“Is it any wonder people are fleeing London?” (Telegraph UK)

[jody]

Is it any wonder people are fleeing London?

In a north London suburb last week, a schoolgirl was beaten, gang-raped and then had drain-cleaning fluid poured on her body apparently to destroy DNA evidence. In the eternal cesspit of senseless urban crime, I feel that a dreadful nadir of sorts has been reached, a benchmark of slaked lust and casual, sadistic cruelty.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Yes, these are the peculiar times we live in, particularly in a week when Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has pointed out that "white flight is accelerating" as Britain becomes increasingly polarised along ethnic lines.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Last year, nearly a quarter of a million decent, law-abiding citizens packed their bags and left the capital for good, seeking what they hope will be a better life elsewhere. They moved to outer boroughs, other city suburbs, rural areas, abroad, the back end of beyond, anywhere but here.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

What is going to happen to those of us left to live here if youths across the city continue to feel quite comfortable and confident in running amok? That's before you even factor in the older, more professional criminal gangs from more than 25 countries, who operate prosperous drug trafficking, people smuggling, prostitution, money laundering and fraud rackets on the capital's streets.

I don’t know why Londoners are worried, UK’s gun-grabbers passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 that banned handguns, effectively destroying the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves but promised police would protect them.

I believe that’s the same drivel gun-grabbers spew when demanding that law-abiding citizens be prohibited from keeping and bearing firearms for self-defense in such crime ridden areas as D.C. See D.C.'s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975

Hopefully SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) will support the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense as enshrined in the majority of state constitutions.

For pro and con material on D.C. v. Heller browse Amicus briefs for D.C. available in guns case

Perhaps one way to resolve the problem is for gun-grabbers and violent criminals to live together on a remote island for a few months so each can really get to know the other.

[depakid]

1. Odd that people aren't "fleeing" Sydney

even though the "gun grabbers"-and the pit bull grabbers, managed to prevail on policy.

No piano playing kids getting paralyzed by stray gunfire in NSW either.

Hmmm.

Then again, the OP does source the Telegraph -so who can say what the real deal is in London. You sure won't find out by reading that rag. LOL.

[jody]

3. Understand rag Telegraph but aren't the basic facts accurate re white-flight and crime increase? n/t

[thunder rising]

2. Disenfranchised youth and minorities always follow after a conservative stint

They have been accused of all wrongs, are shot down in the streets, and handed injustice daily. What's not to keep you loving your country? And, the old asshats that have targeted you.

This is like the late 60's.

[enid602]

4. Maggie

Thanks to Maggie Thatcher's reforms, Londoners can now enjoy the same benefits we urban Americans have known for so long.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Are you an NRA supporter? LOL! Think you need to look at this graph

Now this is PER CAPITA murders. U.S. is #24, while UK is #46

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[jody]

6. No I'm a Dem and my party says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Okay, fine. However, you seriously need to study that graph.....

... with the idea in mind of WHICH countries have guns and which don't. And also, as you can see, the UK (where guns are not allowed) is waaaaaaay down on murders compared with the U.S. (where guns ARE allowed).

Your premise is incorrect. I don't understand why gun owners keep trying to justify their gun ownership by using ILLOGICAL arguments that can be disproven in one second.

Why don't gun owners merely say, "I like owning a gun, I feel like it" and that's ALL instead of f****** around trying to come up with sleight of hand defenses where there are none? Just say you LIKE IT and get over it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Good Point

Indeed.

[jody]

13. You've disproved nothing. SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal problem and handguns are the most

effective, efficient tool for that job.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right protected by most state constitutions as well as either the Second Amendment or Ninth Amendment to our Constitution.

Have a nice day.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Statistics disprove your argument. Just say you like guns and stop trying to prove....

.... something you cannot.

[jody]

19. What is your point? My position is I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self

defense.

Other countries deny law-abiding citizens that right and have higher and lower murder rates than the U.S. Mexico's murder rate is three times the U.S. even though firearms are highly restricted in Mexico.

Other countries allow their citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense and have lower murder rates than those who do not. Switzerland versus the UK is one example.

Similar stats exist for suicide. Japan prohibits guns but its suicide rate is higher than the U.S.

Ignoring those facts, gun grabbers in the U.S. want to ban guns to reduce suicides.

You need to admit you hate guns and ask why?

If you examine U.S. murder rates within ethnic groups, you will find that differences as great as seven times exist between groups even though each group has exactly the same access to firearms.

An intelligent person will conclude that cultural differences affect violent crime rates, not the availability of arms.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Fine, you have the right and you like it and you want it. That's my point!

My point is that you should just be direct rather than try to prove something that isn't.

[jody]

23. Why don't you just admit you hate guns even though such hatred is irrational. No one will fault you

if you have a phobia about guns.

A number of people with Hoplophobia, Fear of Firearms, and Fear of Guns have been successfully treated.

One website discusses the gun fear problem as follows:

What is the cause of Gun Phobia?
Like all fears and phobias, gun phobia is created by the unconscious mind as a protective mechanism. At some point in your past, there was likely an event linking firearms and emotional trauma. Whilst the original catalyst may have been a real-life scare of some kind, the condition can also be triggered by myriad, benign events like movies, TV, or perhaps seeing someone else experience trauma.

But so long as the negative association is powerful enough, the unconscious mind thinks: "Ahh, this whole thing is very dangerous. How do I keep myself from getting in this kind of situation again? I know, I'll attach terrible feelings to firearms, that way I'll steer clear in future and so be safe." Just like that gun phobia is born. Attaching emotions to situations is one of the primary ways that humans learn. Sometimes we just get the wiring wrong.

The actual phobia manifests itself in different ways. Some sufferers experience it almost all the time, others just in response to direct stimuli. Everyone has their own unique formula for when and how to feel bad.

If you have Hoplophobia, here's wishing you a speedy and full recovery. :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. Okay Mr. Shrink, since you really want to know, let me tell you why I hate guns......

.....

1) It's bad enough that knives exist out there, and B&D electric saws, and baseball bats, and so on, for all these things can kill. We hardly need an implement that kills from REAL FAR AWAY, from behind a bush, and while driving by.
2) God knows there are enough sociopaths, whackos, loners, low IQers, and idiots out there thinking they're Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis. Do we really really need to put convenient kill-from-afar implements in their hands so they can finish the job of their imagination?
3) I want to be able to tell someone to fuck off without having them blow my brains out for it.

As for protecting onself with a gun, let's see.....
Let's assume I'm walking in a dark parking lot with a loaded gun in my purse and 3 men appear out of nowhere with a gun pointed at me, and grab me. Here's your question: What's the probability that I'll be able to pray away from the assholes, sway sideways Matrix-style to avoid the oncoming bullet, open my purse, pull out my gun and shoot all 3 assholes? Here's where you put the probability: _%

Let's also assume that you have 3 kids, so although you have a gun, you have taken the courses and know that it's deadly to keep a loaded gun in a house with kids, so you keep the damned thing unloaded. Suddenly, some asshole breaks through your bedroom window with a gun and begins firing at your sleeping body. Here's your question: How quickly could you plug up the holes in your body, lift yourself, grab your gun, load it, and fire back, killing the subject? Here's where you put the probability: _%

Now, what's are my diagnoses?

[jody]

26. You've made the first step toward recovery by admitting your fear. I suppose the next step is to see

a psychiatrist.

