I arrived at home 10 minutes early from class...

[Homem de Gelo]

... and found this stranger wandering in my backyard. He said he was looking for a lost dog and that my mom had let him in. But my mom wasn't even at home. So I told him to leave and he did. I didn't try any agressive action because, I don't know why in this world, he had our shovel in his hand I didn't want to risk being beat buy it, because I'm still recovering form my surgery and totally not in conditions to fight.

Anyhow, I'm sure the guy got in because he noticed that our garage's gate is bent, because my brother made the favour of bumping into it while trying to park the car. So all he had to do was push it and open it.

So now everyone at home is feelin' somewhat unsafe and watched, and we are going to fix the gate tommorow morning.

And the reason I started thius was because today, for the first time, I thought it might be better if we had a gun here at home, although now I'm again totally unsure about the idea. Not that I risk buying one, I'd rather spend my money on alcohol and pimpin'.

What do you think about it?
Do you have a gun at your home?
If not, do you think there should be one?
How safe, on a scale from 1 to 5 do you feel at home?

[Burrito]

nice one....

I don't have a gun, don't need or want a gun either....

I feel a 5 out of 5 but then again I'm not american.....

[Doza]

I live outside of town, so theives and baddies don't waste gas to rob a poor person when they could rob some rich person in town's house.

[NAZCA C2]

Hey man its a good thing you are alright. If that happened at my house that dude wouldnt have left without a minimum or ten shots in his ass! I think everybody should own a gun for their protection as long as they are responsible and not an idiot. I dont know what the gun laws are like in your country though.

[Egg Nog]

Hey man its a good thing you are alright. If that happened at my house that dude wouldnt have left without a minimum or ten shots in his ass! I think everybody should own a gun for their protection as long as they are responsible and not an idiot. I dont know what the gun laws are like in your country though.

I think that HBoss acted how he should've. If everyone was allowed to own a gun, it would do a whole lot more harm than good.

Case Study: The United States of America

[NAZCA C2]

I think that HBoss acted how he should've. If everyone was allowed to own a gun, it would do a whole lot more harm than good.

Case Study: The United States of America

in this country (USA) guns are used many more times to prevent crimes than to commit them, but you only hear about the bad side of guns because sensationalism sells.

[Egg Nog]

in this country (USA) guns are used many more times to prevent crimes than to commit them, but you only hear about the bad side of guns because sensationalism sells.

Of course they are used more to prevent crimes than to commit them, but how many times they are commited is what really matters. The bottom line is, if nobody has any guns (save for the police, of course), its a heck of a lot safer than it is otherwise.

Just for example, if an average gun prevents five crimes and causes one death, one person still dies, and that's awful.

[NAZCA C2]

Of course they are used more to prevent crimes than to commit them, but how many times they are commited is what really matters. The bottom line is, if nobody has any guns (save for the police, of course), its a heck of a lot safer than it is otherwise.

Just for example, if an average gun prevents five crimes and causes one death, one person still dies, and that's awful.

i dont know about canada but in the US guns are here to stay. if the govt said tomorrow that everybody has to turn in their guns it wouldnt make anybody safer. the criminals would still get guns just like they get drugs or anything else thats illegal. the problem is that laws in this country are nor enforced like they should be.

[Egg Nog]

i dont know about canada but in the US guns are here to stay. if the govt said tomorrow that everybody has to turn in their guns it wouldnt make anybody safer. the criminals would still get guns just like they get drugs or anything else thats illegal. the problem is that laws in this country are nor enforced like they should be.

That's a little more like it :)

The real problem is the whole constitutional firearms thing... if it started being enforced, I'm sure the problems would be worked out over the following decade. The thing is, it doesn't really seem like there's a big movement for it :(

[cls12vg30]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Constitutional firearms thing", but the states which have seen the largest drop in violent crime in the past 10 years are those states which have provisions for allowing law-abiding people to own and carry guns, and have also cracked down HARD on illegal guns. Virginia is a good case study.
On the other side of the coin (and the Potomac River) you have Washington, D.C., in which private ownership of firearms has been totally banned since 1976, and has the highest murder rate in the nation.
The fact is, unless someone can figure out a way to un-invent the firearm, I would much prefer to be able to legally obtain and carry a gun than to have criminals be the only ones armed.
It's very interesting, the European guys seem to think that the entire U.S. is a big shooting gallery, when in actuality, unless you're living a violent, criminal lifestyle your chances of encountering gun violence are extremely slim. Of course, when the statisticians make their numbers about gun violence, they don't differentiate between you, me, and a gangbanger in downtown Detroit.
One of the things the Europeans have trouble relating to is that many Americans, including myself, are fundamentally unwilling to totally entrust their safety and that of their families to any government entity, and that includes the police. The very idea is revolting.
I have a surplus Czech army service pistol on my nightstand. It's legally owned, I take it to a shooting range at least once a month, and at home I keep it loaded with MagSafe rounds to prevent a ricochet or wall penetration in the event I ever have to fire it here, which I consider very very unlikely. I live in an apartment complex in part of town that is quite safe, and I know several of my neighbors are also armed, which makes me feel even better.

