Autumnpuma

Deadly London

153 posts in this topic

Inspite of all that India has the highest murder rate

Source please? All that I've read indicates that while homicide rates have increased in India, they are not the highest.

This has been a very fascinating read; opinions are polarized. I don't think having a gun makes you any safer than if you did not. My personal opinion: I would hate to have a gun around the house, even if it's safe and secure I'd be more nervous about it than feel comforted by its presence. Sometimes, a common sense approach to safety and greater self-awareness goes a long way.

Edited by lyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source please? All that I've read indicates that while homicide rates have increased in India, they are not the highest.

This has been a very fascinating read; opinions are polarized. I don't think having a gun makes you any safer than if you did not. My personal opinion: I would hate to have a gun around the house, even if it's safe and secure I'd be more nervous about it than feel comforted by its presence. Sometimes, a common sense approach to safety and greater self-awareness goes a long way.

How else would you fight a guy who has just been ordered to kill people belonging to a certain community by his political leader? And it happens that you belong to that certain community. Would you fight with Onion knives, broom sticks or match sticks? You cant even call the police, who might just make sure you are better dead. So I PREFER having two or three fully loaded guns because these guys come in dozens. If possible few hand granades too. But I do not see such needs in a western society such as US or UK for that matter

And your source is here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7430654.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post. I agree with it all.

You are a spoilt sport. You cant just argue. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

How's Italy treating you, Abbas?

People generally are great. I expected a very nasty time here with the locals, as people who have travelled to places like Milan and Rome, told me the stories of getting robbed. But Turin seems to be a safer place so far. But we have already been shown the map where one kind teacher marked places not safe to visit. I guess as long as we keep off from trouble there is no problems. I am just learning the language slowly. People here are mostly helpful and kind. Honestly, I am having a good time. I visited Pininfarina last ten days back, which was a dream come true for me. Next week I am going for Lamborgini conference, the following week am off to Bertone, followed by FIAT etc etc. I got no complains! Except for that wierd coffee machine! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How else would you fight a guy who has just been ordered to kill people belonging to a certain community by his political leader? And it happens that you belong to that certain community. Would you fight with Onion knives, broom sticks or match sticks? You cant even call the police, who might just make sure you are better dead. So I PREFER having two or three fully loaded guns because these guys come in dozens. If possible few hand granades too. But I do not see such needs in a western society such as US or UK for that matter

And your source is here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7430654.stm

@ Abbas_gear

Thanks for the link. According to this, India has the most murders reported but if population is taken into consideration, South Africa would have the highest murder rate. In fact, SA's figures are staggering for its population.

Abbas, for me the bottom line is I cannot be comfortable knowing there is a loaded weapon in my home, that's me. You obviously don't feel the same way. What you're talking of is a very specific kind of event, whereas this has been a more generic topic on the question of guns and protecting oneself (intruders et al) and my post was based on that POV.

When political leaders (and communal politics) are involved, they commission not "a guy" but mobs of people to kill others belonging to a certain community, as you rightly said. 2-3 loaded guns, or even grenades are no match for a frenzied mob or attacks that come wave after wave. A vulnerable person/family is not going to be attacked by a single person but by a multitude. If you take a close look at the means of violence in these communal based events, they are the most basic, primitive kinds. No guns, no grenades, no machine guns, no tanks yet they are supremely destructive. These attacks have an element of surprise, mass numbers and complete destruction as a goal. A gun is not going to protect or save you. If accessibility to guns makes you keep 2-3 for your protection, imagine that mob with the same access and possibly more sophisticated weaponry (I don't put anything past our politicians!). Guns are no solution and not the only means of self-defense.

I've lived through communal riots (Bombay '92) albeit a young schoolgirl then and I will take my chances with zero guns. If someone else feels better equipped with an arsenal, then that's how they should approach it.

Edited by lyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So your saying that gun voilence is the answer to stopping gun violence. You have been brainwashed if you believe that tripe.

So, please explain how calmly and quietly standing by and allowing one maniac to kill 32 and wound 15 is "better" than having someone with the training, equipment and intestinal fortitude stand up, confront the murderer, and stop him?

I've heard of turning the other cheek, but that is farking insane. Actually, no, it's just suicidal.

How, precisely, would you have handled it?

As I pointed out, earlier in this thread, the government is under no obligation to protect you, at least here in the U.S.