Have a good evening. :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. I got you to admit you LIKE guns :-P nt

[jody]

28. Sorry, I did not admit that but you did admit your fear of guns phobia. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Did too! Repeat after me, "There may be no justification for guns but I love 'em anyway!!" nt

[jody]

34. I can not engage in a rational debate re RKBA because you have a phobia against guns. Please seek

medical attention and when cured we can discuss the topic intelligently.

Goodbye :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. I like actual facts. I search the NRA lobbying site and they only manage to invest bs

If and when (perhaps on an alternate universe) guns become a source of peace, please alert me immediately. Till then, I'll be expecting you to say you like guns, and nobody is going to pry them from your cold, dead fingers or something like that. :-)

[Tejas]

81. Most of us don't need the NRA or Brady to tell us what to do. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. Ok. nt

[spin]

51. There are three classes of people in this world...

Sheep, wolves and sheep dogs. Sheep hate and fear wolves with good reason. They don't like sheep dogs either.

Obliviously, you fit into the sheep dog category. Try to be a little more compassionate and sensitive to the sheep.

Have a good night.

[jody]

56. I guess you are either a sheep or wolf. My guess is a sheep, poor defenseless creature but if you

learn how to use arms for self-defense and exercise your natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state, you can become a sheep dog also.

:toast: To sheep dogs without whom sheep would be a meal for wolves!

[spin]

63. Nope, wrong guess

I come from a long family of sheep dogs.

I served in the Air Force in the Vietnam era, if I would have been a sheep I would have headed to Canada or college.

I bought my first handgun 38 years ago. I learned just how challenging and enjoyable the sport of shooting can be, so shooting became my favorite hobby. I spent a lot of time at various pistol ranges interacting with other sheep dogs. I found their company entertaining and enlightening. Along the way I picked up a little knowledge of judo and jujitsu. Got my first concealed carry permit years ago and feel it's a duty for a person with a permit to carry.

Now I'm just an older, slightly worn out sheep dog. Through the years,I have have turned many sheep into sheep dogs by passing on my knowledge and skills. That's where I began to gain an understanding of the mindset of a sheep. They live in fear and pray for a world without wolves or sheep dogs. Sometimes when the wolves begin to circle them, they reach out for help.

So you give excellent advice. Sheep can change themselves into sheep dogs. It takes dedication and time but the journey can prove rewarding and can result is a life where a poor sheep no longer has to totally depend on the government and its professional sheep dogs to save itself from the wolves.

But I would also say to any dedicated sheep who happen to read this thread. Don't hate the sheep dogs. Yes, they look scary and sound loud and dangerous, but they might just put their lives on the line to protect you from the wolves. If you study the statistics carefully, you will find that sheep dogs don't attack the sheep.

[jody]

65. Another toast to sheep dogs, those who protect and defend sheep who when in danger and in doubt,

run in circles, scream and shout.

:toast: To Sheep Dogs!

[jmg257]

30. You are foolish. What self-respecting person with a CCW keeps it in a purse???

3/4 oclock open-top holster - strong side carry - fast to draw, easy to protect (& conceal). Extra mag behind the hip weak side. Ward off the attacker(s) with your weak hand, send them to hell with the other. Don't get swept up in too much TV - no one said being responsible for your own security was easy (otherwise we would all do it).

What self respecting person with 3 kids, which ARE a REAL concern with guns around, doesn't have a "1st alert" security system of some type - dog? alarm? How about SLEEPING ON THE 2nd FLOOR? WITH THE KIDS I HOPE!

I have a question...

Your sleeping in your bedroom, next room are your three kids. You hear the glass break and go to investigate while you grab the cell phone. In the next room, you find hovering over the kid's bed 1 guy with a HUGE butcher knife. You try to dial 911 while a 2nd guy armed with a tire iron grabs you, smacks you in the side of the head before he bends you over the bed, and makes the kids watch as he rapes you. Then switches with BG #1, who was having a good time with your beautiful daughter cause watching you get raped turns him on. (911 goes thru as you drop the phone, and they automatically dispatch a car to the scene - it will arrive in 6 minutes). After they nail you a few times, and molest the crap out of your kids, they kill you all so there are no witnesses. Question: What is the probablity (the %) the cops will 1)get there in time to see the bad guys running away 2) even shed a tear while making the call to the coroner & trying to figure out why this sad tragedy had to happen to this nice family? 3)actually catch the motherfuckers who couldn't give a rats ass about raping and murdering you and your kids, but would understand rather quickly the unacceptability of it after they get a few 165gr slugs in the chest.

What self-respecting person with a family to protect DOESN'T want the best convenient means of doing so? You choose not to take advantage of guns for self-defense - no sweat - your choice...but it may be your kid's life.

[spin]

37. My daughter carries in her purse.

She likes her S&W 351 PD .22 Magnum revolver. Seven .22 magnum rounds in a compact light weight handgun that fits her hand perfectly. When she walks into a parking lot or her sixth sense alerts her, she just puts her hand in her purse, secures a grip on the gun, and she's ready for whatever bad guy comes her way. And yes, she is proficient at shooting through a purse and hitting a close range target. She justs buys a couple of purses at a flea market and uses them for practice.

She also is quite capable with the gun out of the purse. I've watched her rapid fire all seven rounds into a group I could cover with my hand at 20 feet. I would not want to be her target at that distance.

She also carries an out the front (OTF) auto knife in her pocket or the waistband of her pants. She finds it handy for those little around the house tasks like opening UPS boxes or duct tape, but feels it would make a nice last ditch weapon if all else failed. She sharpens the double edged blade herself. Likes it razor sharp.

For a house gun, she likes the S&W model 25-2 45acp revolver that she learned to shoot when she was 12. She used it one time to stop an intruder who was in the process of forcing open a sliding glass door in our house. All she had to do was draw down on him. When he looked at the size of the hole in the end of the gun barrel, he lost his desire to rape her and fled.

I carry strong side in a IWB holster similar to you. However, I carry a Model 60 .357 mag with a 3" barrel. I only have five rounds in this little revolver, but it's quick and reliable and the bullets pack a hell of a punch. I carry a 3 1/2 inch Benchmade Snody resistor in a sheath on my off side. I find a fixed blade knife stronger, easier to handle, care for and use than either a folder or auto knife. It can be used to ward off an attacker and attracts attention away from the .357 snub that I'm pulling with my strong hand.

[jmg257]

48. Point taken - cheers to you & your daughter for "doing it right'! and taking it serious...

And for providing a PERFECT example of using a gun to lower the crime rate - against your daughter!

After posting I also thought of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who had to watch both her parents be murdered because she had left her handgun in her vehicle due to the Texas laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. She "realized that her firearm was not in her purse", and so useless.


Stay Safe!

[spin]

50. To add more detail to my daughters encounter...

When the bad guy was making entry through the sliding glass door, he had set an alarm off. Also there was a 60 pound female black lab in the house. (The dog was very intelligent and realized my daughter had a gun, so as far as protection the dog proved basically worthless.) The only telephone in the house was halfway between the intruder and my daughter. Dialing 911 was not an option.

She was capable of handling the situation because she enjoyed going with me to the pistol range and had lots of practice with her weapon. Nine years of Judo and Jujitsu under one of the best instructors in the country, Professor Ed Maley http://www.teddwebb.com/legends/prof_ed_maley.html, didn't hurt either.

After the intruder left, she called the police. When they arrived at the door, she told them "I have a revolver in my hand and I can't let it go." They told her to point the weapon at the floor with her finger off the trigger. One officer had to pry her fingers off the gun. Coming off an Adrenalin rush can cause strange effects after the threat that caused it is gone.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Ooh that will work! When someone is shot, how quickly can they pull it out of their holster?

