Another fun chart

[SwordsMaster]

After my opium chart last week, I give you something more controversia (http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11708865)l. Now, keep it civil. This is NOT against gun control, but it seems fairly obvious that, while in Europe people swear a lot, and threaten people drunk, our co-specimens from across the pond actually kill people. Note that I didn't say guns kill people.


The murder rate for England and Wales is higher than anywhere in western Europe (except Finland, Belgium and France) but Britain still lags Canada and America. However, when it comes to non-deadly violence, Britain soars ahead. In a 28-country International Crime Victims Survey, Britons were the second likeliest (after Icelanders) to say they had been threatened or assaulted in the past five years, ahead of countries with much higher murder rates.

So please focus on the sociological issue, and not the logistical one. After all you can kill people with a sharpened stone.

And feel free to rehost the chart :beam:

Chart re-hosted below. ~Kukri

https://jimcee.homestead.com/Knife.jpg

[HoreTore]

It's pretty darn obvious, the more lethal weapon you have access to when you're mad, the easier it is to kill. Here in europe we don't have access to weapons, and as such people are usually only punched...

[CountArach]

*Awaits CR's post and the 6-7 pages of deate that it creates*

[Tribesman]

Damn I thought it was going to be that funny one .
Where despite the British media making a big song and dance about knife crime being on the increase yet the numbers showing that it is just the same as it has been for a long while .
Which was accompanied by an "expert" saying that the numbers are wrong and the government manipulated them and how easy it was to manipulate them to make a point , and then providing his own numbers which he honestly hadn't manipulated which showed that he was right and the others were wrong .

[Husar]

It's pretty darn obvious, the more lethal weapon you have access to when you're mad, the easier it is to kill. Here in europe we don't have access to weapons, and as such people are usually only punched...
:yes:

Note how the countries which are culturally more lax about deadly weapons have higher homicide rates as well. you can kill someone with a sharp stone but you usually don't have one lying around in case you need it...
Concerning violence it mainly makes England, wales and the Netherlands look bad, considering that countries with the same or more population like France, Germany and Italy are far lower on the scale. One could deduct from that that the population of a country doesn't have much to do with it's crime rate, so what are the social and political differences between those countries?
I've always seen the Netherlands as similar to Germany in many things, I never knew they were that violent... :no: :shame:

[Don Corleone]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

I'm not certain I understand how you can say this isn't supposed to be a pro/con gun control thread, then ask folks to pay attention to the Sociology, not the logistics. Gun control is all about what sort of society you wish to be, and whether you're willing to sacrifice justice for safety.

[SwordsMaster]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

I'm not certain I understand how you can say this isn't supposed to be a pro/con gun control thread, then ask folks to pay attention to the Sociology, not the logistics. Gun control is all about what sort of society you wish to be, and whether you're willing to sacrifice justice for safety.

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that. Why is it that you must own a gun to be "free"? Specially since the government listens to your phone conversations anyway, and can restrict your travel and use of your own money anyway. What are guns guaranteeing? From the economic perspective they have a high cost in acquisition - licenses, their actual cost, precautions to keep them safely, etc - and a negligible chance to actually use them, kind of like your chance of winning on the roulette, so if it isn't about your freedom, and it isn't because you expect to use them, then what is the point of having them? Specially since the countries with lax gun ownership laws (like US and Switzerland) are the ones that rank highest on fatal crimes.

Or am I not understanding something?

[Don Corleone]

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that. Why is it that you must own a gun to be "free"? Specially since the government listens to your phone conversations anyway, and can restrict your travel and use of your own money anyway. What are guns guaranteeing? From the economic perspective they have a high cost in acquisition - licenses, their actual cost, precautions to keep them safely, etc - and a negligible chance to actually use them, kind of like your chance of winning on the roulette, so if it isn't about your freedom, and it isn't because you expect to use them, then what is the point of having them? Specially since the countries with lax gun ownership laws (like US and Switzerland) are the ones that rank highest on fatal crimes.

Or am I not understanding something?

I think we've been around and around about this, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to how you view the Social Contract. Do you view yourself as the fundamental atomic unit within the body politic, or are you a subset of a larger whole, and the fundamental element is the society itself.

I personally view myself as the autonomous unit. I am responsible for my own safety, happiness and welfare. The guarantees for these things listed in the Consitution are more of a promise not to infinge on these then they are to provide for them. I have something of an antagonistic view of government. In my mind, it is a necessary but thoroughly corrupt evil. The individuals within it may not be, in fact they may be decent and upstanding individuals (I dream of a day when they all are!) But the role of a proper functioning government is to control its citizens behavior and force them to do things that are against their own personal best interests (taxes, military service, eminent domain, etcetera). Governments may use different methods for accomplishing this, such as coercion and manipulation, but at the end of the day, governments don't actually make or do anything, they manipulate the goods and services of the autonomous individuals they control.