[NoOne]

I feel pretty safe at home. I have convinced my wife that it is more important to have the doors locked when we ARE home than when we are out. Break in take what you want when we are not home, I don't care ... its all replaceable, break in and put a gun to my family ... I don't even want to consider that possibility.

My own opinion on guns at home, is that I'm totally against it, there is always the possibilty that the home invader could find it and use it against you, when they may otherwise be unarmed.
For people who have young children, the problem worsens, what if there is an accidental discharge? ...its not supposed to happen and 99% of the time it doesn't ... what about that 1%?

[cls12vg30]

My own opinion on guns at home, is that I'm totally against it, there is always the possibilty that the home invader could find it and use it against you, when they may otherwise be unarmed.

Well the only way I can see that the invader would find the gun before you is if you came home when the invader was still there, and he'd had time beforehand to find it. That's a valid concern, but when you think about it if that did happen, even if nobody was armed, odds are somebody's going to get hurt, and I think that the chances are greater that the weapon will be an asset to you in a home invasion situation than a liability. Even so, when I'm not home the gun is hidden, for the very reason you described.


For people who have young children, the problem worsens, what if there is an accidental discharge? ...its not supposed to happen and 99% of the time it doesn't ... what about that 1%?

If you have kids, the whole equation changes dramatically. No way would a gun even be in the house unless it was in a safe. As a matter of fact, leaving a firearm where it is accessible to a minor is a crime.

Among gun owners there is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge. The term used is "negligent" discharge, because if a gun goes off when it's not supposed to, it's no accident, somebody screwed up.

[crisis]

If you have kids, the whole equation changes dramatically. No way would a gun even be in the house unless it was in a safe. As a matter of fact, leaving a firearm where it is accessible to a minor is a crime.
Among gun owners there is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge. The term used is "negligent" discharge, because if a gun goes off when it's not supposed to, it's no accident, somebody screwed up.
For every responsible gun owner there would be two irresponsible ****wits. That as you say in the second paragraph is the problem. Unfortunately I dont think gun laws descriminate against ****wits until its too late. I know a few people who own guns. In particular the ones who are gun enthusiats , I would not judge to be of the character that should have them. But legally they can . In Australia the massacre in Tasmania caused a knee jerk reaction by the government which compelled people to sell their guns back to the govenrment. All semi automatic, automatic and pistols are illegal for public use. You can own pistols if you are a member of a gun club. The gun lobby of course cried foul saying that if all honest people gave back their guns only the crooks would have them. So you have the choice . If its too hard do nothing? If only crooks have these guns it will be easy to spot a crook. We have very few fatal shootings here in Australia. I heard today of an 8 year old in America being caught in the cross fire between two scumbags shooting it out in a public place. Thats not the world I want to live in. you can not uninvent guns but like drugs you can continually confiscate them when you find them. Does that solve the problem? No. Does it reduce the likely hood of them being used? It has to. Thats the best we can hope for.

[crisis]

[QUOTE=HBossWhat do you think about it?
Do you have a gun at your home?
If not, do you think there should be one?
How safe, on a scale from 1 to 5 do you feel at home?[/QUOTE]
Would it have done any good to call the cops?

[Homem de Gelo]

Would it have done any good to call the cops?

Not really, knowing the cops in town and the situation, the best they could do was tell people here at home to be extra careful and not bump into the stupid garage gate again.

So far all I have with me is a baseball bat and metal bar. Guns are deadlier, but one good hit on the head and I'll knock out the shit out of anyone in this world.

[cls12vg30]

We have very few fatal shootings here in Australia.

I'm sure that's true, though every study I've seen has shown that, though low, the rate of such crimes has actually increased in Australia since the guns were banned. Not nearly as badly as in the U.K. though.
Also, there are major historical and demographical differences between the U.S. and Australia that make them two very different situations.
The simple fact is that there is quite a bit of violent crime in urban areas here, and those cities and states with the highest murder and violent crime rates are also the cities and states with the strictest gun control laws.

[crisis]

those cities and states with the highest murder and violent crime rates are also the cities and states with the strictest gun control laws.
Good thing they do then.

[Falcon500]

Well i personally have had a person walk around our back yard at 2am...i can thank late night interneting in here for catching him.
I heard him spray somthing on the ground and i heard footsteps so i look around the back open the small door thingie (like a door within a door on iour back door with afly screen over it) and flicked the light on and the dick head walked on like nothing happened he didnt notice me standing there looking at him (must of thought it was a sensor light) so i ominously say "G'DAY" and he piss bolted...would of been a lad of about 14 cheaking out our shed...if the covers were up on the falcon or he was cheaking anything else he had a chance of breaking into i wouldof been waiting out the front ready to roll him...MY STUFF MY FAMILY DONT F*** WITH IT im very defensive about our stuff and my family and friends i dont care about myself in that sense.
As for guns it depends on the user i personally wish to get my firearms liscence as id like to go shooting (culling mostly good money and give me somthing else to do and a new tallent) join a club and get myself a Mauser (i think the germans done a great job on their ww2 fire arms and they are still very availble) and if in that situation i could of put the fear of god into him...and no i wouldent of shot him probly wouldent even have it loaded but still the image is scary enough!
As for feeling unsafe about a 3 be cautious but rember being caught out really puts them off un;ess they saw somthing that made $$$ signs float over their eyes their not likely to come back. And tell the police give a description it could all help make them aware of the person you never know you mioghtend be the first...and glad your ok.