Clint Eastwood style. You live in a Hollywood movie lololol

[jmg257]

106. I have great skills...like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills...

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.



:)

ps Napoleon makes Clint look like a wussy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

108. hahahaha! That nunchuk stuff is really impressing me. :-) nt

[spin]

40. Ok, interesting scenario you present...

First, If you find yourself surprised by three men in a dark parking lot, you lack situational awareness. If you chose to walk alone into a potential dangerous situation you need to keep your wits about you. If you notice ANYTHING suspicious, I would recommend turning around and finding someone to walk you to your car. (Note, this advice also applies to guys.)

But we'll say that these thugs were really sneaky, or you just merely had you head up your ass for a couple of minutes. You're in really big trouble, because one of the bad guys has grabbed you.

However, you have a gun in your purse. And you have your hand in your purse and the gun is in it. (You don't have the gun in your hand? Why the hell do you even bother carrying it?) You kick the guy in the kneecap, push your purse into his stomach and pull the trigger. You make as much noise as you can. Yelling "Fire, fire, fire" is a good idea, it causes people to run towards you to see the fire. Yelling "help, help, help" doesn't seem to do much good in todays' society. You pull the gun from your purse, shoot the others guys only if you really have to, and you RUN.

Maybe they shoot at you while you're running. Remember, bad guys usually don't hang around gun ranges practicing marksmanship. Some shoot ghetto style (gun held sideways) because it looks cool. The more distance you can put between yourself and them, the less chance they have of hitting you. Even good shooters aren't real accurate under stress.

But remember, you never, ever allow them to get you in a car. If you do, things will really go downhill fast. If, god forbid, they do succeed in getting you in a car, try to do something like grabbing the steering wheel and causing an accident.

Real life comes at you fast. Be prepared.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

68. Oh? So guns can't help you when you're cornered, outnumbered, or surprised by folks with guns?

DANG! And here I thought guns were a way to help fight crime!

[krispos42]

59. In both of your scenarios...

having a gun did no harm. It did not make the situation worse.

A gun is not a magic talisman to keep away evil. Check my post "Heroic Consequences" a few threads down in the Gungeon for an honest discussion about it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

69. You're right!! A gun is not a magic talisman. However, an adversary having a gun.....

... will be a BAD LUCK CHARM for you, or anyone else.

I repeat what I said initially. The best way for gun lovers to deal with this issue is to just say, "I LOVE guns, and you're going to have to pry them from my cold, dead fingers." Gun lovers need to admit they love guns, and stop trying to jump through hurdles as if in a dog show, hoping to prove that guns are helping this society or any other.

[krispos42]

79. Sure

People don't usually fight for things they hate.

I like guns. Unfortunately, because I like guns and want to keep having the freedom to own them, to exercise my right to own them, I have to become an expert on the Constitution, firearms laws, firearm nomenclature, and crime statistics.

Now it's your turn...

Gun haters need to admit they hate guns, and stop trying to jump through hoops as if in a dog show, hoping to prove that guns are hurting this society or any other.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. Okay, but so far crime statistics are disproving what you're struggling to find true....

.... guns do not lead to peace, do not help one lower crime, do not help one defend onself, etc.

Guns DO kill people, however, and I have to be constantly wary that some F-up next door might get pissed off at me for calling them an asshole, and shoot me, or bring to school their pappy's gun because they're mad at some kid or teacher, and blow the brains out of other students. Thanks to the archaic law from back when we had no military.

[krispos42]

112. And neither does disarmament

However, something on the order of 1.3 million times a year, people like you and me used guns to defend themselves from aggressors.

When the UK disarmed is population in a "moral panic" after the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres, they instituted a complete ban on ownership of "assault weapons" in 1989 and handguns in 1998. No grandfather clause, either. If you owned them, you had to get rid of them.

Now according to you, the UK should have become a land of peace and love because all those evil handguns and "deadly assault rifles" were banned.

Yet a glance at the US vs. UK graph clearly shows this does not happen. The UK's homicide rate continued its slow, steady increase upwards. While the well-armed US experienced a sharp decrease in the homicide rate despite no change in the amounts or types of guns owned by Americans.




Interestingly, Sarah, the UK bans were not billed as measures to decrease the violent crime and homicide rates. They were billed as a measure to stop mass shootings. So if the guys across the pond knew it wouldn't do anything to help, why don't people here know it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

115. No. I don't think countries without guns are non-violent....

.... imperialistic countries (countries which take over, dominate, control and exploit other countries) could just as easily as not be countries where the population is not individually armed, either because they just aren't armed because they view guns as useless in their everyday life, or because there is gun control. The presence of guns makes no difference there.

However, the widespread presence and idolization of guns and gun owning in this country does make a difference to me here, where I now have to be cautious that I don't get my brains blown out in traffic when assholes suffering road rage might feel that I'm in their way, or when gang criminals decide to do a drive-by shooting, or when armed sociopaths living next door or down the street are armed to the teeth despite their mental problems, or shooting of cops (which is on the increase). The murder of cops are all done with guns, the same guns that are loved by gun-lovers. They're not done with a bat, with a bow and arrow, with a steak knife, or with a show heel. They were done from far away, with a gun. Gun crime is commonplace in the U.S. and there's no point in hiding that fact. Gun-lovers are desperate to dismiss that fact, and claim that these whackos would still be armed even with a ban. However, I beg to differ. How are they going to get guns if there is a ban? From Mexico? From Canada? Or from the same manufacturers that are the hardest fighters in this war to sell as many guns to the U.S. population as possible.

The real winners in all this, are not the gangs, the gun criminals, the armed sociopaths, or the gun lovers themselves. The real winners are the manufacturers of guns, primarily the CEOs of such companies, who are benefiting from setting up gun clubs, gun markets, and gun organizations which ultimately provide free promotion from gun-lovers and lots of sales. Like tobacco companies, who pumped money into denying that tobacco was harmful, these will continue to pump money in various directions because it's advantageous to their profit-making. (And this money is tax deductible to boot!)

[krispos42]

136. I'd like to thank you

You have been very polite in this thread and on this topic, which is something of a rarity. I do truly appreciate it.

However I do believe you suffer from some popular media misconceptions. We all know about the MSM regarding politics and their biased coverage; is it any wonder it happens on this topic as well?

Gun manufacturers do not make large profits. Sturm, Ruger, and Company last year posted a $1.5 million profit after posting a loss the year before.

At it's core, it's manufacturing of durable goods. Very durable goods. Guns are among the longest-lasting durable goods imaginable, much more so than cars, TVs, furniture, or almost anything else you can name. And because they last for a very long time, there is a lot of competition both foreign and domestic, and drastic changes in features are few and far between, there do not exist conditions where people en masse toss their old guns in the trash and get the newest whiz-bang gun from Smith & Wesson or Remington. Even the ammuntion, which sees several new types of cartridges introduced a year, has a very large core of "old reliables" that have been around for decades or over a century and are so popular they will still be around and in widespread use in 2108.

The last "revolution" in handguns was in the late 1980s when the polymer-framed Glock pistols took the country by storm and spawned a brazillian similar designs by other manufacturers. Before that was 1970's, when autoloading pistols replaced the .38 revolver in police agencies across the country. Before that... you have to go back to the early part of the 20th Century with the rise of double-action revolvers, autoloading pistols, and smokeless powder. The 9mm, the .45 auto, and the .38 Special all date to about 1900!