Or, presuming that there was one officer for each citizen, to ensure that there was enough coverage to stop this animal, would you have been okay with a cop blowing him away? What is, in your opinion, an appropriate answer to violence? "With a firm tone of voice, demand maniac lie down with hands behind back. 'Please, sir, you're acting in an antisocial manner.'"?

Here's some homework for you ... Look the following up on Google: "Pearl, Mississippi High School", +"Jeanne Assam", "Ken Hammond" and "Willie Lee Hill". Please note that none of these events gained major coverage on any of the national or international wires... The body counts weren't high enough... And, if I were one to argue the issue of bias in the media, it could be argued that these stories contradict the media's bias.

Now, a pop quiz: What do Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, the Westroads Mall and the Trolley Square Mall all have in common? They are so-called "gun-free" zones ... Which, as can clearly be seen from recent history, only ensures that the mass murderers are virtually guaranteed to have helpless victims. When was the last time you heard of a shooting rampage at a gun show?

Here's a wild idea: For those of you that want me to register my guns ... I'll go one better. Let's have a special version of the phone book printed up, and next to each name will be a small "Y" or "N" indicating if that person is a gun-owner. Wonder which group would have the higher rate of crime directed at them?

Now, if I haven't bashed your heads with enough logic, we'll try one more thought, briefly touched on by AutoRacer5, that will surely only get me branded as an "ugly, bloodthirsty American," but, oh well.

WHY DO THE SHEEPLE INSIST ON BLAMING THE TOOL FOR THE ACTIONS OF ITS WIELDER???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, please explain how calmly and quietly standing by and allowing one maniac to kill 32 and wound 15 is "better" than having someone with the training, equipment and intestinal fortitude stand up, confront the murderer, and stop him?

I've heard of turning the other cheek, but that is farking insane. Actually, no, it's just suicidal.

How, precisely, would you have handled it?

If i were your government i would tighten gun laws so nuts like that couldnt just go and buy a gun.

You may not be aware of this but Australia has one of the largest massacres by a single person out of any country in the entire world. Back in 28th of April 1996 a man named Martin Bryant went to a popular tourist where he killed 35 people and injured 37 more. The entire country was up in arms about this and serious questions were asked about how such a unstable person as Martin Bryant managed to obtain such deadily weapons. The solution was to tighten gun control laws and ever since that tragic day Australia has not had a single massacre. If we were like Americans our reaction would have been to make guns easier to obtain and if that were to happen then im certain that we would have had quite afew large massacres in the past 12 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If i were your government i would tighten gun laws so nuts like that couldnt just go and buy a gun.

You may not be aware of this but Australia has one of the largest massacres by a single person out of any country in the entire world. Back in 28th of April 1996 a man named Martin Bryant went to a popular tourist where he killed 35 people and injured 37 more. The entire country was up in arms about this and serious questions were asked about how such a unstable person as Martin Bryant managed to obtain such deadily weapons. The solution was to tighten gun control laws and ever since that tragic day Australia has not had a single massacre. If we were like Americans our reaction would have been to make guns easier to obtain and if that were to happen then im certain that we would have had quite afew large massacres in the past 12 years.

I'm quite aware of that massacre. And, as I understand it, you already had quite strict gun control laws at the time.

In the US, over that same 12 years, yes, some of our gun laws have become more relaxed, but the our crime rates, have, in general, and depending on which statistics you believe, dropped. Remember that the only times guns are mentioned by our media is in the aftermath of a horrendous shooting, which, next to our death rates by cancer, drunk driving and non-firearm-related accidents, are really not that common. You never hear about the single mother that pulls her licensed gun, and by virtue of the fact she has it, prevents her estranged husband from raping and murdering her, without firing a shot. You rarely hear about the legally armed citizen that prevents mass murder, or even a single murder. You only hear about the heinous acts, because that's what ****ing sells copy.

I'd also like to point out that it's only been in the last 40-50 years that our gun control has become as strict as it is. In the 1950's, children took guns to school regularly, for after-school shooting programs. Before 1968, you could order any gun by mail, and have it delivered to your house. Certainly there were no waiting periods, background checks, etc. Before 1934, basically anyone could legally own a fully automatic weapon ... There were no mass murders then. No school shootings. And if you think guns are easier to get a hold of now than they were then. On the other hand, people were held responsible for their own actions.

