If only she was armed.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you prefer to be told and forced how to live your life, by a nanny government who guides your every move, or to be left alone to your own devices, and the consequence of that is the low risk chance of having to deal with the occasional nut job that's possibly armed.

Given that in the last 11yrs i've personally never been shot, never known anyone to be shot, never expect to know anyone to be shot, i think i'll take the latter.
 
I'm losing sympathy for a country that refuses to deal with this issue and actually want to prevent this from happening.
Not to mention a legislative body that prohibits discussions on gun violence.

i think you'll find what works in this country is the drastically lower % of owner ship m,eans the chances of somone like this being in a house with a gun is much much much less likley

It's not simply that though, it's a state of mental attitude. We do not grow up with easy access to guns, so they are far from a common "tool".
 
If it wasn't a gun would have been a knife. Should be blaming the parents not the gun. Even if guns were banned the police would have showed up 2 hours later and shot the dog.

Are you sure? Because the UK's murder rate is around one third of the US gun homicide rate (so ignoring other forms of murder in the USA) - are those extra deaths occurring because of easy access to guns, or because the US as a population is naturally more murderous?

Would all those gun deaths have still happened without guns?
 
Violent crime per capita is actually higher in the UK and other countries that ban guns than the us.

Murder rate is higher in us states with less gun ownership. Take texas and Chicago as an example.

The real question is how much violent crime would have been prevented if uk still had gun ownership? I think probably a lot of it. Knowing someone might have a gun is often enough deterrent to prevent crime. Criminals don't follow the laws anyway, this made evident by apparent mass shootings being carried out in gun free zones. Didn't the murderer see the no gun signs?

UK approach works until there is a group of people running after you with a knife and you are not legally able to defend yourself. Too late then. Police always show up after crime is committed.

Nevermind the fact that every state genocide has followed a gun confiscation program.
 
The fact is America will never change. Its a multi billion dollar industry its too out of hand now to ever police or control. The amount of gun manufacturers they have there is crazy. There is over a 100 i know that. It would take a brave president to change anything.

I can understand people in america needing guns to protect them selves and their families. I mean if you lived in america would you feel safe not owning a gun considering how many people have them.

But What blows my mind is how people can deck them selves out like rambo. And buy pretty much any gun the military use. Hell there even people who own explosives and rocket launchers .
 
Violent crime per capita is actually higher in the UK and other countries that ban guns than the us.

Murder rate is higher in us states with less gun ownership. Take texas and Chicago as an example.

The real question is how much violent crime would have been prevented if uk still had gun ownership? I think probably a lot of it. Knowing someone might have a gun is often enough deterrent to prevent crime. Criminals don't follow the laws anyway, this made evident by apparent mass shootings being carried out in gun free zones. Didn't the murderer see the no gun signs?

UK approach works until there is a group of people running after you with a knife and you are not legally able to defend yourself. Too late then. Police always show up after crime is committed.

Nevermind the fact that every state genocide has followed a gun confiscation program.

I'd hate to live with that kind of fear.

I need a gun just in case I'm a victim.
 
I'd hate to live with that kind of fear.

I need a gun just in case I'm a victim.

Not everyone lives in a nice sheltered suburb with massive fences and drives to and from work in their nice car. Some people live in cities, catch buses, ride bikes, have to put up with people they don't want to put up with. Most of the instances where guns help is robberies, attempted rapes and so on. The fear doesn't go away when you ban guns, it gets worse for some people in certain circumstances.

Just recently i heard about a guy on a bus who was stabbed because of opening a window. If he might have had a gun would the guy be so quick to stab someone over that? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
Not everyone lives in a nice sheltered suburb with massive fences and drives to and from work in their nice car. Some people live in cities, catch buses, ride bikes, have to put up with people they don't want to put up with. Most of the instances where guns help is robberies, attempted rapes and so on. The fear doesn't go away when you ban guns, it gets worse for some people in certain circumstances.

Just recently i heard about a guy on a bus who was stabbed because of opening a window. If he might have had a gun would the guy be so quick to stab someone over that? Probably not.

How many people (excluding Police and other employees of the state/government) carry a concealed firearm in daily life in the USA vs how many own firearms and keep them at home?

Genuine question.
 
If it wasn't a gun would have been a knife. Should be blaming the parents not the gun. Even if guns were banned the police would have showed up 2 hours later and shot the dog.

Yes the parents should be to blame.

However, shooting someone isnt the same as knifing them, being up close and personal and pushing a knife in isnt the same as being over the road or wherever, you are a lot more disconnected with a gun, and at the end of the day I'm guessing (I havent seen the figures) but I bet there are a lot more knives in the USA than there are guns, yet we hear more about gun crime than knife crime...
 
How many people can claim to accidentally stabbing themselves to death while taking a selfie? none

To be fair the guy who shot himself mid selfie cant really claim that either but for other reasons...
 
How many people (excluding Police and other employees of the state/government) carry a concealed firearm in daily life in the USA vs how many own firearms and keep them at home?

Genuine question.

I am not sure without looking it up, I would guess the conceal carry permits are a significant fraction of the total gun ownership.

The point though is not how many people are conceal carry but the fact that a potential crime victim might be conceal carry, the knowledge that someone might pull out a gun is often enough to deter at least a certain classification of crimes. Sure its not a complete defence against all crime as evidence by crime still occurring in spite of the victim potentially conceal carrying. It also has its down sides as well.
 
I am not sure without looking it up, I would guess the conceal carry permits are a significant fraction of the total gun ownership.

The point though is not how many people are conceal carry but the fact that a potential crime victim might be conceal carry, the knowledge that someone might pull out a gun is often enough to deter at least a certain classification of crimes. Sure its not a complete defence against all crime as evidence by crime still occurring in spite of the victim potentially conceal carrying. It also has its down sides as well.