So gun manufacturing is very old-school. It's done by skilled workers adding value to steel and aluminum and plastic and wood. The carpet-dwellers in the company don't make ridiculous amounts of money, and profits are modest. The guys that are military contractors making all those high-tech gold-plated gizmos? Those are the guys making huge profits from taxpayer dollars, not the guys at Colt in West Hartford making M-16s for the Pentagon.

How are they going to get guns if there is a ban? From Mexico? From Canada? Or from the same manufacturers that are the hardest fighters in this war to sell as many guns to the U.S. population as possible.

It's pretty simple. Criminals will not turn in their guns until and unless they are forcibely taken from them. "Cold, dead fingers" and all that. Lots of people will refuse to turn their guns in if a gun ban/confiscation scheme become law, so there will be a continual supply of guns either leaking out to the criminals by theft, or sold by people to criminals as an act of rebellion. Police officers will be corrupted by offers of money for guns seized by cops, resulting in officers "forgetting" to turn them in. The contractors that are hired to destroy the guns will have leaks, as will the gun manufacturers. Or you can make your own. I've looked at the plans and they are a miracle of simplicity and off-the-shelf hardware-store components.

The exact mechanism is difficult to predict, but the overall effect is not. Nature abhorrs a vacuum and the free market will satisfy that demand, as the British have learned to their chagrin.



I think these numbers speak for themselves:




Keep in mind that the population of the Unites States, and presumebly the number of law enforecement officers on the streets, increased by about a third from 1970 to 2005, so its an even more drastic drop than the graph indicates.

However, the widespread presence and idolization of guns and gun owning in this country does make a difference to me here, where I now have to be cautious that I don't get my brains blown out in traffic when assholes suffering road rage might feel that I'm in their way, or when gang criminals decide to do a drive-by shooting, or when armed sociopaths living next door or down the street are armed to the teeth despite their mental problems...

Actually, "now" is not accurate. Despite media portrays to the contrary (remember, if it leads, it bleeds), our homicide rates are at 45-year lows. You were much more likely to be killed in 1990 than in 2007. Interstingly, as a man, I am three times as likely, on average, to be murdered as you, a woman, is.





What I find interesting is that your argument, essentially, is that the cost of the right to keep and bear arms is too high, that the costs to society is too high.

Yet, that is precisely the same argument that the reich-wing makes when they make habeas corpus a priviledge instead of a right. When the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments become subject to executive whim because of "national security". "We have to give up civil liberties for security!" the loyal Bushies proclaim, and if you don't you're a terrorist-loving traitor. Yet us at the DU know the truth about what they're really up to, and it has nothing to do with national security.


If we got rid of habeas corpus, those gang criminals and armed sociopaths can simply be thrown in jail sans trial until they die of old age. Wouldn't THAT make society safer, if governmetn could just toss the dangerous people in jail without having to deal with things like shyster defense laywers or stupid jurors or legal loopholes? Hell, the police know who the real criminals are. Why not just trust them and let them jail whoever they deem necessary for life?




If we were to try to ban guns, it is my belief that it would eventually lower crime and homicide rates in the same way that banning black-painted cars would lower vehicular accident and homicide rates. You and I both know that banning black cars would simply mean that more non-black cars would be on the road in lieu of the black-painted cars. And that the accidents and deaths involving black-painted cars would simply shift over onto other colors. And we would laugh at any pompous politician that claimed the decrease in black-car-related deaths and injuries was some kind of progress.

One regular anti-gun poster on the DU liked to crow about how the UK's gun homicide rate is at historic lows. I would retaliate by noting that the UK's total homicide rate was at or near all-time highs. It took a while, but eventually he stopped making that point.




It seems to me that what really bugs anti-gun people is the potential of firearms to do harm. "What if" scenarios. Even though mass schooting are very rare, when some people see a guy with a civilian-legal AK-47-style rifle and a big magazine clip, all they can think of is stuff they see in the movies. People spraying bullets and that sort of thing. And then they thing about the millions of those rifles in civilian hands, and the tens of millions of high-capacity magazines, and it just drive them nuts. I imagine they feel the same way I do when I forget to buckle my seatbelt. Even though the odds of me getting into a car accident while forgetting to buckle up are virtually zero, the potential of what can happen gnaws at me until I buckle up.

So I'm not unsympathetic.

[spin]

73. I recommend your post

to any person who carries or desires to own a weapon for self defense. Good reading and very true.

I found that when I first started to carry, I became a more polite courteous individual. The last thing I wanted to do was to use the weapon. Talking to other people and research I had done had taught me how serious using a weapon is and how having to use it will change your life forever.

One time, on the way to work late at night, I stopped into a Walgreens liquor store to buy some cigars. Two young males were in the store, one at the counter and the other rushing erratically around the store. My internal alarm triggered.

I positioned myself about 15 feet from the customer at the counter with my hand in my pocket on my S&W .38 snub. I watched as he muttered and fumbled a bit and said that he had forgot his wallet and would have to go to his car to retrieve it. I didn't step up to the clerk and check out, I waited until he finally came back. He made his purchase and left with his friend. As I checked out, I noticed the clerk looked a little relieved.

So what would I have done if the young man at the counter had pulled a weapon? Pulling my own weapon could have resulted in a gun battle that might have injured the clerk, the bad guy and myself. Not pulling my weapon might result in the clerk getting shot and because I was a witness, I might have been shot also. Or perhaps all that would have happened would have been a simple robbery.

I discussed the situation with other knowledgeable shooters, and the best plan we came up with was:

1) Bad guy pulls gun on clerk

2) I continue to watch. I try to memorize what he looks like and what he's wearing.

3) If he points the gun at the clerk and displays a calm demeanor, I do nothing and let the situation play out.

4) If he acts erratic and dangerous and I feel he plans to shoot the clerk...I pull my weapon from my pocket and yell something to attract his attention toward me and away from the clerk.

5) I then shoot to stop him. Two rounds to the center of his chest, one to the head. Two rounds left and a speed loader in my pocket in case his friend joins the fight.

6) Assume I survive before reading step 7. If I don't, and that's quite possible, step 7 is immaterial.

7) I then wait for the police and prepare mentally for all shit that is about to happen. All the legal problems, the attorney fees and the nightmares that will cause we to wake up in a cold sweat for years. I would realize my life was about to change forever, and that the change would not be good.

Thank God nothing happened that night.

[sir pball]

14. Because

While that IS true for me (I find it FUN to take a Mini-14 and 5x30rd mags out and see how fast I can rip off 150 rounds into a piece of plywood), it's generally quite ineffective in a debate, it winds up as "Recreational pleasure is meaningless when weighed against The Children!". Works much better to take the inalienable rights approach (If you find the 2A to be "illogical", why not the 1st or 4th pray tell?), which I also happen to believe.

And of course, going back to your graph, things like universal healthcare, better social welfare programs, and a non-tanking economy wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with crime rates, nope no sir...nevermind that Switzerland and the Nordic countries, with pretty liberal gun laws, are even lower on the list than the UK..

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. My graph merely shows that the theory that guns lead to lower crime and vice versa is bs....

... and sure, I agree, saying, "I like guns, and that's that" is not an effective debate tactic, but if you can't find an effective point to use in a debate, why try? Kinda like smokers who try to justify their wanting to smoke. Just say you like it and stop trying to justify it. I respect gun owners much more when they just plain outright admit they like the whole gun thing.