But even the difference between a representative democracy and a dictatorship is that in a reprsentative democracy, you get to pick who holds ultimate power over you. That's it. So, when we as free individuals enter into concourse in a venture such as government, and we agree to surrender some of our individual rights so that the group as a whole can prosper, certain guarantees need to be provided for.

That's all the Constitution is at the end of the day. I know a lot of Europeans deride American Constitutionalists for having an ideallic view of an arcane document, but it's a contract. In fact, it is THE contract.

And as I'm signing my autonomy away, I expect certain provisional protections. One of these is the right to defend myself, against intruders and against a tyranical government. Now, you can tell me "you don't really need that right" all you want, but I can make the very same argument about all other rights American citizens enjoy. Assuming I'm innocent, I don't really NEED a right not to incriminate myself, correct?

As for why more Americans die in dysfunctional conflict situations than Europeans, as I've already told you, your numbers are somewhat skewed. But even assuming the numbers of Americans murdered per 100K is dramatically higher than it is for most European countries, I would say it's a complex question that has a complex answer. One facet of it is access to firearms, sure, but that's not the only aspect.

If access to firearms was the primary reason Americans die at a higher rate than Western Europeans, you would expect Myanmar, or a host of Latin American countries that like Western Europe, have also outlawed personal firearm ownership to have zero murder rates, or at least very low ones. But your slide doesn't show countries like them (or China, or other Asian countries, or African countries for that matter).

[PanzerJaeger]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

Any info on this? I know suicides have always skewwed the numbers in the past.

[Tribesman]

Sorry Don , but what are these Latin American and European countries that have outlawed personal firearm ownership ?

[Husar]

It isn't about guns. It's about the people who use them, as simple as that.

Well, Europeans aren't people who use guns so basically this thread has nothing to do with Europeans then? Makes me wonder why you mentioned the British then. :shrug:

[HoreTore]

I would say that you're not free at all in a society where you have to worry about your personal safety. I see freedom as not having to worry about such things.


If access to firearms was the primary reason Americans die at a higher rate than Western Europeans, you would expect Myanmar, or a host of Latin American countries that like Western Europe, have also outlawed personal firearm ownership to have zero murder rates, or at least very low ones. But your slide doesn't show countries like them (or China, or other Asian countries, or African countries for that matter).

Come on, Don. To make your point, you're comparing yourself, a functioning and wealthy western democracy, with dirt poor and dysfunctional third world countries...?

Keep the comparisons between the western countries on topics like this.

[Don Corleone]

I'm sorry, Tribesman, you're right. I got ahead of myself. Latin American countries, for the most part, actually have pretty lax gun laws.

Hore Tore, I'm not comparing the US to 3rd world countries directly. My point was simply that were access to firearms the sole reason the United States had higher murder rates than France or Germany, you would expect nations with strict firearms laws to have low murder rates. In Jamaica, for example, you can get life in prison for having a gun in your house, but they have a higher murder rate than we do. If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better. But hey, if you have to hear about Europeans, Canadians or Americans to trust the 'civilization' level, explain the situation of your neighbor Finland to me. They have laxer gun laws, a higher per capita ownership rate, and less violence.

Mmmm, maybe legalized gun ownership != murderers in the streets? :idea2:

Edit: Apology retracted. To answer Tribesman's question: Mexico.

[Tribesman]

In Jamaica, for example, you can get life in prison for having a gun in your house
Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned:oops:)

[Don Corleone]

Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned:oops:)

Well, I can't speak for the integrity of the Irish licensing system, but in Jamaica, if you're not the government, the military or rich enough to bribe the local officials, you can't get a permit. So the point is the same, the non-governmental middle class have no access.

You know, rather than play your little game of hint at suggestions of rumors of innuendo, can you actually make an argument for yourself once? I mean, you seem like a bright guy. Explain to me exactly how banning personal firearm ownership will decrease crime in the United States, when most places within the US that already ban ownership have higher crime rates than those that don't?

Or maybe you'd care to explain why you, an Irish citizen, feels the need to dictate policies to the USA? I mean, Ireland has a tight leash on gun ownership, bully for you. We don't. Last I checked, I hadn't told you how to run domestic Irish policies, have I? Wait, that's not true. Back in 2004, I whined and moaned about your smoking ban in bars when I visited on vacation, true. Shame on me. :shame::whip:

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Are the little ones causing you to miss out on some sleep Don ?:inquisitive:

[Don Corleone]

It's not that. I'm open to opinions from other places on what the USA should do or shoudln't do. I just take issue with the shock and outrage when we choose not to listen to you. It's like we don't know what we're doing over here. I'm not going to argue that we don't have our problems, but last I checked, we have our plus side too.