Have you ever bothered to look at the similarities between these mass-murderers? They're all ****ing attention whores, that want their names to go down in history. What would happen if the media didn't print their names? They're unstable; many have slipped out of the mental health system because it's a violation of their civil rights. Yet the same people that would guarantee them their "right" to wander the streets, homeless, vagrant and larcenous want to deny my my rights that are guaranteed by the same document.

It's not the "ease-of-access" that causes crime. It's people that, by definition, are already law-breakers, that have no morals, no sense of humanity, that think the only way to become famous is through infamy. The blame also lays squarely at the feet of the media that glorifies them, and the parents/guardians/role models that can't be ****ing bothered to take an interest in what their precious little snowflakes are doing out in the garage. More than that, though, the blame lies with the a##hole that pulls the trigger.

It's time people started sacking up, and putting the blame where it belongs.

If you could make absolutely certain that *every one* of the literally billions of firearms that exist on this planet were gone, then your utopian society might have a chance. Until the big, burly guys that know how to use a sword started bullying everyone around, again. Or have you forgotten what pre-firearm society was like? Are you descended from royal blood? Are you strong enough and skilled enough with a sword to carve out your own empire?

Take the emotion out of it. In truth, re-reading what I've written here, I've allowed too much emotion through, and although I will apologize, I'm not rewriting any of it, because the emotion underscores the logic. Your emotion defies the logic.

Edited by Yoda McFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite aware of that massacre. And, as I understand it, you already had quite strict gun control laws at the time.

We had gun control but it was rather relaxed. The new laws brought in after the massacre banned the type of guns which as capable of killing lots of people. The guns used at the massacre were banned and we havent had a problem since.

In the US, over that same 12 years, yes, some of our gun laws have become more relaxed, but the our crime rates, have, in general, and depending on which statistics you believe, dropped. Remember that the only times guns are mentioned by our media is in the aftermath of a horrendous shooting, which, next to our death rates by cancer, drunk driving and non-firearm-related accidents, are really not that common. You never hear about the single mother that pulls her licensed gun, and by virtue of the fact she has it, prevents her estranged husband from raping and murdering her, without firing a shot. You rarely hear about the legally armed citizen that prevents mass murder, or even a single murder. You only hear about the heinous acts, because that's what ****ing sells copy.

Alright if your going to use that arguement you should find statistics to back it up. What are the rape rates per capita in America compared to contries with strict gun control laws, how many mass muderers do America have per capita compared to countries with stricted gun control laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'd also like to know Yoda's explanation for America's unusually high violent crime rates - they're about 4 times higher than similar "anglo-saxon" countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....... Alright if your going to use that arguement you should find statistics to back it up. What are the rape rates per capita in America compared to contries with strict gun control laws, how many mass muderers do America have per capita compared to countries with stricted gun control laws?

Valid question.

However, even if the numbers per capita are higher I don't think you can automatically draw to conclusion that the gun control laws are the only cause, but the inference is certainly there.

Edited by shampion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoda, you like beating your head against the wall? I gave up on this bunch years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Don't worry Bruce! We all know already that no American will even accept what the stats say, let alone try to think about them. It's just a bit of fun for us. Mind you, at least the Yanks don't do as badly as the Spaniard, who blamed "immigrants" for all violence. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Don't worry Bruce! We all know already that no American will even accept what the stats say, let alone try to think about them. It's just a bit of fun for us. Mind you, at least the Yanks don't do as badly as the Spaniard, who blamed "immigrants" for all violence. :lol:

We put the blame on the French for everything we can, then the English and finally the immigrants. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We put the blame on the French for everything we can, then the English and finally the immigrants. :D

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. If you can blame guns for killing people, I can blame spoons for making my relatives fat.

I agree, in principle, but if you put a gun in the hands of the wrong kind of person it increases their likelihood of killing. In the UK, people are banned from owning any form of firearms for life after any significantly violent offence, and even for 5 years just for things like drugs charges. In the US you can get guns in your supermarkets. That is simply a bad attitude whatever way you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, in principle, but if you put a gun in the hands of the wrong kind of person it increases their likelihood of killing.

:(

I realised I am the wrong kind of person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite aware of that massacre. And, as I understand it, you already had quite strict gun control laws at the time.

