Mini-Arsenal

[CK]

"History teaches that governments that don't allow personal ownership do it to control or in fear of losing control." [Mamabear]


3049

Do you notice a common theme with all the people in those pictures?

[CK]

Killing a criminal is not the goal of self-defense, stopping the criminal from completing the unlawful action(s) is. Criminals within the penal system have been polled numerous times, and each time the result has been the same...criminals are afraid of an armed person.

Lets go back to the presumption of killing for self defense. Like I said, killing is not the goal, unfortunately, deaths of criminals do occur. When a person takes up a gun for self defense, they have to come to terms with the possibility that they may kill someone (the criminal) while defending themselves. I have refused to train people who could not come to terms with this fact and offered them less lethal alternatives which are not always effective.

Yes, I am safer having a gun. After a few incidents involving the use of my firearm, the local criminal element and the gangs came to fear me and my gun. There were a few times when they thought that I did not have a gun where they decided to try me and came out on the short end of a very shitty stick. But the fiream is not the ultimate end-all, be- all of self defense. there is a whole spectrum of tools that must be used in conjunction with the proper tools for one's safety and a gun is just one aspect which includes awareness of one's environment and evasive techniques. Sometimes, gun use cannot be avoided, and you can bet yer ass that criminals do not hesitate to use firearms in their endeavors. If guns are restricted, criminals can still get guns, either through theft or by making them. The average handyman can make a full-auto submachine gun in less than ten hours in a workshop. Fortunately, the average criminal does not take the time to become proficient in the use of firearms, which gives the armed citizen an advantage in a use of deadly force scenario. Without firearms, we no longer have that advantage.

Don't think for a minute that criminals will stay in their own neighborhoods, either. More and more home invasions are occurring in upperscale neighborhoods, primarily because the reward for the risk is much higher. If criminals are afraid of guns in the hands of potential victims, and they know or believe that potential victims are armed, they will either move on to non-violent crimes or look elsewhere for their victims.
I certainly will make no attempt to diminish your personal examples were you feel a gun has helped to protect yourself or your life. There are no arguments against. :)

But imagine if you will a United States that didn't have a firearm for every man, woman and child. In this imaginary scenario anyone who were to commit a crime would be unlikely to have a gun at their disposal which would obviously would result in less deaths caused by firearms either through self defence or murder. This is a given and you just have to compare gun related crime/deaths in developed countries to see that this is the case.

In an ideal world the viewpoint pushed by the gun makers, a gun equals everyone's chances sounds good right? Wrong, it's not an ideal world and they don't make everyone equal because not everyone uses them. It reminds me of the MAD theory of the Cold War except it would seem certain demographics are just too eager to use them (specifically criminals) and because of this people die.

For me the big question I find interesting is, could America go back? With so many guns no floating around now, I don't think you all could.

[CK]

Yes they are Murders with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

No they're not buddy.

I'm taking about the total crime victims at the bottom of the stats, gun crime is not included. This is the page you linked to at the time, it was on the previous page. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

So you see although gun crime shows in the summary they don't actually include it in the overall percentage, just a tad misleading.




DEFINITION:
People (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/People) victimized by crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) (as a % of the total population (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop)). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/automobile) theft, car (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/automobile) vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/automobile), theft of personal property, assault and threats.Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), than actual prevalence.


SOURCE:
UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin







The problem is those statistics that the author wants to exaggerate have been published in deliberately deceptive relative terms. Were others have used a per capita percentile.
It shows results of the 2001 census showed there were 58,789,194 people in the UK and 281,421,906 in the US.
The US has a 500% larger population than the UK



UK
US


Murders with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)
14
9,369


Misleading use of data
Ranked 29th.
Ranked 1st.
[-]668 times more than UK[/-]


percentiles tell it different
14/58,789,194
1/4,199,228
9,369/281,421,906
1/30,037




139 Times more likely than the UK



You see what they did there, a nearly 500% exaggeration by not using a per capita. If we were to re-figure using square miles we could really make the UK look like a dangerous place to be.
The US is physically nearly 5000% bigger than the UK , I got an unexpected collaboration that the crimes per square mile and crimes per population are equally more in the UK.


Good point.

So doing the maths, and this is laughable by the way (I had to break out excel as my calculator didn't like the sums :D

UK - % of population murdered with firearms 0.0000238139%
USA - % of population murdered with firearms 0.0033291651%

That doesn't look like much though does it, not until you adjust the figures and calculate % of population murdered with the UK's percentage of population and visa versa.