Gun control is one of those funny arguments that you can twist numbers any way you like. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe a person has a right to protect themselves or not. It really is that simple.

[HoreTore]

If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better.

The thing with the third world countries is just that; they're third world countries. They have no functioning police force, not functioning government system, extreme poverty, extreme unemployment and officials are utterly corrupt. If that's not a recipe for crime, I don't know what is.

As to the finnish thingy, well, they're a bunch of drunken emo's, they're probably unable to aim due to vodka :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Sorry Don , but what are these Latin American and European countries that have outlawed personal firearm ownership ?

It should be pretty obvious that we're talking about gun ownership for safety reasons, not gun ownership for hunting or sports or whatever.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don't you mean that in Jamaica if you do not have a fireams licence and have an unlicenced gun in your house its against the law ?
(Sorry Don , Rabbit tried that one straight from gun-nut weekly already , apparently they think Ireland and Jamaica are two countries where guns are completely banned:oops:)

You mean like how DC allowed people to keep guns in their homes, they just had to register them? But of course they didn't let anyone register them.

How many permits in Jamaica have been given out to ordinary people, tribesy?

And I believe Don is right; having an unlicensed gun in Jamaica = big jail time.

Ok, question time; do you really think requiring permits for guns in a country and not giving out any means that guns aren't banned or are you just being obtuse?

To the topic of homicides;

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

Here, violence is removed from ordinary people's lives. One girl I know expressed shock at seeing someone getting stabbed in a big city (DC, FWIW), because violence is not part of most Americans lives.

Also, every homicide in America is counted, while numbers in some countries like England are not counted if the murderer was charged with manslaughter or something less.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Also, every homicide in America is counted, while numbers in some countries like England are not counted if the murderer was charged with manslaughter or something less.

Are you sure that doesn't seem quite right, they would still go towards statistics of killed people just not a count of those charged with murder

If your point is that only Western European nations and the USA are worthy of considering, hey, be as snobby as you'd like, but personally, I like to look at all of humanity, not just the part of it that fits my arguments better.

As Horetore said theres other differences which really effect the murder rate, its common sense really a 3rd world country is going to have a higher murder rate regardless of firearm legislation

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

I don't think state comparisions are as valid as international ones due to the much easier transporting of weapons mainly...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree with Don. It's what they call the "veil of ignorance". Say you were in some interdimensional area and you knew that in a few moments you were going to enter the real world and be put in a situation where a certain number of people were going to threaten your life. You can choose between two worlds to enter, both with this same situation. Do you enter the one where you are allowed to own and carry guns (and for all you know are an expert) or one where you aren't (and might be a 5'2" woman about to be attacked by two large men)? Frankly, if you chose to enter a world where you wouldn't have a gun in that situation you're either a fool or a martyr.

Of course there are other scenarios. I'm sure a few people bystanders have been shot in ways they could never have foreseen. But it boils down to the social contract like Don said.

Fireworks are similar to my mind. Every 4th of july hundreds of people injure or maim themselves setting of fireworks. So the government tries to outlaw everything but sparklers (and have unfortunately succeeded). But really it should be left up to the people to decide. Same thing with alcohol. Kills a lot of people. But it's the individuals choice.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Canada is a good example on this chart. Firearms are common in Canada, very common. And yet the homicide rate is similar to that of Poland, France, England, and Wales, and considerably less than Finland and the USA. Why?

The answer is social. It's got nothing to do with the what, and everything to do with the who (not the awesome band, but who is using the weapon).

[woad&fangs]

You sure about that EMFM? Canada has 1/3 the number of guns per person compared to the US and Canada also has roughly 1/3 the homicide rate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You sure about that EMFM? Canada has 1/3 the number of guns per person compared to the US and Canada also has roughly 1/3 the homicide rate.

Positive. Unregistered guns are everywhere in Canada.

[LittleGrizzly]

Say you were in some interdimensional area and you knew that in a few moments you were going to enter the real world and be put in a situation where a certain number of people were going to threaten your life. You can choose between two worlds to enter, both with this same situation. Do you enter the one where you are allowed to own and carry guns (and for all you know are an expert) or one where you aren't (and might be a 5'2" woman about to be attacked by two large men)? Frankly, if you chose to enter a world where you wouldn't have a gun in that situation you're either a fool or a martyr.

Quite frankly its a few vs one and they determined to kill you your dead either way, unless your an expert with or without weapons but then thats cheating the example, i would probably go for the gunless place as at least i would have a chance to run away (you try throwing knives and tell me its easier than shooting someone running away

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe a person has a right to protect themselves or not. It really is that simple.