In the US, over that same 12 years, yes, some of our gun laws have become more relaxed, but the our crime rates, have, in general, and depending on which statistics you believe, dropped.

They have plummeted. Since they have done so both in states with strict gun control and those without, it's clear that another factor is at work. In his excellent book "Freakonomics" Stephen Levitt makes an excellent case for Roe vs Wade being the reason why crime dropped so dramatically in the early 90s- the theory being that all those children who were aborted in the years immediately afterwards (most of whom were unwanted and would have had a high chance of becoming criminals) would have almost certainly been reaching their criminal "prime", had they not instead been aborted. You should read it- it's a very interesting book. But I digress- the point is other factors were at work and the crime drop has nothing to do with gun laws.

Personally I am somewhat anti-gun, or at least anti having-a-gun-in-my-home. When I have children even more so, for I know the chance of them getting hold of it are much, much higher than the chances of me having to defend myself with it. I know that the more I protect my children from the gun by keeping it under lock and key, the less likely I'll be able to get hold of it in an emergency, and thus the less useful it'll be. I also know I'm much more likely to be killed outside, where I don't have my gun, than in my house, and that a few basic security features- extra locks, a good alarm system etc will do more to deter an intruder than the unlikely threat of a gun in a house he expects to be empty. I also know that running away is a far more sensible strategy than staying and fighting. My house fortunately has plenty of exits and plenty of insurance.

Having said that I'm still not as rabidly anti-gun as the above would suggest. I do support peoples' right to own a gun if they believe it makes them safer, as many do. Gun crime, whilst much higher in the US than in the UK, is still something I've never experienced and probably never will (actually I have experienced it in the UK, but I think the gun was a replica). Even if I had a gun in my home and I had kids, my pool is about 100 times more likely to kill them. Regardless, statistics prove nothing about me on a personal level- statistics say I have a 1 in x chance of electrocuting myself whilst changing a light bulb with wet hands. The actual figure, however, is much lower simply because I'm not a retard.

What all this proves is that no matter which side you're on there are plenty of seemingly logical arguments on both sides. It seems irrefutable to me that greater gun control is required though. A nutter with a history of mental illness should not be able to legally acquire two guns and blow away Virginia Tech. You can claim all you like that he would have found another way- perhaps he would, perhaps he wouldn't. But even if one life was saved as a result of a killer not having easy access to a gun (a fairly conservative estimate), and a gun buyer has to wait an extra few days for a more thorough background check, I can't see what the problem is. Have the guns, but do everything possible to restrict their sale to lunatics.

Anyway, this article is quite interesting. I'm not entirely convinced by everything it says, but it's worth a read. I've read a few pro-gun ones as well, but haven't found one that you can click through to its sources, which I think is pretty vital considering the subterfuge which goes on with both sides of this debate. Hopefully one of you guys can find one for me:

http://www.guninformation.org/

I have more to say as always, but sadly work is calling.

Edited by Oli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Abbas_gear

Thanks for the link. According to this, India has the most murders reported but if population is taken into consideration, South Africa would have the highest murder rate. In fact, SA's figures are staggering for its population.

Abbas, for me the bottom line is I cannot be comfortable knowing there is a loaded weapon in my home, that's me. You obviously don't feel the same way. What you're talking of is a very specific kind of event, whereas this has been a more generic topic on the question of guns and protecting oneself (intruders et al) and my post was based on that POV.

When political leaders (and communal politics) are involved, they commission not "a guy" but mobs of people to kill others belonging to a certain community, as you rightly said. 2-3 loaded guns, or even grenades are no match for a frenzied mob or attacks that come wave after wave. A vulnerable person/family is not going to be attacked by a single person but by a multitude. If you take a close look at the means of violence in these communal based events, they are the most basic, primitive kinds. No guns, no grenades, no machine guns, no tanks yet they are supremely destructive. These attacks have an element of surprise, mass numbers and complete destruction as a goal. A gun is not going to protect or save you. If accessibility to guns makes you keep 2-3 for your protection, imagine that mob with the same access and possibly more sophisticated weaponry (I don't put anything past our politicians!). Guns are no solution and not the only means of self-defense.

I've lived through communal riots (Bombay '92) albeit a young schoolgirl then and I will take my chances with zero guns. If someone else feels better equipped with an arsenal, then that's how they should approach it.