Deaths
Population
% of Population
Adjusted-deaths


14
58789194 (tel:58789194)
0.000000238139002211869000000000
1957


9369
281421906
0.000033291651432422600000000000
67




Got to scoot now, the other half is calling ;) But I'll reply to the rest of your post tomorrow ROOT :)

[ROOT]

The opinions of people at the gun club aren't exactly representative though now are they?..;)Representative of what ? I mean its not quite the same as asking everyone in the church you go to if they believe in God or asking the women at an abortion clinic if they believe in the right to choose. these are people who use there right to bear arms in a responsible manor and legally. If someone comes here and sees this don't you think they might have second thoughts about the gun control in there own country.



Do you notice a common theme with all the people in those pictures?
Yes they maitained power by sidarming the people they "represent"


I certainly will make no attempt to diminish your personal examples were you feel a gun has helped to protect yourself or your life. There are no arguments against. :)

But imagine if you will a United States that didn't have a firearm for every man, woman and child. In this imaginary scenario anyone who were to commit a crime would be unlikely to have a gun at their disposal which would obviously would result in less deaths caused by firearms either through self defence or murder. This is a given and you just have to compare gun related crime/deaths in developed countries to see that this is the case.

In an ideal world the viewpoint pushed by the gun makers, a gun equals everyone's chances sounds good right? Wrong, it's not an ideal world and they don't make everyone equal because not everyone uses them. It reminds me of the MAD theory of the Cold War except it would seem certain demographics are just to eager to use them (specifically criminals) and because of this people die.

For me the big question I find interesting is, could America go back? With so many guns no floating around now, I don't think you all could.
you do not need a gun to commit rape or home invasion, in fact there are many weapons that could be used to threaten a life, but a gun is the best self defense weapon.
There are place here that having a weapon on your side is a pretty good Idea, places that have Bears Mountain lions gators Hogs or dangerous snakes far out of reach of telephones or the response districts of local rescue teams.
We also still have vast hunting areas were people continue to hunt for food, sport and the health of the wild game populations.
What you are Imagining is that prohibition works, Pot and cocaine are illegal here, has been for a long time yet there is lots of it being bought and consumed every day.
There is no "back" to go to Americans have always been gun owners .

[twodogz]

But imagine if you will a United States that didn't have a firearm for every man, woman and child. In this imaginary scenario anyone who were to commit a crime would be unlikely to have a gun at their disposal which would obviously would result in less deaths caused by firearms either through self defence or murder. This is a given and you just have to compare gun related crime/deaths in developed countries to see that this is the case.

In an ideal world the viewpoint pushed by the gun makers, a gun equals everyone's chances sounds good right? Wrong, it's not an ideal world and they don't make everyone equal because not everyone uses them. It reminds me of the MAD theory of the Cold War except it would seem certain demographics are just too eager to use them (specifically criminals) and because of this people die.

For me the big question I find interesting is, could America go back? With so many guns no floating around now, I don't think you all could.

One thing you are failing to take into account is that not all firearms in the US is a defensive or offensive tool. They can certainly be used in that manner, but most are not very well suited for that purpose. Of the seventeen guns in my safe right now, only four are suited for defensive use, and only three are there for that purpose. I own several other firearms that are in my father's safe, none for that purpose.

As far as the gun being and equalizer, I believe it is. What other instrument of defense can give an 80 year old woman the chance to survive a violent encounter with a criminal better than a gun? If the opponent is bigger and stronger, the gun can bring him down with a four pound trigger pull. At ten yards, a gun can beat a club or a knife every time. At close range, a gun can save a weaker person's life against that bigger, stronger criminal.

If a meth fueled attacker came at you, which would you rather have, a gun or a telephone with which to dial 911?

As far as not everyone having a gun with which to defend themselves, that is their choice, and the criminal doesn't know who is not armed.

[Mamabear]

The opinions of people at the gun club aren't exactly representative though now are they?..;)

Ah, but they are. Ages range from 30's to 70's, and from countries around the world, all religions,races, and colors. Their one thing in common, the right to bear arms and protect what is theirs. Legally and with respect for human life and the guns they shoot.

[Grits]

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns......... :(

[Walker]

There is no "back" to go to Americans have always been gun owners .

And they should be ass-kissin' grateful across the pond.

True or False?

"As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people."

But imagine if you will, a world where candy grows on trees and everyone can fly.

[Itchey]

With our justice system the way it is......
It is many many times better if the only side of the story being told is your side, and what the physical evidence proves.
Anything else will likely just cost you time and trouble.

I get the impression that other civilizations look at the US as pretty barbaric due to our relatively liberal firearm ownership laws.
We tend to look at guns differently than other countries. We look at firearms not unlike say chainsaws. We all know people that need to cut down a tree for whatever reason. We also know people that have no business at all being on the operator end of a chainsaw also. Some of those people should not be allowed to cut down a standing tree for any reason either.