[jmg257]

21. THANK YOU! Crime rates go up crime rates go down, regardless of the #guns, and

I really don't care if gun ownership reduces the crime rate, I KNOW it reduces the crime rate AGAINST ME.

AND yes, I like them!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. It doesn't reduce the crime rate against you, but yes, you DO LIKE THEM! :-) nt

[jmg257]

24. Hmm..since an "attempted" crime is usually still a crime - I guess you are right! :) nt

[jmg257]

60. Hey - talking about guns I like, here's a few of my faves!...

The M1 Garand - a real classic that allowed the US to be the 1st country with a semi-auto as the main battle rifle of it's military. LOT of history here. (I also like it's primary rival - the Johnson - but they are $$$ these days). As a collector piece they are #1, gets one thinking about the genius of John Garand, & remembering what some brave Marine fighting his way across an island in the pacific went through. (I am a kind of history buff too). My Pop had carried one in the Marines, and we enjoyed shooting them together before his heart attack. (now we still do shoot pistols on occasion - I was able to get him a .22 - one of the few activities he could still do)...basis for alot of nice quality time over the years.


These pistols are a couple of my favorites for self-defense/CCW. The HK P2000 is near perfect. The Walther P99c is nice too - more compact; both are 100% reliable. The AR is just...well an AR - lightweight, little recoil, reliable. I like the M9/92F beretta too, carried one as my duty weapon for a few years - trusted my life to that piece!



A great & interesting weapon made as an "improvement"/alternative to the AR15. More of a collector piece now, but rather reasonable $$$ as a pre-ban semi-auto I could still buy here in NY.


I think it is sad you hate guns so much. Besides the practical benefits, there is so much history associated with them; I have shared some good times with my Pop growing up with guns, and my son and I will too, and shooting is such a blast!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. ROFL! There you go! Was it really SO hard to admit you love guns? nt

[jmg257]

104. Not for me! Everyone who knows me knows it - the more the better! nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

109. Ahem! nt

[sir pball]

33. Your graph also shows the opposite,

that looser gun laws don't necessarily lead to more crime - I've always said that gun laws have pretty much zero effect on crime rates, it's a function of sociological rather than legal factors (e.g. social welfare programs, strong economy, cultural homogenity, so forth and so on). Not that strict gun laws really even <i>could</i> that much of a difference anyway, I know firsthand that a handgun can be had in jolly old England for about 100 bucks. so there's not really much of a supply-side problem.

Exactly how the 2A *isn't* an effective debate tactic is beyond me though...you're being calm and reasonable, so I'm not trying to be aggressive and confrontational, but I would like to hear your line of thought on that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. For example? nt

[krispos42]

61. Funny, my graph in Post #11 doesn't show that

But it does seem to show that you ignore inconvenient facts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. I searched for your graph on the Internet and was only able to find it among gun loving groups

I'm looking for a government link to it.

[krispos42]

77. That's because I made the graph myself from gov't information

What, you don't believe the partial data table at the bottom?

Fair enough.

The US homicide data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm



The UK homicide rate is from the UK Home Office's "Homicides, Firearm Offences and
Intimate Violence 2005/2006" report, published January 2007.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

The numbers are on page 14. I took only 1967 onward because that is when the Brits began recording the per-capita instances. The US statistics go back to 1950 on a per-capita basis.

I also converted the UK homicide rate to the BJS standard by dividing by 10. The BJS does it in homicides per 100,000 people and the Brits do it per 1,000,000. Hence the "UK adj" line in the graph. So, for example, in 1967 the UK's rate of 7.3 per 1 million becomes 0.73 per 100,000.

The yellow line is, quite simply, the US rate divided by the adjusted UK rate.

Feel free to link to it if you so desire.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. AHA! lol nt

[SteveM]

15. You seem to be very sensual in your arguments: "...LIKE IT..."

Actually, I do kind of like my guns (except the .357 when shooting the full power loads; rotten kick). I also like the Constitutional protection I have to own guns. Did you know that most Constitutional scholars agree that 2A confers an INDIVIDUAL right? Those agreeing with this viewpoint include Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, Alan Dershowitz (ACLU board member), William Van Alstyne and Laurence Tribe, all left-of-center. Note that Tribe, the grandmaster of the "militia clause" or communitarian right-only outlook, changed his mind after studying the scholarship of 2A and in 1999 agreed that the Second conferred an individual right.

Most of the arguments given by gun-controllers say that banning guns and/or restricting people's rights to them will cut down on crime and reduce other societal problems like mass shootings in "gun-free zones." This has not been shown to be the case. You may wish to Google up the CDC study on "interventionist" gun legislation and its relationship to societal change wherein it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence that gun legislation had any effect.

A case in point: the number of accidental childhood deaths due to guns has dropped more than any other measured cause over the last several years, even as the number of firearms in American households has grown significantly.

Your arguments about LIKING IT have been used here before -- sort of an illogical argument that can be dis-proven in one second.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. The problem is that the arguments that gun ownership leads to lower crime.....

.... and that prohibiting guns leads to higher crime are bullshit (as you can see by the graph).

"I like it" seems as plausible an argument as any. I mean, what else can you possibly use as a justification? Sure, maybe you could use 2A, which was written to allow for a militia when we were barely a country and no military existed. However, now we have a military, and have zero use for a militia. 2A is about as useful as a frikkin' blue law.

On the other hand, I don't at all blame gun lovers for loving their guns. The U.S. has had a cowboy mentality of bullet-loving since the times of Manifest Destiny. And weren't we the ones that wrote novels romanticizing the Old West? Wasn't macho-ness in the U.S. born at the end of a gun? (Macho-ness in other countries is associated differently. In Italy, for example, macho-ness is born at the end of a penis. :-) )

And weren't we the ones that made countless cowboy black and white movies? And aren't we the ones that romanticized guns in the 20th century and now it's almost de rigueur that someone be shooting someone else in a movie, or no American male will go see it? And what about rap songs, hold an equal status with women?

Nope, I don't blame gun-lovers at all. I think gun lovers should just say, "I LIKE GUNS! WHAT OF IT?"

So there.

[pipoman]

32. There is no arguement

that prohibiting guns doesn't lead to lower or higher crime statistically.

I, for one am not concerned about statistics. I keep defensive guns for the anecdotal uses. I and my family will not be in a position of defenselessness at the mercy of some addict who will kill us for $20.

Here is a stat for you:

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. The NRA has tried for years, with mega-bazillions, to try and brainwash everyone that....

guns cause peace. I've never been either hypnotizable, nor bullshittable, so I always research my data, and the NRA keeps putting out the same old tired bullshit as always. My question was merely this: In light of the fact that the NRA cannot come up with any facts in the universe that prove that guns cause peace, why don't gun lovers just settle for saying that they LOVE GUNS? Is it a crime for gun lovers to say they love guns? No. So say it. That was my argument. What I don't appreciate is trying to be sold bullshit NRA factoids that are constantly disproven. It's like cigarettes. Some people want to smoke. They actually used to spend time trying to prove that second hand smoke did no damage. That was shown to be bullshit over and over. I don't know if they're still doing it. However, why did they refuse to just say, "I like cigarettes, I'm going to smoke them, FU"? I don't get it. When I like something, I say I like it, regardless of what other people tell me, and whether or not others don't like it. It makes NO sense that gun lovers don't admit they love guns.

[pipoman]

43. I do like guns

the above number didn't come from the NRA, it came from the LA Times, about the farthest thing from the NRA.