Yes but if they, like you, suspect (know?) it is a minority of gun owners that conceal carry, does that make your point a bit null and void?

Likewise, as you allude to, any weapon can be used against the carrier if the aggressor gets hold of it.
 
Most of the instances where guns help is robberies, attempted rapes and so on. The fear doesn't go away when you ban guns, it gets worse for some people in certain circumstances.

Actually most of the instances where guns "help" (that are not by police) are illegally in escalating arguments; for the intimidation of intimates; to shoot criminals while they're not committing crime; to wave around at other drunk/stupid/young men; to be stolen or for suicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/stolen-guns-lost-firearms-by-state-data.html

For every justifiable gun homicide in 2012, there were 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, 2 accidental gun deaths and 736 gun thefts.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
 
Actually most of the instances where guns "help" (that are not by police) are illegally in escalating arguments; for the intimidation of intimates; to shoot criminals while they're not committing crime; to wave around at other drunk/stupid/young men; to be stolen or for suicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/stolen-guns-lost-firearms-by-state-data.html

For every justifiable gun homicide in 2012, there were 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, 2 accidental gun deaths and 736 gun thefts.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

Wow Harvard. Must be true.

What about all the incidents that were de-escalated or never occurred in the first place because a gun owner was present? For example a guy walks in to a shop to rob a place and the shop owner pulls a gun and the guy runs away. Those statistics from the harvard study don't take that in to consideration. Those studies have a clear anti-gun bias. The Study from vpc is funded by joyce which has clear anti-gun bias. Just something to keep in mind where you are looking at the statistics. Remember also that the FBI lies on statistics, this was proven when independents started recording the homicides by police per year and it was double what the FBI came out with at the end of the year. What they do is they redefine what a gun homicide is and so on. Its all done to rosy up the results towards what they are after.

http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...tions-long-fight-to-curb-to-gun-violence.html

There is a massive anti-gun lobby in the US now, trying to manipulate the population in to giving up their guns by using appeal to emotion and propaganda. Even the UK had a lot of anti-gun propaganda in the lead up to banning of guns in the UK.

Then there is the point that anti-gun advocates don't want to ban guns, what they want to do is monopolise guns in the hands of the same people that want to track and monitor and snoop on everything you do. The ones that want to fine you for smoking in your own car. Yep those guys, you want them to have all the guns while the people should be left at the mercy of their local police response times.

If gun homicides is the price to pay for gun ownership then i think its worth it in the long run. Accidents happen and people murder people no matter what, even when guns are removed. So it doesn't solve anything by removing guns, it only creates new problems.

This is an interesting study, it shows that SA has more gun deaths than the US but lower rates of gun ownership. There is clearly more to it than just legal guns = bad.

http://soundmoneysa.co.za/2012/08/firearms-in-south-africa/

Another article looking at the apparent correlation between gun ownership and crime. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/


Documentary on gun bans in history.
 
Last edited:
Wow Harvard. Must be true.

....Those statistics from the harvard study don't take that in to consideration. Those studies have a clear anti-gun bias.

It's a shame you didn't get any further than seeing "Harvard" in the links, or you would have spotted that they just cited other studies from journals. Let's not let the facts get in the way though, hey :rolleyes:

What about all the incidents that were de-escalated or never occurred in the first place because a gun owner was present? For example a guy walks in to a shop to rob a place and the shop owner pulls a gun and the guy runs away.

What about all the times some idiot waves a gun around "defending his property" illegally?

The Study from vpc is funded by joyce which has clear anti-gun bias. Just something to keep in mind where you are looking at the statistics.

From your link:
Joyce has also given over $4 million to the Violence Policy Center, which supports an outright ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons. For this, they have been maligned by the NRA, which calls them an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups.”

On the contrary. Despite Joyce’s controversial gun control grant program (they also support programs in education, environment, employment, culture, democracy, and others throughout the Midwest) they seem to be pretty transparent. Annual and financial reports are at-the-ready. Where their funding comes from, and where it goes, is easy to trace. Though they’re undeniably out in front, and pretty far left, on this issue (and other issues) they make no bones about their liberal stance, or about how they’re perceived by other groups.

The monsters. How dare they tell you exactly where they stand and where their funding goes. I'm sure the NRA is as transparent?

This is an interesting study, it shows that SA has more gun deaths than the US but lower rates of gun ownership. There is clearly more to it than just legal guns = bad.

http://soundmoneysa.co.za/2012/08/firearms-in-south-africa/

Another article looking at the apparent correlation between gun ownership and crime. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

That's an interesting choice of studies there - you've picked a study that argues Obama is wrong because you can't prove causation from statistics, then picked a "study" (I'm being generous there) that uses statistics to show causation.

There is a massive anti-gun lobby in the US now, trying to manipulate the population in to giving up their guns by using appeal to emotion and propaganda. Even the UK had a lot of anti-gun propaganda in the lead up to banning of guns in the UK.

Then there is the point that anti-gun advocates don't want to ban guns, what they want to do is monopolise guns in the hands of the same people that want to track and monitor and snoop on everything you do. The ones that want to fine you for smoking in your own car. Yep those guys, you want them to have all the guns while the people should be left at the mercy of their local police response times.

If gun homicides is the price to pay for gun ownership then i think its worth it in the long run. Accidents happen and people murder people no matter what, even when guns are removed. So it doesn't solve anything by removing guns, it only creates new problems.

That's the heart of the argument. Fear. America is a scared child with a big stick, beating away at every shadow it can see.
 
Back
Top Bottom