Well we have that same mentality and issues with guns. But overall I'm not willing to give up any of mine.. You never can tell when R.O.V. Drones will become open season!

[ROOT]

3052Its funny how its a United kingdom till the stats for crime get published, Just looking over this further and comparing three stats I find that the UK seems to be un united with Ireland and Scotland, don't know about whales. Murder is murder and quite frankly the US and almost half that list of firearm murders is only on that list The rest including Scotland and Ireland are on all three. and I would guess that if the UK reported the entire county's stats as one that it and "England" would be too. Hell I want to dis-clude Detroit and DC from the US stats if were gonna have handicaps.

[CK]

And in other news Americans deny gun ownership increases gun crime and deaths. ;)

Just heading into work so will come back to this later, remember folks all I've argued is that guns do not make you safer. Will come back to the other half of your post ROOT.

[Itchey]

All you have proven is that statistics can "prove" any view point you want it to.
The question was .... Does having a Gun make you safer?....... Maybe it does, maybe it does not, But it can keep you from becoming a statistic or a victim!

[twodogz]

3053Guns don't make me safer, my willingness to use a gun against criminals makes me safer...

(picture taken with remote camera for safety)

[CK]

Yet the other numbers are more frighting when you look at that the other way round were the likelihood of being a crime victim in the UK is




United Kingdom 80,823 square miles
United States 3,790,000 square miles


2002 population
58,789,194
281,421,906


Total crimes (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes)
crimes/Pop
6,523,706
6,523,706/58,789,194
1/9
11,877,218
11,877,218/281,421,906
1/24



[-]Ranked 2nd.[/-]
[-]Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom[/-]



one crime for every nine people
80 crimes per square mile
one crime for every twenty four people
3 crimes per square mile



266% more likely to commit a crime than a US citizen




266% more likely to be at a crime site



Total crime victims *1 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims)
15,520,347 26.4%
1 out of 3.78 people are victims of a crime
59,380,022 21.1%
1 out of 4.73 people are victims of a crime







Assault victims*2 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims)
1,646,097 2.8%
3,377,062 1.2%


victims/population
1 in 36 are victims of an assault
1 in 83 are victims of an assault



231% more likely to be a victim of an assault
More than twice as safe with guns than without



*1 People victimized by any crime (Total)/(as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats.
*2 People victimized by assault/violence (Total)/(as a % of the total population).


I covered the above in my last reply but what are all those blanks and where did you get that information from because I can't see it. You didn't respond to my last one but clearly gun crime isn't included in the side by side comparisons that the
site provides.



They way you ask that is a straw man argument, of course you would be safer if you didn't have to defend yourself at all wither with deadly force or otherwise.
You should be asking that different if you want a valid answer, the question should be "If you kill someone with a gun in self defence you're overall more safe than if you didn't have a gun ?
The real question is: Would a criminal be more or less likely to attempt an assault if he knew the potential victim was armed with a gun ?
It is and it isn't. If you look at the narrative of the thread the discussion skewed to are you actually any safer because of guns? twododz then says the statistic are misleading because they don't properly consider deaths by firearms classified as self defence, my question was fair and he still hasn't answered it.


I think this is the key to the stand your ground laws and a pivotal factor in its showing how effective it will be once every person has it in their head that if they fuck with someone they might get their ass shot and that person is not going to jail for it.
Or the criminals start arming themselves as standard, maybe they invest in some body armour and so the race between law abiding civilians and criminals begins? Do you not see the logical fallacy. Flip it around, once the criminals get it in their head that everyone is well armed they're not going to suddenly close shop they're going to up their game. The end result will still be more deaths.


We will have a different attitude on how we approach others. Treat every person as if they are armed with a gun and you will not get shot.
There will be some victims before it sinks in and they will serve as an example to others if we can keep the focus on that's how it is and people learn how to treat others respectfully.
Instead of getting lost on the tragedy of the individual who fails to take into account that his/her physical or verbal intimidation has consequences.
Following your example through then, who doesn't get to bear arms and would they not be more at risk? Say children, teens or adult individuals not prepared to pay into the gun makers profits would they not themselves become easy prey for the now heavily armed criminals?


Sure there is a trade off with accidents and abuse, but one I am willing to take. It puts personal accountability back on the top of the priorities.
I don't think many victims of accidental shootings would agree with you.

[Tachy]

And in other news Americans deny gun ownership increases gun crime and deaths. ;)

Just heading into work so will come back to this later, remember folks all I've argued is that guns do not make you safer. Will come back to the other half of your post ROOT.

Seems you are in fact less likely to be a victim if you have a gun, I would call that safer.