[cls12vg30]

Good thing they do then.

I disagree. The way I see it, those laws obviously have zero affect on the number of armed criminals preying on the populace. Which of course makes perfect sense, a criminal has no more interest in obeying gun laws than any other laws. All the laws do is remove the right of the citizens to effectively defend themselves.
Over the past ten years there has been a trend in the U.S. of more and more states enacting new laws in order to establish a system whereby any law-abiding citizen can, after being properly trained, carry a concealed firearm in public. 41 out of 50 states now have these allowances. Despite warnings from some that these laws would lead to bloodbaths in the streets, crimes committed with legally-carried firearms have been virtually zero. What has happened has been a consistent drop in violent crime in those states that have allowed concealed carry. In my state approx. 3% of the population hold concealed carry permits.

[NoOne]

I disagree. The way I see it, those laws obviously have zero affect on the number of armed criminals preying on the populace. Which of course makes perfect sense, a criminal has no more interest in obeying gun laws than any other laws. All the laws do is remove the right of the citizens to effectively defend themselves.
Over the past ten years there has been a trend in the U.S. of more and more states enacting new laws in order to establish a system whereby any law-abiding citizen can, after being properly trained, carry a concealed firearm in public. 41 out of 50 states now have these allowances. Despite warnings from some that these laws would lead to bloodbaths in the streets, crimes committed with legally-carried firearms have been virtually zero. What has happened has been a consistent drop in violent crime in those states that have allowed concealed carry. In my state approx. 3% of the population hold concealed carry permits.

You may be correct as far as crimes committed with legally carried firearms, but the fact remains that if they are in the least bit accessable in the home then disaster can strike, ... a childs curiosity or a teenager thinking a gun is cool, or worse a way to threaten someone who had done them wrong. I hate to bring up school shootings, but it is a very scary reality.

Here's a link to world-wide school shootings http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html and a quick info breakdown.

Between Feb. 2 1996 and Sept. 24 2003 there has been a reported 37 cases of school shootings, 29 of which occurred in the U.S.A.
24 teachers/principals killed
68 children (aged 6-19) killed
124 students wounded

For me that is more than enough to keep a gun out of my house, I don't know where all the guns came from in these shootings, I'm sure some were bought "on the street" , but what scares me the most is wondering how many were found in their own homes?

As Crisis had pointed out, there are responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones too, how can it be determined before its too late? I would not want to (potentially) have to bury my own children because of a series of events that started with one of these irresponsible gun owners.

My apologies if I come across too harsh or melodramatic.

[Batmobile_Turbo]

Hey man its a good thing you are alright. If that happened at my house that dude wouldnt have left without a minimum or ten shots in his ass! I think everybody should own a gun for their protection as long as they are responsible and not an idiot. I dont know what the gun laws are like in your country though.
i hate that :mad: having guns is a stupid idea, in americas gun culture it might be ok but you could kill someone with a gun, should it be considered self defence if all the guy was doing was skulking in your backyard or broke into your house and then you kill him? this guy sounds very suspicious to me but if you had shot him and he really was looking for a dog you wuld feel really bad for the reswt of your life if you killed him, so i think you should not get a gun, get mace or a baseball bat :p

[Batmobile_Turbo]

however i do think that if guns are locked up and kept away from anyone who doesn't know jow to use them, then they are good for hunting and skeet shooting and stuff like that.

[crisis]

You may be correct as far as crimes committed with legally carried firearms, but the fact remains that if they are in the least bit accessable in the home then disaster can strike, ... a childs curiosity or a teenager thinking a gun is cool, or worse a way to threaten someone who had done them wrong. I hate to bring up school shootings, but it is a very scary reality.

Here's a link to world-wide school shootings http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html and a quick info breakdown.

Between Feb. 2 1996 and Sept. 24 2003 there has been a reported 37 cases of school shootings, 29 of which occurred in the U.S.A.
24 teachers/principals killed
68 children (aged 6-19) killed
124 students wounded

For me that is more than enough to keep a gun out of my house, I don't know where all the guns came from in these shootings, I'm sure some were bought "on the street" , but what scares me the most is wondering how many were found in their own homes?

As Crisis had pointed out, there are responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones too, how can it be determined before its too late? I would not want to (potentially) have to bury my own children because of a series of events that started with one of these irresponsible gun owners.

My apologies if I come across too harsh or melodramatic.
They arent.
Many of the reports of school shootings have a background where the person used their parents fire arms or their own. I find the sights and reports you see from time to time of parents encouraging their children to worship guns. I have no problem with fire arms themselves and have often thought of buying one for rabbit shooting and the like but in the end cant justify it. Its the gun culture and the disturbing mentality that many Americans have that they have a right to bare fire arms. Perhaps a right to carry swords as well.

