Fire Arms...yay Or Neigh

[Minchia! 0]

Gun Related Murders per 100,000 of population in 2002 (From Sunday Times)

USA - 4.08

Canada - 0.54

Australia - 0.25

England and Wales - 0.12

Scotland - 0.12

Japan - 0.04

Those numbers are meaningless with no context. The US is the most culturally, ethnically and demographically diverse country on that list. Obviously the US has the highest chances that differences in opinion/faith/economic status/education of its population will result in violence. Japan, on the other hand has the most ethnically homogenus population. Look where it lies on the list. I am sure the statistics you posted would look the same if you compared non-gun related violent crimes. If all guns suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, the US would still have the most deaths by pizza cutter. Should we ban those too?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Those numbers are meaningless with no context. The US is the most culturally, ethnically and demographically diverse country on that list. Obviously the US has the highest chances that differences in opinion/faith/economic status/education of its population will result in violence. Japan, on the other hand has the most ethnically homogenus population. Look where it lies on the list. I am sure the statistics you posted would look the same if you compared non-gun related violent crimes. If all guns suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, the US would still have the most deaths by pizza cutter. Should we ban those too?

So gun crime is proportional to ethnic mix? Nonsense.

Are you saying that USA has 40 x the ethnic mix of UK?

England has a 2000+ year history of ethnic mixing and in some of our cities the ethnic minorities are in fact majorities. Yet we have a tiny fraction of the gun crime.

You only have to see the output from Hollywood and American musicians to see that gun culture is embedded deep in the American psyche. Its about attitude, history and a culture of fear more than anything else.

[dribbler 6]

So gun crime is proportional to ethnic mix? Nonsense.

Absolutely.

[monza gorilla 1]

Own? Yes. Carry? No.

[ykickamoocow 0]

Those numbers are meaningless with no context. The US is the most culturally, ethnically and demographically diverse country on that list. Obviously the US has the highest chances that differences in opinion/faith/economic status/education of its population will result in violence. Japan, on the other hand has the most ethnically homogenus population. Look where it lies on the list. I am sure the statistics you posted would look the same if you compared non-gun related violent crimes. If all guns suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, the US would still have the most deaths by pizza cutter. Should we ban those too?

There is a difference. Anybody can shoot someone with a gun as you can be quite a long way away, killing someone with a gun would be alot easier to do than killing someone with a knife. A person who murders someone with a knife would be a real monster as you have to get up close to your victim and physically attack him/her which i would imagine to be a very violent process while killing someone with a gun would seem almost clean and tidy in conparison.

In short alot more people are capable of murder with a gun than people who are capable of murder with a knife. That means remove the guns and that leaves alot fewer people who could be potential murderers.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

There is a difference. Anybody can shoot someone with a gun as you can be quite a long way away, killing someone with a gun would be alot easier to do than killing someone with a knife. A person who murders someone with a knife would be a real monster as you have to get up close to your victim and physically attack him/her which i would imagine to be a very violent process while killing someone with a gun would seem almost clean and tidy in conparison.

In short alot more people are capable of murder with a gun than people who are capable of murder with a knife. That means remove the guns and that leaves alot fewer people who could be potential murderers.

...and killing someone with a banana is even more challenging and close up....

Seriously... you made a good point.

[monza gorilla 1]

The bravery of being out of range.

[maure 1]

I'm tired of arguing about religion so lets start another controvercial topic:

GUNS - This should be interesting considering the cosmopolitan population we have on this forum.

What do the members here think about owning / carrying fire arms?

I like to discribe myself as pretty liberal. I was born, and spent more than half of my life in Italy so I have a very European/ laid back mentality on most subjects. However, I do veer from the typical liberal mindset in that I am a gun enthusiast. Don't get me wrong, I am not some psycho that has holsters all over his body, a gun rack on his pickup truck and NRA t-shirts, waiting for the revolution! I do, though, own several pistols and rifles and I enjoy target shooting. I also have a gun for self/ home defence and I have a permit to carry concealed weapons. I also have extensive gun handling and tactical pistol training. I have seen too many cases where someone strolls into a mall/ McDonalds/ school/ home and opens fire on a group of innocent people. I refuse to be a victim and I will do any (repeat any)thing to protect my family.

