Quake3World

can't be arsed to read the whole thread ( and tnf's post is pretty solid ) but for trivia's sake - handguns were banned in the uk as an ill-thought kneejerk reaction to the dunblane massacre, not as a genuine means to inhibit escalating gun crime.

or the patrol cops?

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:Guns CAN protect people in certain situations. Hence my continued argument that this law be applied to certain, rare situations.

Such as? The only way you can protect yourself with a gun is to shoot the other person. Either way, someone gets shot.

There's no rationale for a law that encourages the escalation of violence while discouraging avoidance of violence.

Horseshit. If I'm being threatened by someone with a knife, a bat, or a tire iron (all of which are the threat of deadly force) and I pull a gun, what do you think is going to happen?

Let me give you a prime example of how not to deal with a nutroll with a gun. A college roommate of mine related this tale to me. He lived in an apartment below one inhabited by this hot chick. She had recently dumped her psycho boyfriend and found a new one. He was at her apartment one night when the psycho shows up, starts beating on the door and claiming he has a gun. New boyfriend tries to defend his girl and tells psycho to fuck off, he's calling the cops, etc. Guy is literally doing his best to kick down the door at this point, and new boyfriend is weighing his options. There was a shotgun and a baseball bat nearby. He thinks that psycho may not actually have a gun, and picks up the bat. This was a pretty reasonable assumption, because contrary to popular opinion, not all Americans walk around packing a .44 magnum with an 8" barrel like fucking Dirty Harry. He probably thought that dude was just trying to act like a tough guy and he figured the bat would be adequate to scare psycho off. Now, I wasn't there, nor was my roommate, so I don't know if the door was opened or kicked in. I do know that the baseball bat was the wrong choice, because new boyfriend got shot in the fucking head a couple times.
Say psycho only had a knife, but kicked the door in. Would you pick up the shotgun? I sure as fuck would, because only a fucking moron is going to disregard the barrel of a twelve gauge in his face when he's only got a pigsticker. And if said moron insists on trying to kill me, well, that's his mistake because he's going to get his arm blown off at the shoulder.

Nightshade wrote: New boyfriend tries to defend his girl and tells psycho to fuck off, he's calling the cops, etc

I would also like to add: if you think the Cops will protect you, you're wrong too. If the Cops are there they can protect you. If you're being mugged in downtown N.Y. you may be able to scream bloody murder and have a Cop come running to your aid, but in the endless suburbian sprawl that has become USA the most the Police can hope for is to catch the guy after he has committed the crime. They do all right, but there is not an officer walking a beat all night on the corner of my street.

Not that I have ever needed one

Nightshade wrote:Please ignore anything MidnightQ4 posts, because yes, he IS a fucking retard.

BTW, game, set, and match to tnf.

I googled the fraser institute. Their agenda is to reduce the government's role in public life, funding via canadian big business. Vet your sources, people.

tnf's gragh is of violent crime, not gun crime, and therefore irrelevant.

Nightshade - nice anecdote, how about some evidence? Also you've lost a bit of credibility suggesting that he'd be alive today if he had a gun when you posted this:

and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun

i blame the increase in violent crime in canada
on immigration. not in itself but poorly implemented screening of people.

and yeah our current gun registration is a joke. it's hardly enforced. used as more of tool cops can use against people of their choosing. so many people have not registered i think they may be scared to do a major crackdown because they would have to charge too many people.

no shad no


actually violent crime has been decreasing in Canada over the last 15 years or so. Also Geebs is right. Violent crime isn't a measure of gun crime.

Dukester wrote:in the endless suburbian sprawl that has become USA the most the Police can hope for is to catch the guy after he has committed the crime.

The Minority Report was science fiction. Fiction

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:no shad no


actually violent crime has been decreasing in Canada over the last 15 years or so. Also Geebs is right. Violent crime isn't a measure of gun crime.

spent much time in bc or even calgary in the last 10 years? the amount of asian crime activity is huge.

you could be right though i'm talking out my ass.