The same can be said for the anti 2nd Amendment advocates. They tend to want to parrot bullshit stats from Brady and other sources all the while refusing to admit that they fear guns. They refuse to admit that they believe the second amendment should be repealed and instead try to argue the ridicules position that the wording of the Amendment, because of the placement of coma, doesn't mean what it says. They try to convince everyone that their position is the majority position even though the opposite can be demonstrated. Why not just say I hate guns and quit with trying to brainwash everyone that guns cause violence, when it is apparent that violent people cause violence?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. Because the stats indicate that if you separate countries by gun ownership, you will find that guns

increase crime, and not vice versa, as the right wing Republican NRA would like us to think.

However, if gun owners would simply say, "I LIKE GUNS, AND I'M GOING TO KEEP MY GUN, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS IT", I'd be okay with that. I'm not okay with the bs spewed by the right wing extremist NRA, and their manipulation of statistics to make those who don't understand statistics seem like yes, guns eradicate crime.

That's why.

[pipoman]

49. As per the Bradys, completely disregard the fact

that most (if not all) of those same countries have had lower murder rates than the US even when guns were as legal and available as they are currently in the US. Did you happen to look at the graph below which shows the gun homicide rate in the UK going back since before guns were banned in the UK? No noticeable change in rates, imagine that.

However, if gun owners would simply say, "I LIKE GUNS, AND I'M GOING TO KEEP MY GUN, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS IT", I'd be okay with that. I'm not okay with the bs spewed by the right wing extremist NRA, and their manipulation of statistics to make those who don't understand statistics seem like yes, guns eradicate crime.

You want, you want, yet you are unwilling to be honest and admit you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You are unwilling to admit that guns neither eradicate crime nor do they cause crime. The causes of crime are, as they have always been, mainly socio-economic, but lets keep blaming crime on inanimate objects and ignore the true causes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. The 2nd amendment is a a useless, archaic law. Like sodomy laws. Like blue laws.

You love it because you love guns. I don't work towards repealing the 2nd amendment. However, I don't swallow any of the right wing NRA's bullshit about how guns lead to peace. That's like saying that cancer leads to health.

[jmg257]

53. The 2nd amendment is more important today then ever, because there is a

constant threat against the natural right it protects. It would only be archaic if there was no need for it's securities - there are - more then ever. It might be archaic if there was no need for the right it protects - there is - more then ever.

What IS archaic is anyone who tries to find ways to justify putting limits on inalienable rights of the people. Tyrants are so 1770s!


And what does "guns lead to peace" have to do with the NRA OR the 2nd? I do remember the NRA doing reports on the M1 Garand when it was adopted by the US Army (talk about a gun I like - the M1 rules!), and the "arms/arsenal of democracy" thing, but not a "guns for peace" slant - do you have a link?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. No, actually each person having to own a gun because there's no military is 1770s. nt

[jmg257]

55. That IS a good reason to have a gun or 2, but not the ONLY reason. But the intents

of protecting the armed people/militias was TO REDUCE THE NEED for that bane of liberty - a standing army, and to allow we the people to ward off tyranny; and now there is HUGE army, and Bush can call it out for ANY reason HE thinks necessary, once again it is clear we need that right more then ever.


And, once again - because we just plain LIKE THEM! :)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. See? It's not so hard to just say it, that you like guns! :-D

AS for how we are going to fend off GW Bush's military from our homes with a couple of guns, if he ordered them to come after us, I think that would make for a great Saturday Night Live skit. It'd be ridiculous beyond a point of absurdity. But funny as hell! Maybe we should get some cannons and some nuclear weapons? Is that included in the 2nd? ;-)

[jmg257]

105. Who says I don't? You can buy all sorts of things these days..;) nt

[pipoman]

57. There now that didn't hurt so bad did it?

We will have to agree to completely and totally disagree on this subject. :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. Sure didn't, but it is a useless blue law, since we now DO have a military. nt

[pipoman]

74. Tyranny is much, much easier to achieve with an unarmed population

as history has proven. You laugh at the thought of use of small arms against an army but nobody is laughing about the resistance in Iraq. Our right to KBA is based on belief that our leaders should have a healthy fear of the population. I am not talking about the odd nut case in an armed standoff, I am talking about wide spread disenfranchisement toward government which would occur if the population were pushed beyond a certain limit. Another example would be in the face of a breakdown of services such as what happened in NOLA. Choose not to arm yourself. A belief that the only people who believe in RTKBA are Pugs and the NRA is simplistic and naive.

National security is only part of the equation personal security is another. Often people who want to limit law abiding citizens will decry rampant gun violence as the justification for gun control then proclaim those who choose to have a gun to defend themselves and their family as paranoid. Which is it? Is there bad gun violence (and if not why do you want to enact gun control) or isn't there bad gun violence (in which case why do you care)?

Of coarse the recreational use of firearms should not be overlooked. Literally millions of people shoot recreationally be it hunting or target. There re competitions every single weekend at a location near you. There are 30+/- Olympic shooting events participated in by many countries around the world. It is easy to limit others rights if you are not exercising your own.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. If you were serious about that, you'd demand that the 2nd allow ordinary people to buy....

... large, serious weapons, planes, etc. That would be the only way to fight off our military. Not with a tiny gun.

I basically think the best argument for owning guns, is to say, "I LIKE GUNS no matter what you say, no matter what you prove, I LIKE GUNS, period."

That's the best argument.

[pipoman]

76. Tell that to the Iraqis...

edit...and let's not forget the Afghans vs. USSR another interesting bit of history.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

83. Damn! You're comparing the U.S. to Iraq? You have a rather interesting opinion of the U.S. nt

[beevul]

87. No hes not.

Hes pointing out how firearms and improvised explosives can grind to a halt even the worlds most technically advanced fighting force.


Its called asymmetrical warfare, and its quite effective. It would be far more devastating in the US than it is in iraq, seeing as theres some 280 million firearms in the US - assuming of course, that were talking about those firearms actually being used.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

89. Oh I see what you're saying. Yes, suicide bombers are good fighters and their pals are good .

fighters.

[pipoman]

91. The reason I am asking how old you are

is that your recall of history seems to be pretty simplistic and your refusal to look at data which refutes your logic. So either you don't want to think with an open mind (too young) or you can't think with an open mind (too old).

Just in case you are not being trollish with this last comment, you do realize that damn few of the attacks on the US/allied military and Iraqi military are done with suicide bombers. Most are effected with improvised explosive devices put together by people who have little access to any equipment. The US is full of machinists and engineers with equipment and knowledge in their home garage that they could literally build your car out of a piece of stock steel, electronics/communications people who could piece by piece build your computer out of junk, specialized knowledge in virtually every area of technology and the resources to utilize them which you are not taking into account. I usually don't get into discussions of teotwawki or government takeovers because I don't believe it will ever come to that (certainly hope not), but to believe that the population of the US could not put up a pretty convincing front isn't consistent with the facts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. No, I'm not being trollish. I'm stating a fact. Muslim fighters in the Middle East....

.... are far more willing to get themselves killed, or maybe less afraid, or maybe they have far less to lose since their country was turned into a piece of crap by our country.

This war has created a guerrilla situation in Iraq that never existed before. Iraq was a country where people went on vacation, on tour. There were museums, restaurants, employment, theaters, shops, etc. Here is a series of photos of Iraq BEFORE this president destroyed it and its people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXIgkmYejJg

I urge you all to watch it.

Now Iraq is destroyed and a den of terrorists. Thanks, George W Bush for making the world far less safe for Americans and everyone else on the planet.