Your thoughts?

First off, your conception of what "liberals" are is mistaken and possibly so because you've bought into (mainly american) leftist misappropriation of the term. Read up on true liberalism and discover some welcoming notions regarding minimal government, individual rights, and such.

On topic, guns are tools. As a sport, they can be fun. Hunting, though, is completely unnecessary but if one considers the many tortures animals are subject to before they end up in the supermarket, it is difficult to make a case against hunting on humanitarian grounds.

Last, if there is a need for self-defense, weaponry is the wrong solution. In fact, if your society is dangerous, the first logical step is to disarm the population. Come time later on, allow their use again under proper guidelines.

[Rainmaster 7]

There is a difference. Anybody can shoot someone with a gun as you can be quite a long way away, killing someone with a gun would be alot easier to do than killing someone with a knife. A person who murders someone with a knife would be a real monster as you have to get up close to your victim and physically attack him/her which i would imagine to be a very violent process while killing someone with a gun would seem almost clean and tidy in conparison.

In short alot more people are capable of murder with a gun than people who are capable of murder with a knife. That means remove the guns and that leaves alot fewer people who could be potential murderers.

Good post

[mikathegreat2 2]

I vote yay. A Desert Eagle would do fine but is case, an M4 Carbine w/nade launcher & Dragunov sniper, or if I'm greedy a Barrett M82 .50 cal, thank goodness for COD4!

[Minchia! 0]

Hi all,

Wow – lots of replies! Sorry for the delayed response, my son is in the hospital with severe pneumonia and I was out of the loop (by the way, he’s doing much better now). Anyways, to respond to some of you:

Meanioni –

Not JUST ethnic mix. There are many other factors (faith/economic status/education). These things have an impact on ALL crime –with or without a gun. Take a look at the riots in Paris, for example. Yes we have a higher incidence of gun violence, because guns are available. If they weren’t, the criminals would use something else (Like bows and arrows maybe ) My point with those posted statistics is that raw numbers can be manipulated to support anyones point of view. Just like the number of pirates in the world has reduced while global temperatures have increased. Therefore, we need more pirates to combat global warming.

Anyways, you are misinterpreting my original argument. I am not saying that the current gun situation in the US is a great model for the rest of the world. Far from it. As I said before, while I think it needs to be much more difficult to legally obtain a fire arm – to ensure that those that have them are responsible and qualified to do so - I don’t think they should be banned. If it was as difficult to get your drivers license as it was to get your pilots license in the US, the roads would be a lot safer. The US is a country that was born from Revolution. Guns are imbedded in the very foundation of our society. We will always have guns here – so, from a self defense point of view, I don’t want to be Bambi when hunting season starts. Besides, while I abhor sport hunting, I really enjoy target shooting. How different is that from archery, or darts or bocce ball? – I’ve seen much more violence erupt from bocce ball games than shooting matches.

Ykickamoocow-

Most gun crimes in the US are at close range (less than 10ft away) like robberies, and home invasions. At that distance, it’s just as gruesome as with any other weapon. My friend who is in the Marines was shot while over in Iraq (he survived). He showed me pictures of the wound in his leg- needless to say, it was (aside from my wifes c-section) one of the most grotesque things I have ever seen. Anyone who says gun shots are clean and tidy, saw a few too many Roy Rogers movies.

Maure-

Yes, I was using the term “liberal” as it exists within the US lexicon. I am aware that this is a distortion of the actual meaning of the word (just as the American definition of conservatism is a distant relative of the original).

Disarm the population? That would be interesting to watch. I think regulation is the key. Making guns illegal would only create a blackmarket for the criminals, while the people like me (of outstanding moral charactor and unquestionable heritage ) would be helpless. Look what happened with prohibition in the 1920’s.

ON EDIT:

I really love these debates!!! With out you guys, I would be lost. There is no one out here in Las Vegas that I can have intelligent conversation with. I am in a sea of morons who only care about day-to-day fripperies. Anytime I try to bring up an important issue like religion or politics or philosophy, its like talking to a piece of drywall. I just want to say A HUGE THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU for throwing an intellectual "life preserver" out to me.