In the Minority Report they caught the guy before he committed the crime!

Let me change most to "a lot of the time" then!

Or am I just missing the point completely?

Oh wow, england had 61 murders in Q4 2003 (single statistic which does not imply a trend). Compare with the US:

Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote:The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms

and:

*

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
o a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
o a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
o family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

* During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
* On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
* Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

The home defense myth:

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

In fact just check the whole link: - this is the best I could find on the defensive use of guns.

in canada every gun needs to be trigger locked or in a locked cabinet with ammunition kept in a seperate locked container.

just an fyi.

Geebs.
.
.
.
.
.
wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i got one ting about that

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:no shad no


actually violent crime has been decreasing in Canada over the last 15 years or so. Also Geebs is right. Violent crime isn't a measure of gun crime.

Great, but everyone seems to think that the US is this lawless place where violent crimes on the street are more rampant than anywhere else in the world by a long shot. Thats why the violent crime statistic is not irrelevant.

Let's think about what started this whole thing - a law about a justifiable self-defense action with a gun when being attacked. You want to debate gun policy in general, great, but everyone kept trying to apply those general arguments to my position that this *particular* law really isn't that big of a deal or something that will lead to vigilante justice and increased shootings.

In principle, I am only pro-gun in that I believe people have a right to own them. I don't consider them the best option for self defense, I don't think that most adults that do own them are responsible enough to do so, etc...

But I'm examining THIS LAW.

As we review the comments made about this we see some comparing it to the invasion of Iraq and going with the horribly logically flawed "less restrictions = more guns = more shootings" logic, others saying we are the "wild wild west," and a great majority of you acting like this law gave people the right to shoot someone for looking at them funny and that it would result in a great majority of Americans packing so they could shoot anyone they felt like that day. That you could take this piece of legislation and exaggerate its implications in that manner is a testament to the aforementioned knee jerk responses based on gut reactions, fear, and the need to hop on the anti-US bandwagon.
The stastics I posted weren't supposed to do anything but point out that maybe some of you should take a long hard about crime in your own countries - you act like its fucking Candyland there and post-apocalyptic wasteland here. I don't like to get into statistics wars, because it is so easy to find statistics that support whatever position you want and often they only tell a small part of the story.

Hell, more kids are probably killed in sports each year than by gun deaths.

As for all those households that own guns...that is also a meaningless statistic. What % of them were purchased for hunting? What % for target practice? What % are antiques/collector's items (we've got 2 pistols - both collector's items...only in the wild wild west though, right?) Kids are killed each year with accidental gun deaths. Whose fault? The parents, usually. So what's the response? OUTLAW THEM BECAUSE IN THE HANDS OF STUPID PEOPLE THEY CAN BE RISKY.
Again, this whole argument goes so far beyond what the point of my entire argument was. It's a valid argument to have - but it was a diversionary argument in that it didn't address the details of this law - which, again, for the 100th time, is what this was supposed to be all about.

I still find it laughable that the lot of you, despite me agreeing with you that guns are not usually the most effective way to defend oneself, cannot get yourselves to admit that there are going to be situations where a gun can actually save you from a violent crime.

As for vetting the sources - again, I didn't give a flying fuck about the sources - hence the disclaimers I put in there after the data - this shit based on demographics, etc., can always have a twist thrown in it depending on whose interpreting and collecting it.

Geebs are you suggesting that guns be outlawed entirely? Let's take a look at your 'home defense' post there.
"For every time a gun was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting" - how many times was this out of the 626?

If there were four unintentional shootings for every legally justifiable one, how many people had fatal/near fatal/serious accidents that weren't gun related? I only ask because I'd like to know what else we should ban...because it sounds like you are saying that we shouldn't be arguing for personal responsibility - we should instead limit what people can and can't do.