[Falcon500]

They arent.
Many of the reports of school shootings have a background where the person used their parents fire arms or their own. I find the sights and reports you see from time to time of parents encouraging their children to worship guns. I have no problem with fire arms themselves and have often thought of buying one for rabbit shooting and the like but in the end cant justify it. Its the gun culture and the disturbing mentality that many Americans have that they have a right to bare fire arms. Perhaps a right to carry swords as well.
Well a lot of kids who do school shootings have been linked to games like time crisis...the interesting point raised in that is kids nowdays are desensatised by playing games where they are shooting at realistic humans. Nowdays they use simulators in the army that run much like games like that toget them used to shooting at people. I cant personally see why anyone would shoot another human being with out at least batting an eyelid i done work experiance at a vet and i felt ill whatching the surgery so im doubting id easily get over maiming someone with a firearm.
One bit i rember from the news was some young boy clad in glasses and looked like aprime target for bullys who used to basiclylive for them games and he stood in front of the school cafateria had a face like a mask of stone drew a semi automatic and the only movements he made where at the shoulders much like a person useing these a gun on one of them games. Personally i think society can be blamed for the gun culture kids ARE being programmed all over the world that guns are ok and being desesitised toshooting at another human being.

[NoOne]

I believe you can get desensitized to a lot of things, but I'm not sure killing another person is one of them .... that screw has to be loose in the first place. I honestly believe the only people who can possibly get desensitized to another persons death are people who live with death on a daily basis from childhood on up, for example: people in these third world African countries where people die at an alarming rate from disease and hunger.

A few years ago they were blaming violent video games and supposedly "evil" heavy metal music, bands like Judas Priest, Megadeth, Black Sabbath, Marilyn Manson, etc were criticized and accused of subliminal messages that were causing kids to commit suicide or do things that would have been "out of character" for them, what a load of BS !!

The best information I've heard on the outbreak of school shootings, is a spoken word commentary by Jello Biafra (ex-lead singer for the dead kennedys, brilliant spoken word artist) entitled Hellburbia - download it and give it a thorough listen before deciding whether or not you agree with his views, as he can be as harsh as he is factual and opinionated.

[cls12vg30]

As anyone who has read this thread knows, I am 100% behind the right to bear arms. Some gun owners are no doubt irresponsible, and they should be and are prosecuted when their irresponsibility results in injury or death to another person. I believe the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have been prosecuted as accessories to murder because of their apathy and irresponsibility as parents. Under the laws that exist now they would be.

However I don't believe in punishing or restricting the rights of responsible people for the sake of a false sense of safety from irresponsible ones. An irresponsible driver can be more dangerous than an irresponsible gun owner, and of course far more children are buried each year because of irresponsible drivers than guns. (Actually more children are buried each year because of medical mistakes than guns as well). And after all, drivers are expected to take their car out in public places. The only people who can legally do that with a gun are concealed-carry permit holders, and from personal experience I can say that those permit holders are some of the most responsible people I know of, and take the responsibility of carrying a gun VERY seriously. There is an unwritten but understood rule, at least here, that concealed-carry permit holders are held to a higher standard of behavior than most other people. You may only hear about shooting rampages and other violent crimes, what you don't hear about are the 500,000 - 2 million incidents annually in the U.S. when the presence of a firearm prevented a violent crime and possibly saved a life, 99% of the time without a shot being fired. Then take into account the potential lives saved by the fact that, in states where concealed-carry is permitted, overall violent crime rates have dropped significantly in the years following the institution of concealed-carry.

The Hollywood gun culture may encourage a light-hearted attitude toward guns among the general populace, but there is another "gun culture", that you will experience at shooting clubs, ranges, and in the homes of legal gun owners around the country. This culture shrugs off the stupidity that comes out of Hollywood, and takes safety and responsibility with firearms extremely seriously. Improperly handle a firearm around such legal American gun owners and enthusiasts and you will be chastised severely. Show a cavalier attitude towards guns and gun safety and you will probably be asked to leave.

I find it rather disgusting that some of the same people who oppose the right of the average citizen to keep a firearm, are these Hollywood moviemakers and other media types who glorify violence and armed criminal activity in their movies, TV shows, and video games. Such hypocrisy. Of course, they can afford to and do hire armed bodyguards for their own self-defense, at the same time they seek to deny that same right to the average person.

[NoOne]

An irresponsible driver can be more dangerous than an irresponsible gun owner, and of course far more children are buried each year because of irresponsible drivers than guns. (Actually more children are buried each year because of medical mistakes than guns as well). And after all, drivers are expected to take their car out in public places.
Firearms exist only to kill and have been since since their invention 200 something years ago. Cars exist for transportation. I realize this thread was not stated to revolve around the school shootings, but it does become very relevant, I have not heard of many (if any) mass murders where a car was the weapon, I haven't read any news of a car being driven through a schoolyard in order to kill fellow students. My point being that children may get killed by irresponsible drivers involved in accidents, but "gun play" can hardly be called accidents. My parents belong to a rifle club, their guns are always at the club locked away, there is no need to store them at home. I really don't see the need for concealed weapons, why not issue everyone a gun and "level the playing field"?

What scares me is that I remember, getting into fights at school, you might get a fat lip, a black eye or a broken nose, the worst was losing face in front of your peers, school fights now can result in getting stabbed or shot, I worry what high school will be like in 7 yrs when my oldest son will start attending.

[cls12vg30]

What scares me is that I remember, getting into fights at school, you might get a fat lip, a black eye or a broken nose, the worst was losing face in front of your peers, school fights now can result in getting stabbed or shot, I worry what high school will be like in 7 yrs when my oldest son will start attending.