[james 0]

It's been a couple of months since my last post so it's about time for another one. It's funny, I lurk around an F1 forum and rarely ever post on anything relating to F1.

For those of you that remember anything about me you probably already know where I stand on the issue. I really enjoy hunting. But its not about killing. It's about the nature. How many of you have ever gotten up before dawn, walked a couple of miles out to the perfect spot to watch the sun rise and the forest come alive. Its really quite something. There is a certain amount of respect involved in taking an animals life for food.

As for the right of the general public to own and carry a firearm, I'm all for it. Just think, if only 50% of the people on the street were walking around with a shotgun, and if only half of them were loaded, do you really think that someone is going to try to mug anyone when there is that great a percentage of themselves being harmed. Now I'm sure that if there were no illegally obtained guns, then disarming the rest of the citizens wouldn't be so bad. There wouldn't be anyone else with guns. The number of crimes committed with legally obtained guns is in the single digit percentage. Around 7% if I remember correctly. So if you remove those, using ykick's stats there would still be 3.8 firearm murders per 100,000 people. And don't try to say that the police will be able to round up the illegally obtained guns. They can't do it now. They can't round up drugs that are illegal. They can't even round up people who are not supposed to be here. As long as there is the possibility of someone coming into my house with a gun or knife. I'm going to keep a loaded shotgun within arms reach.

[Max Mosley 2]

Wow – lots of replies! Sorry for the delayed response, my son is in the hospital with severe pneumonia and I was out of the loop (by the way, he’s doing much better now). Anyways, to respond to some of you:

Glad to hear he's doing better now!

I really love these debates!!! With out you guys, I would be lost. There is no one out here in Las Vegas that I can have intelligent conversation with. I am in a sea of morons who only care about day-to-day fripperies. Anytime I try to bring up an important issue like religion or politics or philosophy, its like talking to a piece of drywall. I just want to say A HUGE THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU for throwing an intellectual "life preserver" out to me.

Well we europeans are glad to help.

Anyway, I think America has higher levels of crime because of the type of society they have constructed. There are many good things about the USA but also some bad things that I suspect are inseparable from the good things. The emphasis on individual responsibility leads to innovation and entrepreneurship but also pressure/stress and more than anything it leads to inequality. The levels of inequality - financial but also educational, health-wise etc - are probably the main reason for high crime rates, coupled with poor community cohesion in some respects. It gets worse though, because in America these inequalities mean that it is harder for someone to move up in the world from where their parents were, in other words social mobility is lower in the USA than elsewhere, and there are huge swathes of angry young men who have no future and no chance of earning (even dubious) respect amongst their peers through anything but violence and crime. So I think there is some truth in what you say about the ethnic mix because in parts of America it does go hand in hand with inequality of various kinds and community tensions, even if the main reason for the high crime rates is the "American dream". Not that you have to conclude that America is wrong - perhaps some people should just be told to do better...

As for the right of the general public to own and carry a firearm, I'm all for it. Just think, if only 50% of the people on the street were walking around with a shotgun, and if only half of them were loaded, do you really think that someone is going to try to mug anyone when there is that great a percentage of themselves being harmed.

Yeah but the other side of the coin is that anyone in a bad mood can kill you before they have time to think (and before you have time to defend yourself, even if you could).

[Quiet One 15]

I think that's not the whole picture, Muzza. I will give you my perspective from a totally different country.

LatinAmerica is, as you might know, the most inequal zone on earth. The abyss between rich and poor here is unimaginable in Europe or America. Yet, even is crime is rampant around these parts, it is not proportional when compared to USA levels of unequality. Let's say that the difference in equality is bigger than the difference in crime rates (as a general rule, of course) You won't see many suicide guys walking into universities/malls and killing everybody on sight.

I have no idea why USA has such highlevels of violence but I think that you might be right with the "American Dream" thing. Is not that much about the actual situation of the person which dictates its violence, but more about the difference between what they were told they deserve and what they get. People here does not think this is a land of opportunity. Poor people lives in subhuman conditions, but nobody ever promised a golden future (at least, not recently). Americans are being taught the American Dream since the day they were born. Poor/misfit people must feel huge levels of frustration when they notice that it will never happen for most of them.