The seven criminal assaults or homicides - do you think those homicides would definitely have not happened if guns were outlawed? Because outlawing things keeps them out of the hands of people, right?

Suicides. Were the guns the reason for those things? If we didn't have them would the suicides have been prevented?

C'mon - those statistics in that post don't mean a fucking thing.

We could say that it appears that, rather than being used for shaving, it appears that razor blades are being used to inflict injuries on suicidal teens.

S@M wrote:Geebs.
.
.
.
.
.
wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wins what? nobody has focused on the facts of this particular law.

you guys got age limits on guns ?

not like

for ages of 5 +

i mean like

for ages 18 - 90

Memphis wrote:

tnf wrote: We could say that it appears that, rather than being used for shaving, it appears that razor blades are being used to inflict injuries on suicidal teens.

I agree and respect a lot of what you post man, but razor blades are for shaving. Guns are for killing. Shit you can kill someone with a supermarket carrier bag if you wanted to. But if I go out with a Tesco bag, i'm not going out prepared with a device specifically designed and manufactured to kill someone.

I would argue that certain types of bullets are designed to kill (hollow tips, etc.)

But I would also argue that the numbers of people that engage in target shooting would suggest that some guns are not designed to kill...their predecessors were - hell, the ancestor to all these guns today had one thing in mind - killing.

How many guns that are purchased are actually used, or ever even intended to be used, for killing someone? Very few. Most are used for target practice or hunting. Others are locked in boxes because some guy thinks it will make him tough to have a gun to show his friends.

And, again, is your response then that guns should be outlawed completely?

Geebs wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Please ignore anything MidnightQ4 posts, because yes, he IS a fucking retard.

BTW, game, set, and match to tnf.

I googled the fraser institute. Their agenda is to reduce the government's role in public life, funding via canadian big business. Vet your sources, people.

tnf's gragh is of violent crime, not gun crime, and therefore irrelevant.

Nightshade - nice anecdote, how about some evidence? Also you've lost a bit of credibility suggesting that he'd be alive today if he had a gun when you posted this:

and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun

I've lost nothing of the kind. You're taking my statement out of context, and you apparently don't understand much of anything I've said. As a matter of fact, you're redirecting pretty much all of these arguments.
As to the knife vs. gun, I was talking about the will to kill, and the distance at which it's done.
My anecdote (never claimed it was anything but, but hey, I guess a firsthand account from someone I knew quite well doesn't have any sort of evidentiary weight) was addressing how the lawful defensive use of a firearm would have saved someone's life.

Geebs wrote:The home defense myth:

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

What the hell kind of comparison is that? You as a man of science should know that it's the interpretation of data that's important, and that quote fails miserably. It's just a ratio of gun crimes to legally justified shootings, not proof that guns aren't used for home defense.

Oh look, I found some stats, too.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

A few more...

With adoption of CCW by Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in early 1994, 19 states have CCW laws requiring the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms for self-defense to citizens who meet fair and reasonable state standards. Vermont, which ranks near the bottom in violent crime rates year-in and year-out, allows firearms to be carried concealed without a permit.

In recent years NRA successfully fought for the adoption of favorable CCW laws now on the books in Florida (1987), Idaho (1990, amended 1991), Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), and Oregon (1990). In recent legislative sessions, proposals for similar CCW laws have progressed in Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.

Anti-gun forces oppose CCW with a variety of arguments, ranging from deliberate misrepresentations of commonly available crime data to "studies" pretending to show that private ownership of firearms leads to death and injury rather than providing protection to the owner.

1. Firearms ownership opponents claim that "violent crime" went up in Florida since that state enacted CCW legislation in 1987, a misleading statement for multiple reasons:

Florida's homicide rate has declined 21% since adopting CCW in1987.

No comparison of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (99.3% of Florida violent crimes) beginning before 1988 is valid,according to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. In 1988,Florida changed its method of compiling crime statistics.