I agree with you, which is why I support the strict enforcement of existing gun laws, which if enforced would prevent that sort of thing. I just don't believe any additional laws are going to do anything to take guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. All they would do is make if more difficult or impossible for citizens like you and me to defend ourselves, our families and our homes, and leave us at the mercy of already-armed criminals whom the police have been unable to remove from the streets.


why not issue everyone a gun and "level the playing field"?

Now don't go getting ridiculous. The laws in effect here, which serve to keep all legal guns out of the hands of former criminals, domestic assaulters, and mental patients, and also require a citizen to go through a good amount of effort and expense (approx. $200 USD + cost of weapon) in order to obtain a carry permit, has in my experience had the effect of making sure that the only people who have such permits are those who have considered the responsibility and made a personal decision to take on that responsibility. As I said, I personally know many such people who hold these permits, and not only are they not criminals, alcoholic rednecks, militia anarchists, or psychotic gun-worshippers as Micheal Moore and others would like you to believe, they are some of the most upstanding, well-rounded, and down-to-earth individuals I have ever known. They have no wish to harm anyone, but they take their responsibility for the safety of their families and communities seriously, and they do not completely trust any government entity to maintain that safety for them. And rightly so IMHO.

[Falcon500]

As anyone who has read this thread knows, I am 100% behind the right to bear arms. Some gun owners are no doubt irresponsible, and they should be and are prosecuted when their irresponsibility results in injury or death to another person. I believe the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have been prosecuted as accessories to murder because of their apathy and irresponsibility as parents. Under the laws that exist now they would be.

However I don't believe in punishing or restricting the rights of responsible people for the sake of a false sense of safety from irresponsible ones. An irresponsible driver can be more dangerous than an irresponsible gun owner, and of course far more children are buried each year because of irresponsible drivers than guns. (Actually more children are buried each year because of medical mistakes than guns as well). And after all, drivers are expected to take their car out in public places. The only people who can legally do that with a gun are concealed-carry permit holders, and from personal experience I can say that those permit holders are some of the most responsible people I know of, and take the responsibility of carrying a gun VERY seriously. There is an unwritten but understood rule, at least here, that concealed-carry permit holders are held to a higher standard of behavior than most other people. You may only hear about shooting rampages and other violent crimes, what you don't hear about are the 500,000 - 2 million incidents annually in the U.S. when the presence of a firearm prevented a violent crime and possibly saved a life, 99% of the time without a shot being fired. Then take into account the potential lives saved by the fact that, in states where concealed-carry is permitted, overall violent crime rates have dropped significantly in the years following the institution of concealed-carry.
OHHH fat load of good getting charged after the fact when some poor bastard is dead isnt it? You are a bloody selfish person really you are restrictions get put on when something becomes a problem...just because it spoils your fun and therefore isnt a good idea to have a good stab at saveing lifes doesnt make it worth a try?
And the facts you are giveing are half truths while less deaths are caused by guns than an accident in sugery an accident in surgery is exatcly that Voilent crimes commited with guns are far from accidents...they a far aprat from each other. And im not suprised guns are held during disputes cops usually do carry them for their own safety.
And as NoOne brought up why the hell would you wish to conceal a firearm? what purpose does it serve? why oin gods name would you need one to walk down the frigging street and dont say protection if you use the bastard your likely to kill someone.

[NoOne]

I just don't believe any additional laws are going to do anything to take guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. All they would do is make if more difficult or impossible for citizens like you and me to defend ourselves, our families and our homes, and leave us at the mercy of already-armed criminals whom the police have been unable to remove from the streets.
You claim that more people should be able to arm themselves for the protection of themselves and their families, but the problem I see is trying to separate those who wish to defend, those who are likely to develop a vigillante attitude and take the law into their own hands and those who may not be criminals but under certain circumstances may be swayed in that direction. It also raises the amount of handguns per capita, which could lead to more criminal activity.

My comment on issueing everyone a firearm was meant to be ridiculous, I can't believe that if everyone was armed it would make everyone safer.



The laws in effect here, which serve to keep all legal guns out of the hands of former criminals, domestic assaulters, and mental patients, and also require a citizen to go through a good amount of effort and expense (approx. $200 USD + cost of weapon) in order to obtain a carry permit, has in my experience had the effect of making sure that the only people who have such permits are those who have considered the responsibility and made a personal decision to take on that responsibility.
The problem here is people are not born criminals,domestic assaulters, and mental patients these are characteristics and choices developed over time, there is no way to determine if someone may commit a violent crime: beat on their spouse, commit armed robbery, etc when 6 months or even years earlier it had been decided by some state official that the person was a grade A candidate for gun ownership.



As I said, I personally know many such people who hold these permits, and not only are they not criminals, alcoholic rednecks, militia anarchists, or psychotic gun-worshippers as Micheal Moore and others would like you to believe, they are some of the most upstanding, well-rounded, and down-to-earth individuals I have ever known. They have no wish to harm anyone, but they take their responsibility for the safety of their families and communities seriously, and they do not completely trust any government entity to maintain that safety for them. And rightly so IMHO.
I will not deny that there are very responsible people out there, and that extremists like Michael Moore show "worst case scenarios", but things become sad and dangerous when so much faith in the law is lost, that it is felt only an individual can take sole responsibility for their safety and that of their family. This is where the cavalier attitude you spoke out against in a previous post comes into play.