[LabradoRacer 2]

If my memory serves me right, I think the following quote can be attributed to Mae West - "Are you happy to see me, or is that a gun in your pocket?"

Well, if nobody has guns, there won't be any shootings, right?

Edit: I must admit that it's thrilling to shoot, especially with a sniper... in videogames at least. The sniper...man, what a sense of power it gives. The poor b#####d doesn't even get to know who or what gave him a one-way ticket to his maker.

[Minchia! 0]

I think that's not the whole picture, Muzza. I will give you my perspective from a totally different country.

LatinAmerica is, as you might know, the most inequal zone on earth. The abyss between rich and poor here is unimaginable in Europe or America. Yet, even is crime is rampant around these parts, it is not proportional when compared to USA levels of unequality. Let's say that the difference in equality is bigger than the difference in crime rates (as a general rule, of course) You won't see many suicide guys walking into universities/malls and killing everybody on sight.

I have no idea why USA has such highlevels of violence but I think that you might be right with the "American Dream" thing. Is not that much about the actual situation of the person which dictates its violence, but more about the difference between what they were told they deserve and what they get. People here does not think this is a land of opportunity. Poor people lives in subhuman conditions, but nobody ever promised a golden future (at least, not recently). Americans are being taught the American Dream since the day they were born. Poor/misfit people must feel huge levels of frustration when they notice that it will never happen for most of them.

I don't think it is any one social issue (just economic or just ethnic) that creates the disporportionate crime levels in the US, but a melange' of many. They don't call this country "The Melting Pot' for nothing. For the past 200 years, we have been absorbing the the cultures and traditions of almost every population on earth. I don't think this kind of diversity exists under one government, in such close proximity anywhere else. Throw that in with economic differences, lack of education, a history of slavery/ segragation and bad influences from movies and other media and you have a very volitile c#cktail.

[AutoRacer5 0]

If some b#####d decides to invade my home after college, and my wife and kids are home, he gets four bullets, center mass, no questions asked. More bullets needed? He'll get them too.

The proper solution to an armed robbery is a dead robber on scene. ~Col. Jeff Cooper.

[Minchia! 0]

If some b#####d decides to invade my home after college, and my wife and kids are home, he gets four bullets, center mass, no questions asked. More bullets needed? He'll get them too.

The proper solution to an armed robbery is a dead robber on scene. ~Col. Jeff Cooper.

Thats the core of the whole issue for me. It is really easy to take the public position that all guns are bad and violence is bad, but what happens when it becomes personal? I really don't care about the social issues if I am awakened in the middle of the night by the shattering of the living room window (with my son on the other side of the house). What am I to do in this situation? What would you do? I don't know what this invaders intentions are. Is he armed? Is he high on drugs? Maybe he's a pedophile! Maybe there are several intruders. All I can say is that this person /people does not belong in my house at this hour and probably intends to harm me. I am not going to sit there and be victimized. I am also not going to sneak around the house in my underwear with a baseball bat. I am going to take my Springfield Armory XD40 and turn this guys head into melon salad.

END OF STORY.

Let the police sort out the aftermath. If John Q. Homeinvader wants to live a long and healthy life, he'll stay away from my house.

[Eric 0]

I understand where both of you guys are coming from, but being pretty liberal and anti-killing, I've got a baseball bat under the bed. I'll take the guy down, and I'll let the law decide what should happen to him.

Fact is, I know it gets personal, but if he was in your neighbor's house, you wouldn't be running out there with the gun. Do I love my wife more than anyone in this world? Damn straight. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed for her.

Now, in Florida, it is legal to shoot a guy dead if he trespasses into your house and the doors are closed.

[james 0]

I understand where both of you guys are coming from, but being pretty liberal and anti-killing, I've got a baseball bat under the bed. I'll take the guy down, and I'll let the law decide what should happen to him.

Fact is, I know it gets personal, but if he was in your neighbor's house, you wouldn't be running out there with the gun. Do I love my wife more than anyone in this world? Damn straight. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed for her.

Now, in Florida, it is legal to shoot a guy dead if he trespasses into your house and the doors are closed.