[pipoman]

93. Right, and you are going to get few arguements out of anyone on this board

about that. That isn't, however, the topic we were discussing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

94. I know, but it veered when someone used Iraq as an example of individuals with guns....

... holding back the military. So that's when I went there and said that Iraqis have little to lose because we have destroyed their country and so many Iraqis are willing to die getting rid of our military presence.

[pipoman]

95. Americans could get to that point too...why again do you want to disarm your countrymen and women?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

96. OI VEI! I will say this, gun owners are very energetic... like the energizer bunny. :-) nt

[pipoman]

98. I like you Sarah,

thanks for a respectful yet heated exchange.. :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. Same to you! ;-) nt

[Tejas]

101. Well hey, when we're the only ones left that care... n/t

[beevul]

97. You aren't...

You aren't going to get the point, if you don't WANT to get the point.

You choose to fixate on iraq rather than to examine asymmetrical warfare. This discussion is not about "good" or "not good" per se, its about the effectiveness of asymmetrical warfare - or guerrilla warfare.

Firearms are an integral part of that type of warfare. Everyone appears to understand that, except you. And YES, its happening in iraq, it happened in Afghanistan and it happened in Viet Nam. And it was effective in each case.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

100. Okay, let's try it differently.

Show me a country where gun ownership by individuals was curtailed (except for hunting guns), in which the military took over and no one was armed and couldn't fight its own military off.

[Tejas]

102. Germany (citizens forbidden firearms ownership)

next silly question please

[beevul]

103. Ouch...N/T

[Tejas]

141. Aw now,

we studied this stuff in elementary and forgot half of it, doesn't mean we can't go back and catch up on some facts. :)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. That makes no sense. By the time that happened, the Nazis had complete military control already.

The Nazis obtained total military control through voting. Germans were delighted with the Nazis and voted them in, allowing these foxes into the chicken pen oh so willingly because the economy was horrific and Nazis promised were blaming scapegoats for the horrible economy, and promising to make things all better.

But LET'S ASSUME that after the Nazis obtained military control, they may have had a chance to fight off the military (which is absurd but let's assume for the hell of it), how many people owned a gun in Germany prior to the passing of the gun control law? Almost no one? If almost no one had a gun, how the hell were they going to fight the Nazis? Using imaginary guns?

How are you going to arm an entire population? And what population do you know that is all armed? (Don't bother naming Switzerland... I've been there and know that's bs - same could be said of Israel because when people serve in the military they are assigned weapons).

It's already bad enough that some @-hole next door or in the car next to yours can be armed and shoot you if he's having a really f'd up day. Let's not encourage widespread ownership of guns and turn this into a place where we have to dress our kids head to foot in GAP bulletproof clothes.

[Tejas]

110. Nope, Germany had gun control long before that

Gun control in Germany was pressed upon its citizens in the late 1920's, but Hitler did indeed capitalize on it and added to it in the late 1930's.

All of this was done without military force, it was done with political power in the name of the common good. You know, "for the children".


edited dis n dat

[Sarah Ibarruri]

111. Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your premise here....

... You're saying that if there had not been gun control, the majority of the German population would've had guns and been able to fight the military?

[jmg257]

113. I think the Jewish folks would have had a better chance atleast. They held out quite a while in

the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Besides, freedom is worth fighting for - and possibly dying - MUCH BETTER then being unarmed victims and being murdered without resistance. Something about being made to kneel down and take a bullet in the head seems bad for my health, as does being gassed - watching the same thing happen to my kids is DEFINITELY worth fighting against - need the best arms to more effectively do so.

"The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (German: "Aufstand im Warschauer Ghetto", Polish: "Powstanie w gettcie warszawskim") was the Jewish insurgency that arose within the Warsaw Ghetto in Poland during World War II, and which opposed Nazi Germany's effort to transport the remaining ghetto population to the Treblinka extermination camp. The insurgency was launched against the Germans and their Jewish collaborators on January 18, 1943. The most significant portion of the insurgency took place from April 19 until May 16, 1943, and ended when the poorly-armed and supplied resistance was crushed by the German troops under the direct command of Jürgen Stroop. It was the largest single revolt by the Jews during the Holocaust."


That is why the armed PEOPLE will always be paramount, or should be as intended by the Constitution - they might want (& need) to have a little more say (& power) in what happens to them by a tyrannical govt.

Giving those in power the power to decide who is unfit (gun bans, etc) gives THEM the power to disarm the people, and render them helpless. THAT is why the unalienable right of ALL the people was secured against ALL infringements (except via due process). And WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT, AND THE RIGHT IT SECURES, WILL NEVER BE OBSOLETE.


Gun control can be VERY effective - just depends on what your goals are:

;

And since most restrictive gun laws in this country started with the intent to disarm the freed slaves and control the minority in this country, we'll include this one too...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

114. Jewish people as individuals tend not to own guns. In fact, guns are seen as a negative.....

Israel and the U.S. have militaries so when Jewish people serve in them, they are trained to carry guns and do carry guns. But in terms of owning guns as individuals, they're not the gun-owning type. In fact, there are very few Jewish people that are hunters. Owning a gun is seen almost as something done by people who have a slight "problem" and is often met with LOTS of questioning as to why. That's not to say there are zero Jews with guns, but it's highly unusual.

(I'm Jewish, ask me about Jewish mothers and their attitude about guns).

[jmg257]

116. That's cool, and a bit surprising really. I am not Jewish. And I haven't hunted in a while, but I

still enjoy the right to arms and still think it necessary (for various reasons as we have discussed) and am THRILLED it is secured or we would have lost it by now. Quite clearly it was seen as a most essential unalienable right of the framers, and there are way too many examples throughout history that supports their wisdom. Too many times there have been evil men who will try to inlfict their will on others, both collectively AND individually. I am not ready to surrender MY best chance to oppose such evil.

I have read your position - you hate them, which is fine too. Please feel free to add to that though - it is interesting and helps understanding.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

117. I don't "hate" guns per se. They're not people. I hate them like I hate a nuke....

I just feel very upset and nervous that whackos in this country are owning guns. It doesn't lead to a calm environment knowing that.

:(

[jmg257]

118. That's understandable. But there is NO law that will keep wackos from owning them.

Wackos and criminals will ALWAYS do what they want, despite the best intentions of laws enacted to prevent them (criminals by definition break the law).

Think about Prohibition; all the strength of the govt behind an amendment banning an object, passed to curb the use of that object - alcohol - and the violence associated with it. It led to the highest violent crime rates of this nation, INCREASED the use of alcohol, and gave birth to organized crime as we know it. The "war on drugs" is similiar in many aspects, and created THE MAJORITY of offenders (and victims) of gun violence in this nation.

Bans against objects to modify human behavior do not work. So we are left with the reality of having to provide for own security, and the security of our loved ones. Guns (which I like ;)), help give me the best convenient chance to do so. I also have a REAL issue with letting the state control ALL the power in this nation, I just do not trust them 100%.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

119. Banning guns or controlling them. nt

[jmg257]

120. Don't matter...can't control behavior by controlling objects. And both are unconstitutional. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

126. Okay. I accept your answer that it is unconstitutional. nt

[Tejas]

124. We "control" gasoline,

should we ban it so losers can't set their spouses on fire?

Think of the lives it would save. :sarcasm:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. I don't know... is that a common crime? nt

[Tejas]

128. You espouse to be the expert, define common (careful now) n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

129. Semantics now? Hmm.. frequent, widespread, above the norm? nt

[Tejas]

134. Matters not, ban it too and save even more lives ("even if only one life....") n/t

[krispos42]

137. Spousal abuse is

if we regulated gasoline in order to prevent spousal barbeques, then that is what the regulation would reduce: people setting their spouses on fire.