[The Tuner]

i dont live in the u.s, so i really wudnt kno too much abt ppl on the street carryin guns, but here in the united arab emirates, ure not allowed to carry a gun. not legally, not under any circumstance. civilians are (apparently) not allowed to carry even a knife with a blade over 4 inches long. i relly wudnt kno abt the second, i am rite now debating whether or not i shud buy this lovely dagger i saw. personally, i kno tht sum ppl do go kinda crazy at times, so whenever i go out late, i take my fave weapon wit me. its a solid steel rod, abt 10 inches long, hard and very heavy. ive only had to take it out once, and lukily the fite stopped then, otherwise sum serious shit mit've happened.
as far as guns go, im not sure. i kno im happy tht no one carries guns, so i dont have to worry abt school shootings and stuff, but this place is gettin more and more dangerous (nothin at all like the states, but bad enuff), and i mite jus decide to go n buy an air gun wit the pellets. not the best, but they work. (btw, hunting is legal, but only wit air guns firing pellets. no bullets)

[crisis]

Arming everybody to take care of themselves takes us back to the wild west. The fact that in most cases a lot of people would probably blow their foot off before they hit an assailant means that weapons are really only effective in the hands of well trained users. Does this then mean that only gun enthusiasts have the right to defend themselves with fire arms. Im sure many pimps and pushers use them in this way every day. I personally dont want to be caught in the crossfire between two self professed gun experts while they empty their clips at each other. This weekend there was a riot in Sydney where about 50 people took on the police with molotov cocktails, bricks etc. Ten police were injured but the riot was quelled. No one was shot. Would it have resolved itslef that way if a bunch of frightened gun owners had taken the law into their own hands.

[cls12vg30]

hehe...I don't know what you've seen on TV but we've had some pretty heavy-duty riots over the years, and there has never been even one instance of legally-owned guns being used against police during such a riot. Such a thing is pretty much impossible, since as I said, legal gun owners around here are just about the most law-abiding people you'll meet, and would not be likely to be found taking part in a riot. These people also tend to be conservative politically, and thus it would be a rare thing to even find them at an anti-war or other political protest. I realize what the imagination can cook up when you have no experience of a place, but the fact is that legal firearms are virtually never used for any crime, of any kind.
Granted, a percentage of the illegal and black-market firearms on the streets are former legally-owned firearms that were stolen from their legal owners. But many are smuggled into the country or reach the streets through other unlawful means, so my position remains. Unless someone can figure out a way to eliminate all illegal firearms, the people must be allowed to protect themselves. I can see how in a country the size of the UAE, that has a less open society, control of illegal firearms would be a feasible thing. Not so in the U.S. In large, open nations where legal firearms have been banned, such as the U.K. and Australia, gun-related crime has climbed since the bans were instituted. Armed criminals have free reign.
You also have to understand the different attitude that most Americans have about their government. Most of us are much more concerned with restricting the power of the government than granting it more. The main job of the government is to leave us alone. That's why so many of us reject national universal health care on principle. One of our relatively recent Presidents was quoted as saying, "The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." That sums up my attitude and many other American's attitudes toward government pretty well. Heck, our own Constitution has a clause which states that if the government siezes too much power and encroaches upon the liberty of the citizens, it's our duty to overthrow the government and start again. And that's the document the whole federal government is based on.
The thought of being forced to surrender ANY private property to the government is enough to make our blood boil.
The U.S. is not nearly as dangerous as some of you seem to believe, but even if it was, personally, I would much rather live with the extraordinarily slim chance of being killed by a gun, than to give the government more power and have government officials the only people armed. It's a matter of principle.

Oh and BTW, the "Old West" was nothing like you see in the movies either. Not everybody had a Colt on their hip, and with the exception of a dozen or so very famous bandits, violence was virtually nonexistent. Yet another thing that Hollywood has blown way our of proportion.

[cls12vg30]

And the facts you are giveing are half truths while less deaths are caused by guns than an accident in sugery an accident in surgery is exatcly that Voilent crimes commited with guns are far from accidents...they a far aprat from each other.

I was not talking about violent crimes, I was talking about accidental shootings with legal guns. People killed in violent crimes are killed with illegal guns, which by definition would not be affected by making guns illegal.

Upon further reflection, I think that a lot of the misconceptions about the United States, such as this one:

