also have the highest influx of illegal immigrants..

 

[Gunny]

If guns are the answer, why does the US have the highest homicide rate in the Western World, not just with raw data, but per capita, too...

old study, but food for thought...http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

Sure. It's much better to just wait for a cop to show up and save you prior to your being murdered by a more physically capable assailant.

 

[Gunny]

They are not considered western nations (the former soviet rupublics at least). See description 6 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/western. When people talk about Western dress, you think they're talking about Bolivia? You happy that the US has a higher death rate with guns than Brazil?

That aside, that wasn't my point. The original premise by the thread starter was that guns would have saved those women. In America, the place is awash with guns, yet its murder rate is higher than England's per capita. That is the only point that matters. You can spin it, put a tail on it and call it a mule - facts are facts...

If you're going to stand on fact, let's try not to omit the one's you don't like. Like the fact that people like you brainwash the very people who should carry a weapon as a means of self defense with your dishonest rhetoric.

The fact is, if any of these women had possessed, were trained in the use of and willing to employ a firearm in self-defense, they would have a far-better chance of surviving/fending off an attack.

Then there is also the fact you fail to mention that the majority of handgun murders in the US are not carried out by people who have legally purchased and own firearms. The only people disarmed by outlawing guns are the law-abiding ones. The criminals aren't going to think twice except maybe to celebrate the fact that people like you have disarmed their prey.

 

[nukeman]

If you're going to stand on fact, let's try not to omit the one's you don't like. Like the fact that people like you brainwash the very people who should carry a weapon as a means of self defense with your dishonest rhetoric.

The fact is, if any of these women had possessed, were trained in the use of and willing to employ a firearm in self-defense, they would have a far-better chance of surviving/fending off an attack.

Then there is also the fact you fail to mention that the majority of handgun murders in the US are not carried out by people who have legally purchased and own firearms. The only people disarmed by outlawing guns are the law-abiding ones. The criminals aren't going to think twice except maybe to celebrate the fact that people like you have disarmed their prey.

hear hear

You must first spread some reputation before giving it to GunnyL

 

[Dr Grump]

I feel pretty good about my idea of "Western Nation" even if Russia and Belarus are not on this contemporary map.

If you want to be a pedant. I'll say first world or OECD then...

Since I don't think people are talking about lederhosen when they talk about western dress, I'd say yes.

I'd say no (shrug)

Would you be happier if they were pushed out of windows?

Nope.

It really appears that it is.

You'd be wrong.

The actual original premise of the thread starter, as opposed to the premise you just made up, was that if those women were armed with guns, they could have defended themselves.

Are you that desperate to "score" the point.? What is the difference between the guns saving the women from getting killed or the guns helping them defend themselves?

An appurtenant premise might have been since it is illegal for these women to carry guns, they were deprived of the most effective means available for defending their lives--by their own government.

Possibly true. Yet, as a society, the US has a higher murder rate per capita than the UK and the access to guns in the US is easier...

Of course that's "the only point that matters" if your aggenda is to take guns out of the hands of the governed.

Really? Is that my agenda? What is my agenda?

The difference in murder rates between England and the U.S. is probably much more heavily influenced by factors other than guns. You see, the rest of us would say that the real point is violent crime,.

I wouldn't disagree that that is a fair point or that there are other influences. My point is this: If you have guns, it doesn't necessarily mean it will stop you from getting killed. And if you have guns, it doesn't necessarily mean you have a politer society with regard to violence.

] and the manner in which violent crime (gun related or otherwise) increases when regular, sensible, folks are disarmed.

Really? I'd love you to give me an indepth study backing up that assertion. That being the case I would expect the instances of murder to be higher in FIRST WORLD countries where guns are not so prevelent than in a country like the US that has a tonne of guns available to its citizenry...

To us sensible folks, it does not matter at all that some violent sociopath chooses a gun over a baseball bat to commit murder--but it's "the only point that matters" for the retards with a gun grabbing aggenda.

Fair point too..

You can spin it any way you like, the fact remains that violent crimes are stopped by otherwise defenseless people more often than they are committed buy those who the anti-gun crowd would abet.

What are those percentages?

 

[Dr Grump]

If you're going to stand on fact, let's try not to omit the one's you don't like. Like the fact that people like you brainwash the very people who should carry a weapon as a means of self defense with your dishonest rhetoric.

I'm not trying to brainwash anybody. I have yet to find any pro-gunny change their stance while discussing the pros and cons on a messageboard.

The fact is, if any of these women had possessed, were trained in the use of and willing to employ a firearm in self-defense, they would have a far-better chance of surviving/fending off an attack.

That is doubtful. The last report I saw was that the police said on the first three victims there was no sign of struggle, which leads them to believe they might have been drugged so are awaiting autopsy results.

Then there is also the fact you fail to mention that the majority of handgun murders in the US are not carried out by people who have legally purchased and own firearms. The only people disarmed by outlawing guns are the law-abiding ones. The criminals aren't going to think twice except maybe to celebrate the fact that people like you have disarmed their prey.

All true as far as I know..

 

[Dr Grump]

This does not say the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western World.

Venezuela has a higher homocide rate.
Russia has a higher homocide rate.
Mexico has a higher homocide rate.
Lithuania has a higher homocide rate.
Latvia has a higher homocide rate.
Estonia has a higher homocide rate.
El Salvador has a higher homocide rate.
Equador has a higher homocide rate.
Columbia has a higher homocide rate.
Brazil has a higher homocide rate.
Belarus has a higher homocide rate.
The Bahamas has a higher homocide rate.
Armenia has a higher homocide rate.