It would not lower the overall spousal abuse rate, just the type involving a gasoline can and a match.

[Tejas]

138. your correlation being

regulate guns and gun crimes would be reduced, but the overall crime rate itself would still be there. Criminals would still commit heinious acts including murder.

Why don't the antis get/admit this?

[krispos42]

139. Because "guns make it easier"

to do things like rage killings.

Which is absolutely true.




However, it is also true that guns make it much easier to defend yourself, so there is balance there.




My personal belief is that civilian disarmament would reduce the number of times per 100,000 burglaries or 100,000 assault that those crimes became deadly. However, it would also increase the total number of burglaries and assaults becaue the easier way to defend yourself would be taken away, emboldening the criminals.

The end result would be a wash. Same number of dead people, few intimate murders, more random ones, and a significantly higher crime rate.

[Tejas]

123. Then at least lift a finger to do

something about "whackos" (aka human beings) and quit pestering law-abiding citizens that enjoy their rights. While you're at it, you might want to reconsider your bit about "every Jew thinks/lives exactly the way I do".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

130. Aaaaah! Well, how about this.....

.... let's do DNA testing of the entire population, identify the whackos, then deny them guns.

Not a good idea is it? Lots of people who wouldn't appreciate being called whackos will be singled out as being a whacko.

A far better idea is to just not have guns except for hunting. What other reason is there to have guns, except if you're the whacko down the street for me waiting to shoot somebody he gets pissed off at?

[jmg257]

131. Hmm...I don't know - how 'bout for shooting the wacko before he shoots me or my kids? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

132. Maybe you're a whacko too. Who knows? That's my point. nt

[jmg257]

133. Then we agree! But you WANT to disarm everyone, which WILL leave ONLY the wackos & criminals armed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

140. Aah! So the problem is that you think if guns are prohibited, only the whackos will manage to...

....locate some somewhere? Contraband? I lived in Spain and Israel and as far as I know, and there's no problem with whackos seeking contraband guns.

[Tejas]

122. guns > no guns - so common sense would indicate

yes. Better for a population to have guns than..........oh forget it.

[Tejas]

135. also, my premise is gun control existed before Hitler, but Hitler also elevated it n/t

[jody]

90. Add to that millions who have been trained in military tactics, many with combat experience, and a

rogue president would have to be mentally unbalanced to take on that "unorganized militia". :nuke:

[pipoman]

88. ?? how old are you?

[SteveM]

80. Assuming for a moment that the militia is a blue law, what about an individual right?

Do you agree that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms (since most scholars have dismissed the "militia clause" as a means of restricting 2A)? If not, why not?

[krispos42]

62. Our non-gun violent crime and homicide rates....

are about the same as the total homicide and violent crime rates in most Western European countries.

That mean that if you were able to click your heels together three times and make all the guns in the US magically dissolve into rust, AND not a single crime that would have been committed with a gun would have instead been committed with "other", we'd still be no better that Western Europe.

And since a large part of would-be gun crime would instead be committed with "other", we'd still have a much higher crime rate than Western Europe.

It's far more than just the availability of guns. It's social and economic.

[Tejas]

82. Proven all the more by DC murder rate out of control despite their ban. n/t

[SteveM]

78. That argument is for somebody else to make, as per the CDC study...

As for "like it", what are you driving at? You used the term "like it," what do you mean?

As for militias, take a look at what Alan Dershowitz has to say about "zero use":

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- 62 Tennessee Law Review, 759, 789 (1995). The militia (especially the unorganized militia and the qualifications for being in a militia) are still referenced in dicta by the Federal and other courts.

Ah, yes "bullet-loving." Is that similar to "like it?" I won't bother with your strange take on birth and anatomy, but you really should visit Gun Valley in Italy where you will find many manufacturers of firearms, including the oldest company in the world: Baretta. (Freud was concerned about phallic symbols NOT because of how these were used to characterize some other person, but because the user who broached the subject had unhealthy pre-occupations with the subject; after all, it was you who brought up the malady, right?)

Your social criticism is stale and without purpose, but I do catch a whiff of the usual sexism. Millions of women are gun-owners and, on another subject, the fastest-growing sub-demographic within the hunting community are women. Note again that while market hunters nearly wiped out many species of birds by the turn of the last century, this was stopped by sound game laws -- and women finally changing their fashion statements about birds in their damned hats.

And now you don't blame us? Well, thanks, but I think you do not have the courage of your convictions when you don't say why we "like it." I repeat my question: what is it we like or love?

[pipoman]

31. The UK's homicide rate has always been way lower than the US even before guns were banned NT

[gorfle]

121. It's a lot more than just liking it, Sara...

Why don't gun owners merely say, "I like owning a gun, I feel like it" and that's ALL instead of f****** around trying to come up with sleight of hand defenses where there are none? Just say you LIKE IT and get over it.

Part of the reason, Sara, is that gun owners are constantly being put on the defensive by ever-more encroaching restrictions to use the guns they like owning. Consequently we can't just sit back and say, "We like owning guns". Instead, we are challenged to defend "why we need guns".

Another part of the reason is that there are more legitimate reasons to own firearms besides just liking them.

The founding fathers would not have gone to the trouble to enumerate a right to own something just because people enjoyed owning them. Otherwise we might have an amendment related to rocking chairs or other likable things, too.

Firearms serve many useful purposes, most importantly hunting and self-defense. But they are fundamentally tools to preserve liberty. This is the context in which they were enumerated in the constitution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. "We Protect Americans" means you protect the Rights of

.......... felons, convicts, murderers and court supervised mentally ill to own a gun, unless of course, you deny that.

I can't wait.

[krispos42]

12. Gee, you're the only one saying that. What does that make you?

[krispos42]

11. A counter graph, if I may...

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics (USA), Home Office (UK)


We're getting better, they're getting worse.

[krispos42]

58. No comment, huh? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. The Residents of DC and London

..... disagree and we live in our communities.

[Tejas]

39. You "blanket statements" vs reality

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/briefingbook.html


Oh wait, this page has old information, with a 30-year ban it's SO much better in DC now.


not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. What?

What is your point? Do you have one?

Oh, right........... you just learned how to do a search of "Washington, DC, guns". Got it.

[Tejas]

127. Too many murders daily in both despite your LaLa Land post OR their bans n/t

[Tejas]

38. Are you kidding?

"Perhaps one way to resolve the problem is for gun-grabbers and violent criminals to live together on a remote island for a few months so each can really get to know the other."

Bet you that one night would be enough to change more than a few of the antis minds LOL!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Nonsense

I've told you the number of times I've been a victim of gun violence after implying, like this post, that I might think differently if I was a victim of a violent criminal.

I don't.

Shows what you know.

[SecularNATION]

44. Times?

You've been a victim multiple times? What were the circumstances? I'd truly be interested to know.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Sure --- Here You Go

Locked in a freezer decades ago with several others as my restaurant manager who attempted to use his gun to shoot the intruder only to be killed himself. We waited in the freezer not sure if and when we should get out. My boss was killed.

Held up at gun point at a cash register I was working ........ not once but twice.

Oh.......... and all of these crimes took place in ......... here's the kicker.........that champion of gun freedom........... Virginia.

[SecularNATION]

46. Thanks...

...for the info. Helps me understand where you're coming from.