but this place is gettin more and more dangerous (nothin at all like the states, but bad enuff),
that are held as truth by lots of people from other countries are largely due to the fact that so much of what the world sees of the United States is on TV and in movies. All you ever see are New York City and Los Angeles, and of course even those places are not as dangerous and violent as they are made to appear for entertainment purposes. As far as crime and violence goes, they are among the worst places, but consider the fact that out of a total population of over 280 million, about 7-8 million live in the New York Metro area, and something between 5 and 7 million live in the LA Metro area. In between, there is a vast 3000 x 1500 mile piece of land that comprises the rest of America, where the other 275 million Americans live. Life in this place, and the people who live there, are in no way reflected by what you see in NY and LA. Approximately 90% of United States territory is rural. Even in the largest cities, you usually don't have to drive more than 30 minutes before you see farmland. In such rural areas, rifles and shotguns are simply necessary tools. Heck, my father-in-law lives in a suburban area of Western New York State, about 10 miles outside the city of Buffalo, and he keeps a rifle on hand to deal with coyotes. As for myself, I live within the city limits of Raleigh, North Carolina, which is a rapidly growing metropolitan area very heavy with high-tech and pharmaceutical industries (IBM, Nortel, Cisco, GlaxoSmithKline, and many others have large facilities here.) I live in a suburban area about 10 minutes northwest of the downtown area, and about five minutes from the airport. I live in an apartment which sits on a lake, here's a couple pictures I've taken near my apartment:
http://www.v6-s12.com/images/Raleigh_Gallery/View_from_balcony_apt21.jpg
http://www.v6-s12.com/images/Raleigh_Gallery/Lake_Lynn.jpg
And here are a couple from downtown Raleigh:
http://www.v6-s12.com/images/Raleigh_Gallery/IMAGE006.jpg
http://www.v6-s12.com/images/Raleigh_Gallery/Fayetteville_St..jpg
This is not an especially large city, but it is one of the most rapidly growing in the United States. The point of all this is that the New York and LA that so many people see do not equal America, and as a whole my country is not nearly so dangerous and violent as many people seem to think it is.

[crisis]

This is from a page called the Brady Campaign. Statistics , I know, but real people non the less.
Children and Guns
In 2000, more than nine young people aged 19 and under were killed a day in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings in the United States. In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.
In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.

In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.

In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.

From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.

Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.

Firearms and Suicide
In 2000, suicide by all means took the lives of 29,350 people in the United States: of this number, 57% (16,586) were completed using a firearm.

Guns and Domestic Violence
Over half of family murders are caused by firearms. Firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults.

The Risks of Guns in the Home
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

[crisis]

This is from the same page about Australia. I think the fact is if their are less total guns, there is less chance of people using them for good or bad.

The National Rifle Association likes to tell tall tales about Australia. The best one is that gun control Down Under is a failure.

April 28th, 2003, marked the 7th anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia's most devastating gun tragedy, in which a disturbed man went on a killing spree that left 35 dead and 19 injured. The massacre catalyzed a demand for comprehensive gun control. By 1997, Australia's States and Territories had passed the most significant gun law reforms in their history, including a ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns; registration of all firearms and licensing of all shooters; and safe storage requirements for guns and ammunition.

To persuade gun-owners to turn in their semi-automatic long guns, the Australian government established a buyback program, funded by the Federal Government and administered by the States and Territories. Reimbursements were generous; the program eventually cost over $320 million Australian dollars and resulted in over 643,000 guns being turned in. Per capita, the Australian buyback was massive, equivalent to an estimated 40 million guns in the US.

Between 1987 and 1996, 100 Australians were killed in mass killings of four or more people. Since the new laws went into effect, there has not been a single massacre. Moreover, in Australia, homicides committed with firearms have been declining - slowly before the Port Arthur Massacre, more sharply since - from 28 percent of all homicides in 1989-90 to 16 percent in 2001. While the 1996 gun laws did not initiate the decline in firearm homicides, they appear to have accelerated it.

Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia has seen a decline in the use of firearms in armed robberies. From 1993 to 2001, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 16 to 6 percent.

Suicide rates using a firearm show a sharp drop from 1979-98 with rates continuing to drop after 1996 and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining. Public health experts see these declines as related to tighter controls over who may obtain a gun, stricter requirements for training and safe storage, and longer waiting periods for obtaining gun licenses.

[cls12vg30]

The problem with nearly every statistic you find from the Brady Campaign is that they make no differentiation between law-abiding owners of legal guns and career criminals with illegal guns. When they say a person with a gun in the home is more likely to be killed by a gun, for instance, they lump law-abiding citizens like me with a pistol, rifle, or shotgun in the closet along with gangbangers, drug dealers, and other people living highly dangerous criminal lifestyles. They lump us all together as "people with guns in home". So of course that drives up the averages. That's just one example of the ways studies and statistics can be and are manipulated to support whatever position one wants them too. The same goes for the numbers of x number of children being killed by guns. Virtually all of them are killed by criminals armed with illegal firearms. I and every sane individual support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws and harsher penalties for armed criminal activity. I do not support punishing the law-abiding for the actions of criminals.

Has violent crime as a whole decreased in Australia since the gun ban? Because the statistic that the percentage of murders committed with guns has gone down seems quite meaningless. One does not really care how one is killed, one is just as dead. Have total homicides and other violent crimes such as armed robbery decreased? The reason I ask is this. Hypothetically imagine that you are a robber, armed with a knife, prowling a city street. In places where it is illegal to carry any concealed weapon, you know that you are almost definitely going to be able to rob or assault anyone you want, and they will have no defense. Here in North Carolina, the chances that such a robber might encounter an armed victim are slight (something like 5%), but that chance is enough to cause a consistent and measurable drop in overall violent crime when compared to cities of similar size and demographics which are located in states where all concealed weapons are illegal. When interviewed in prison, criminals have consistently stated that their #1 fear when committing a crime against another person was that their intended victim would be armed.