In Florida, as in the U.S., more than 70% of violent crimes do not involve guns. Violent crime rates, therefore, don't necessarily reflect violent gun-related crime trends. According to the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports (1992), nationwide firearms were used in the four violent crimes that make up the total "Violent Crime" category, as follows: Aggravated Assault (58% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robbery (35% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 41%; Rapes (6% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and Homicides (1% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 68%.

In Florida: Aggravated Assaults (64% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robberies (30% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 37%; Rapes (4% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and Homicides (0.7% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 61%.

2. Anti-gunners cite "studies" they claim show that firearms kept at home are "43 times more likely" to be used to kill family members than be used for self-defense. (Other "studies" claim different ratios.) The 43:1 claim, based upon a small-scale study of Kings County (Seattle) and Shelby County (Memphis), is a fraud, because it counts as self-defense gun uses only those cases in which criminals were killed in the defender's home. Approximately 99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however -- criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home. Further, suicides were counted as "family member killings" in the "study," elevating that number more than 500%. Unfortunately, some of these "studies" are funded with taxpayer dollars, through grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Memphis wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

losCHUNK wrote: heh, i aint going to get dragged into this again because last time we went through like 2 pages and achieved nothing ?

just saying that the concealed gun laws is a good idea, but in this particular thread, being able to defend yourself with the use of a deadly weapon in the street, i think thats a step back

at the end of the day, tis your country, just giving some outside views and ways in which other countries deal with the problem

And I respect your opinions, but the fact is that there are a lot of violent, gun-wielding fuckwads in this country that don't give a fuck about gun laws. The existing laws make a legitimate gun owner a criminal if he defends himself in most cases. In most states, if you're threatened by someone, you have to exhaust ALL POSSIBLE means before using deadly force, including yelling for help, screaming rape, fire, etc., and running.
If someone threatens me, and I have the ability to defend myself with a legal firearm, why should I have to turn tail and run? Not saying I'd want to instantly blast the guy, but I shouldn't be villified if I choose to protect my life from some scumbag.

Read the thread to this point so sorry if this has been covered.

I disagree
Though yourself and Chunk are debating from 2 entirely different standpoints due to your locations. Down here thieves and other cunts don't carry guns, and if they do it's some punk's grandad's rusty old winchester with one shot in it. Our gas/petrol stations really do get robbed by geezers with knives and forks.
Although I feel, even if they did carry guns, I really don't think I would feel the need to. Shit they carry knives now and I don't. So why the hell should I get a gun if they do? I'm not fucking James Bond. I have no weapons training and even I had spent a few hours shooting a sack of sand I doubt I'd then have the bottle to take on a masked robber swinging a sawn-off about. I'm happy being johnny civillian and getting to tomorrow thankyouverymuch.
I'd assume most of our population would be the same.
However across the pond, yes all the gangsta cunts do carry guns. Many civillians own guns. Being given the right to carry and actually use them anywhere in self defense however is ludicrous. More people will carry them, more people will own them and more people will use them. This is the great unwashed we're talking about. What shouldn't be done with weapons is already being done and making certain circumstances valid will open up countless loopholes of abusing both the law and the justice system. Any moron not completely missing a wingnut could figure out how to provoke someone into pulling a weapon, knowing that they already are prepared to pepper the guy in 'self defense'.

I am all for victim's rights in self defense mind. If I caught some cunt in my house blagging my warez and he came at me I'd fucking grab the nearest, heaviest whateverthefuck and batter the bastard into fucking paste with it. However, preparation for any self-defense for johnny public should not include permitting the equipping and use of a device that is manufactured with the sole purpose of killing another person IMO.
Fuck me, if my local chippie got robbed I think i'd be less scared of the balaclava'd guy with the shotgun and more of the chav taking pot shots at him from the back of the queue

Wow. That's a lot of assumptions in one post. Have you ever even BEEN to the US? For more than a few days?