Cliky

Missed this little nugget. You're own link seems to contridict your assertion.

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not trying to brainwash anybody. I have yet to find any pro-gunny change their stance while discussing the pros and cons on a messageboard.

I'm not discussing the illogical, liberal stance on hanguns in the context of brainwashing anyone on a message board. But you know that. Within the context of the anti-gun misinformation.propaganda campaign, it amounts to brainwashing. There's no other way to get a lot of people to ignor simple logic and common sense.


That is doubtful. The last report I saw was that the police said on the first three victims there was no sign of struggle, which leads them to believe they might have been drugged so are awaiting autopsy results.

The victim is ALWAYS at the mercy of the assailant. The victim is always in reaction mode. All things being equal, a person trained to react and armed with a weapon that equalizes physycal difference/disadvantage has a far-better chance of surviving a violent encounter.

If the victims were compliant and trapped, gun ownership isn't relevant to the issue.



All true as far as I know..

/

 

[Gunny]

Missed this little nugget. You're own link seems to contridict your assertion.

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

And the highest hangun murder rate in the US per capita is in Washington DC, a city where it is illegal to possess a handgun.

 

[Dr Grump]

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

And the highest hangun murder rate in the US per capita is in Washington DC, a city where it is illegal to possess a handgun.

So I believe. Also, DC has a huge drug problem, which would suggest there is more to it than just the lack of guns causing the problem...

 

[Dr Grump]

/

Nothing illogical about it. A society with certain restrictions on firearms is a more civilised society IMO...Note, I don't say there should be a ban on guns...

 

[Gunny]

So I believe. Also, DC has a huge drug problem, which would suggest there is more to it than just the lack of guns causing the problem...

The point is, there isn't a lack of guns. There is a lack of guns among law-abiding citizens. The criminals, who by definition are livign outside the law anyway, most certainly don't see breaking one more law as any big deal.

 

[Gunny]

Nothing illogical about it. A society with certain restrictions on firearms is a more civilised society IMO...Note, I don't say there should be a ban on guns...

I disagree. Restricting firearms has no bearing on the level of civilization in a society. Personal accountability would be a far better qualifier, and in htis Nation, personal accountability is something we read about in history books. Right down to the basic argument of gun control.

The argument is that the guns themselves are somehow evil. A gun is an inanimate object -- a tool -- that requires a conscious, phsycal act to operate. IMO, where we fail in our legislation is that if someone uses or even possesses a gun during the commission of a crime, they automatically get 20 with no breaks/time off for good behavior/parole or probation just for that fact alone and pile the other crimes on top of that.

And where exactly do we draw the line? Anyone who is innovative can make a weapon out of anything. If I assault you with a pencil and jam it through either your ear or your eye and kill you, do we outlaw "assault pencils?"

We need to get back to blaming the criminals for their actions and punishing them for them, not looking for some frivilous scapegoat.

 

[trobinett]

I disagree. Restricting firearms has no bearing on the level of civilization in a society. Personal accountability would be a far better qualifier, and in htis Nation, personal accountability is something we read about in history books. Right down to the basic argument of gun control.

The argument is that the guns themselves are somehow evil. A gun is an inanimate object -- a tool -- that requires a conscious, phsycal act to operate. IMO, where we fail in our legislation is that if someone uses or even possesses a gun during the commission of a crime, they automatically get 20 with no breaks/time off for good behavior/parole or probation just for that fact alone and pile the other crimes on top of that.

And where exactly do we draw the line? Anyone who is innovative can make a weapon out of anything. If I assault you with a pencil and jam it through either your ear or your eye and kill you, do we outlaw "assault pencils?"

We need to get back to blaming the criminals for their actions and punishing them for them, not looking for some frivilous scapegoat.

Just so there isn't ANY misunderstanding, I believe citizens have a DUTY, and RIGHT to arm themselves, its just one in a handful of ways we have to protect our rights.

Further, I also believe you give up that RIGHT once you commit a felony, and if caught with a firearm of ANYKIND will be transported right to jail, no more questions asked.

I do believe though, that gun's make cowards more likely to commit violent crimes, THAT is the dilemma we fine ourselves in today.

I don't believe in registering weapons of ANY kind, don't believe in taking psychological tests to see if I should even own a gun, another dilemma.

The whole gun CONTROL issue is one dilemma after another, but my feeling is, it doesn't have to be that way.

The feel good crowd, the group that hides under their bed when the wind blows the tree up againts the house, when a criminal escapes from prison, when anything, that intrudes into their tidy little world upsets them, their the ones, that make GUN CONTROL an issue. Their the ones, that tie up the 911 lines for silly little reasons, "my cats up the tree", "my negibor is playing his music too loud".

Use to be, people dealt with these things themselves, didn't shut the world out, got to know their neighbors, didn't RELEY on the Police to due damn near everything.

I'll keep my gun's, and I'll protect my family, and I'll deal with the everyday issues of life, WITHOUT the government's help.

Thank you.

 

[MissileMan]

We need to get back to blaming the criminals for their actions and punishing them for them, not looking for some frivilous scapegoat.

You mean scapegoats like the clothing a woman is wearing?

 

[Gunny]

You mean scapegoats like the clothing a woman is wearing?

I mean a "scapegoat" like blaming the gun rather than the person who uses it.