[crisis]

I agree with your comment on statistics and Im sure that group have a certain barrow to push. Whether someone is killed by legal or illegal guns is irrelevant. The less guns around means the less guns someone can get their hands on easily. Mass killings are carried out most efficiently with fire arms. Unless they are carried out over a long period of time. Banning guns wont stop murders or deaths. It would reduce them. Does that mean enough to those who want them for whatever purpose? Clearly not.

[cls12vg30]

I agree that banning all guns could lower murder rates, if it was accompanied by a serious and I mean SERIOUS crackdown on illegal guns. But the police in most places have not proven that they are capable of such an effective crackdown. Otherwise it would have happened already. But the drop in murder rates would be almost insignificant in the short term. 99% of murders committed with a gun are committed with illegal guns, which would of course be unaffected barring the aforementioned serious successful crackdown. The fact is simply that legal guns are not a serious factor in crimes.
Now in the long term, banning guns might reduce the number of guns on the street, since they would have to be smuggled in. Street prices would definitely go up. Currently most illegal guns are either smuggled in or stolen from legal owners, since successful regulations of gun sales through dealers (who of course would lose their businesses if this happened) have made it next to impossible to buy a gun that way unless you do so legally with the proper permits. So you would not have any more guns being stolen from legal owners. That leaves smuggling, which we know from the "War on Drugs" is almost impossible to stop. And of course we would still have all the guns which are currently on the street, unless the police manage to confiscate them all, which they certainly haven't been able to do up to this point. Most modern firearms if properly cared for last and remain useful for a very long time. My Czech pistol is over 50 years old.
So it seems that given the current situation, the banning of privately owned firearms would have no immediate affect on gun crimes, and it would take many years to see a significant effect. What has been effective, and can be proven to have been effective in reducing overall violent crime rates over the last 10 years has been the increase in the number of states allowing legal concealed-carry for licensed and trained individuals. Florida started the trend in 1987, and after the bloodbaths in the streets predicted by critics didn't happen, other states followed suit. Today 31 out of 50 states have some allowance for legal concealed-carry by private citizens, and this has been the case long enough to demonstrate a clear and significant drop in violent crime since it was instituted. Those are results I can believe in.


In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.

Now this is a good solid statistic. Now start multiplying that number. Because it's estimated that in over 95% of all cases where a firearm is used in self-defense to prevent a crime, no shots are fired. The presence of the firearm is enough to diffuse the situation. Often the weapon is not even removed from its holster. Now take the small percentage of cases where a shot is actually fired. You've got several factors at work here. First of all most legal gun owners take some pride in their marksmanship skills, and ALL concealed carry permit holders are required to pass a marksmanship test. They are also well educated on the relevent laws, and the fact that if they do kill someone, it had better be a clear-cut, verifiable case of absolute necessity to prevent serious injury or death to themselves or someone else. Otherwise they could be prosecuted. These factors create the tendency in the defending gun owner to avoid killing an assailant if at all possible, and often they have the skill to do so, especially at the close range at which such encounters occur. Another factor is that most people who carry use 9mm, .380 or other such low-powered weapons, and many use MagSafe or other "safety slugs" which are not designed so much to kill but to stop, and are also designed not to penetrate or ricochet and thus strike things the shooter did not intend.
(The ones I keep my pistol loaded with at home have a thin copper outer case with a hollow point, and contain plastic birdshot suspended in gel. They are guaranteed to disintegrate on impact with anything, thus they would be effective in knocking down an assailant, but are unlikely to kill, and will not ricochet or penetrate through the target, a wall, or anything else)
The point of all this is that, even in those rare cases where one is forced to shoot an attacker in self-defense, it's quite likely that the attacker will not die. Thus the number of "justifiable homicides" is not an accurate reflection of the frequency with which legal firearms are used in legitimate self-defense to prevent a crime. Because in most cases the assailant simply flees, no shots are fired, and no crime is successfully committed, many of these incidents go unreported, but the best estimates place the number at between 500,000 and 2 million incidents annually, nationwide.

[crisis]

154 means all the rest were unjustifiable. If all gun owners were like you I would say go ahead, lets all have one. I doubt they are. You know your subject. Unfortunately I imagine as many people own guns legally that shouldnt as there are people who own cars that shouldnt.

[cls12vg30]

You may have a point there, no doubt some irresponsible people do legally own guns. The basic issue is that the risk that may be presented by such irresponsible people is not enough to outweigh the positive effects on violent crime rates that have been experienced where legally owned guns exist, and specifically where some percentage of the populace is legally licensed to carry. The risks are also not enough to cause me to compromise on my principles that an individual in a free nation has the inherent right to self-defense by the most effective means possible, and that no government entity may take this right away.
As I've mentioned, I live in an apartment complex in a rather densely populated suburban area in the Southeastern U.S. My neighbors are mostly young, professional couples or singles, most are college-educated and many work in the computer or other high-tech industries. I know of none that have children living with them. I know for a fact that several of my neighbors also keep legal firearms. Now I don't know these neighbors all that well, but the knowledge that they are armed does not frighten me, it actually comforts me. I certainly trust those neighbors to a higher degree than I trust any criminal that may want to come into my neighborhood and commit a crime.