How exactly do you intend to take down this guy after he shoots you in the head?

I'd classify myself as anti-killing as well, but if it's between him or me and people I care about, I'm gonna do what I can to make it him. And use any advantage I can get.

[AutoRacer5 0]

Always remember the old military maxim:

If he is in range, so are you.

[Minchia! 0]

I understand where both of you guys are coming from, but being pretty liberal and anti-killing, I've got a baseball bat under the bed. I'll take the guy down, and I'll let the law decide what should happen to him.

Fact is, I know it gets personal, but if he was in your neighbor's house, you wouldn't be running out there with the gun. Do I love my wife more than anyone in this world? Damn straight. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed for her.

Now, in Florida, it is legal to shoot a guy dead if he trespasses into your house and the doors are closed.

I am anti-killing as well. I hope the only thing my guns ever put holes in are paper targets. When you are dealing with an unknown threat in a defense situation, though, you have to use maximum force, because you just don't know what the bad guy is going to do or is capable of. There was a case of a police involved shooting where the suspect was high on PCP and took 12 rounds of 9mm to the chest and STILL was able to charge the officer.

You think a baseball bat is going to accomplish much?

As far as the Florida law is concerned, we too have the same law in Nevada. It is called the castle doctrine. It basically states that if someone is in your home with out your consent, you have the right to assume that they intend to harm you. Therefore, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary.

[goferrarigo 0]

I understand where both of you guys are coming from, but being pretty liberal and anti-killing, I've got a baseball bat under the bed. I'll take the guy down, and I'll let the law decide what should happen to him.

Fact is, I know it gets personal, but if he was in your neighbor's house, you wouldn't be running out there with the gun. Do I love my wife more than anyone in this world? Damn straight. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed for her.

Now, in Florida, it is legal to shoot a guy dead if he trespasses into your house and the doors are closed.

I agree Good Post.

[maure 1]

Yes, I was using the term “liberal” as it exists within the US lexicon. I am aware that this is a distortion of the actual meaning of the word (just as the American definition of conservatism is a distant relative of the original).

Disarm the population? That would be interesting to watch. I think regulation is the key. Making guns illegal would only create a blackmarket for the criminals, while the people like me (of outstanding moral charactor and unquestionable heritage ) would be helpless. Look what happened with prohibition in the 1920’s.

As interesting as it is frequent. Throughout history, war after war, the population has been armed and disarmed over and over again. There is nothing unusual about the process.

Consider Japan (where I live these days). Japanese were nuts to the core up to 60 years back. An insane bunch by any standards. Today, it is a peaceful country where violent crime is rare. I can tell you from experience that there isn't a single place in the country where you cannot walk at any time of day or night without a worry. Heck! you may cross ways with a uniformed schoolgirl at three in the morning in a dark street.

Now, is it possible to buy a gun in the blackmarket in Japan? Of course, it is difficult but it can be done (like drugs, the easiest way is to have a contact in the US atmy). Anyone killed by gunshot? Of course, once a blue moon and under the strangest circumstances.

[maure 1]

I don't think it is any one social issue (just economic or just ethnic) that creates the disporportionate crime levels in the US, but a melange' of many. They don't call this country "The Melting Pot' for nothing. For the past 200 years, we have been absorbing the the cultures and traditions of almost every population on earth. I don't think this kind of diversity exists under one government, in such close proximity anywhere else. Throw that in with economic differences, lack of education, a history of slavery/ segragation and bad influences from movies and other media and you have a very volitile c#cktail.

I've lived in a dozen countries over the years, including the US and UK (the two most dangerous). I found similarities in the levels of violence in both countries, although americans are generally deadlier... Interestingly, I lived in Guatemala through a "civil war" and it was safer than both the US and the UK, especially the first.

Anyway, it is true that there are many reasons why conflicts exist but, in my experience, there is only one reason why there is social violence.... it is allowed to happen. In some cases, the government does not have the capacity to enforce peace. In other cases, government simply doesn't or it only prosecutes some groups or some crimes. It boils down to the same thing, though, it is allowed to happen. In those countries where it is not allowed to happen, it doesn't or it happens comparatively less (much much less).