A gun shot in the air is enough for them to run like scared stray dogs. Yes they don't have guns, but if a mob comes to slay anyone in my house, I could just kill one of them and scare away the rest. Remember they are preprogamed pussies. I have witnessed a live event, luckly the guy didn't have to kill anyone. All he had to do was fire the shot in the air and that left them running like scared pigs. What you may not know is that Mumbai is actually one of the safest cities in India, but you should read the newspapers in Kerala, then you will understand what I am speaking about. I still fear for my Parents' and Relatives' lives while I am abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have plummeted. Since they have done so both in states with strict gun control and those without, it's clear that another factor is at work. In his excellent book "Freakonomics" Stephen Levitt makes an excellent case for Roe vs Wade being the reason why crime dropped so dramatically in the early 90s- the theory being that all those children who were aborted in the years immediately afterwards (most of whom were unwanted and would have had a high chance of becoming criminals) would have almost certainly been reaching their criminal "prime", had they not instead been aborted. You should read it- it's a very interesting book. But I digress- the point is other factors were at work and the crime drop has nothing to do with gun laws.

Personally I am somewhat anti-gun, or at least anti having-a-gun-in-my-home. When I have children even more so, for I know the chance of them getting hold of it are much, much higher than the chances of me having to defend myself with it. I know that the more I protect my children from the gun by keeping it under lock and key, the less likely I'll be able to get hold of it in an emergency, and thus the less useful it'll be. I also know I'm much more likely to be killed outside, where I don't have my gun, than in my house, and that a few basic security features- extra locks, a good alarm system etc will do more to deter an intruder than the unlikely threat of a gun in a house he expects to be empty. I also know that running away is a far more sensible strategy than staying and fighting. My house fortunately has plenty of exits and plenty of insurance.

Having said that I'm still not as rabidly anti-gun as the above would suggest. I do support peoples' right to own a gun if they believe it makes them safer, as many do. Gun crime, whilst much higher in the US than in the UK, is still something I've never experienced and probably never will (actually I have experienced it in the UK, but I think the gun was a replica). Even if I had a gun in my home and I had kids, my pool is about 100 times more likely to kill them. Regardless, statistics prove nothing about me on a personal level- statistics say I have a 1 in x chance of electrocuting myself whilst changing a light bulb with wet hands. The actual figure, however, is much lower simply because I'm not a retard.

What all this proves is that no matter which side you're on there are plenty of seemingly logical arguments on both sides. It seems irrefutable to me that greater gun control is required though. A nutter with a history of mental illness should not be able to legally acquire two guns and blow away Virginia Tech. You can claim all you like that he would have found another way- perhaps he would, perhaps he wouldn't. But even if one life was saved as a result of a killer not having easy access to a gun (a fairly conservative estimate), and a gun buyer has to wait an extra few days for a more thorough background check, I can't see what the problem is. Have the guns, but do everything possible to restrict their sale to lunatics.

Anyway, this article is quite interesting. I'm not entirely convinced by everything it says, but it's worth a read. I've read a few pro-gun ones as well, but haven't found one that you can click through to its sources, which I think is pretty vital considering the subterfuge which goes on with both sides of this debate. Hopefully one of you guys can find one for me:

http://www.guninformation.org/

I have more to say as always, but sadly work is calling.

Some good points there, Oli. I don't think UK people and USA people will ever see eye to eye on issues involving guns, because of the different cultures we are brought up with in reference to guns.

I'm with you, though, even if only one life is saved, or the murder rate goes down by one, if you like, through stricter control of guns, then it's worth it, in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, in principle, but if you put a gun in the hands of the wrong kind of person it increases their likelihood of killing. In the UK, people are banned from owning any form of firearms for life after any significantly violent offence, and even for 5 years just for things like drugs charges. In the US you can get guns in your supermarkets. That is simply a bad attitude whatever way you look at it.

Once you are convicted of a felony in the US, you aren't allowed to own a firearm. This, I agree with.

And gun shop owners can refuse service to anyone if they do not like how they look.

PS: the only shops that do that are Wal Mart and K Mart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still a stupid attitude though, surely you can see that?

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but honestly do you think judgement on how a person looks is good enough alone to prevent? many killers are good at what they do primarily because of their ability to blend in

Also, are background checks ran on people who buy guns to see if they are banned from doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now