Im happy to protect myself, if i really needed too im sure i would smash any number of hard objects into someones head, the reason im against guns is because i don't want the bad guys to walk around with them, if i had a gun and needed to shot someone to save myself or just about anyone really i would

Fireworks are similar to my mind.

I would say they are very different, people bring up quite a few examples as similar to gun ownership like fireworks and seatbelt laws, but the majority of the times these laws are to protect you from yourself whereas laws on gun ownership are to protect us from everyone else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Most of them in the US involve people who are already criminals and involved in drugs, and often happen in cities with bans on guns (NYC, Washington DC [still, the laws haven't changed yet], Chicago).

I don't think state comparisions are as valid as international ones due to the much easier transporting of weapons mainly...

Bah. Completely useless argument - why do the states with low gun control not have the same high crime rates? :idea2:

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Bah. Completely useless argument - why do the states with low gun control not have the same high crime rates?

Well its not just the weapons that can be transported, criminals from states with lax gun control could go over to states with high gun control to commit thier crimes, which is another reason i think state comparisions are less valid, in one state there will be little to stop someone getting a gun, they can then just switch states and be in a state where there are very strict laws. The legal homeowner is now outgunned because of differences in state laws, i can't say im an expert but im fairly sure NYC is a pretty violent place anyway....

[Tribesman]

Edit: Apology retracted. To answer Tribesman's question: Mexico.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Mexico hasn't banned guns , you are allowed shotguns , you are allowed rifles , you are allowed handguns .
Damn them things do kinda appear like guns to me .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Now of course there are restrictions , rifles must not be above .22 and hanguns not above .38 (though there is an extra clause there that does not allow .357 handguns)
Hey Don if you as an American want to go shooting down Mexcio way with your guns you can ,you have to get a permit though , you have to get a permit even if you are only carrying ammo and not a gun , there are big penalties for bringing a gun across the border without a permit , though those penalties have been reduced for first offences as they were having too many problems with gringos just forgetting they were packing when they went down south and 5 years for an unlicenced firearm was seen as a bit tough for genuine mistakes .
If in doubt contact your State Dept. and they will tell you about taking your toys out foriegn .

[Xiahou]

Now of course there are restrictions , rifles must not be above .22In other words, they're banned. -.22?? I guess BB guns and pellet rifles are safe though. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

In other words, they're banned. -.22?? I guess BB guns and pellet rifles are safe though.

It seems like someone has a problem with the English language . If guns are allowed then it is pretty certin that a statement of guns are banned is best described as complete bollox

So a gun that takes the standard American sports gun cartridge = a gun ban:dizzy2:
Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?
Wow americas army doesn't have guns .
What a pathetic post you made Xiahou:yes:

[SwordsMaster]

Right, boys, cold shower. Let's keep it civil.

To get back to DC's post about the social contract issue. So, you are of the opinion, that your right to carry guns will allow you to defend yourself and your possessions against intruding agents. However, while the original purpose of gun ownership (to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government) is very respectable, if you did attempt to shoot a police officer who entered your house unannounced no amount of appeals to the constitution would help you avoid conviction.

So while i understand what others have said about personal self defense, I'd like to point out that these muggings and assaults that you speak of are not restricted to the US, and also happen in Italy, France, Poland and even Monaco. And yet their overall murder rates are lower. And personally, when I'm walking down the street, I wouldn't want to think there is some nutjob playing with his gun by the window and I just might get shot. I know my chances of getting run over by traffic are higher, but it is still an uninviting prospect.

The other issue you point at, the abundance of gun crime in places that have banned it, seems self evident. You cannot ban guns in a small part of the country, and do nothing elsewhere. This will only attract armed crime to this - now defenseless - city.

I guess what I'm trying to examine is precisely this issue of social contract. When the constitution was written - the last quarter of the XVIII century, individuals had less freedom, but greater independence than they have today. The ideas of nationhood and globalisation have given us more freedom, but have eroded our independence within the system. So perhaps the rules of the social contract should be reconsidered.

The amount of legislation per capita in the world is, in my opinion, quite appalling. Have we lost all ability to make our own decisions?

[Ironside]

Doesn't the 5.5/100K number of fatalities for the USA include the number of self-inflicted gunshot casualties, not just homicides?

I'm not certain I understand how you can say this isn't supposed to be a pro/con gun control thread, then ask folks to pay attention to the Sociology, not the logistics. Gun control is all about what sort of society you wish to be, and whether you're willing to sacrifice justice for safety.



Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The general analyses excluded deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. Justifiable homicides based on the reports of law enforcement agencies are analyzed separately

This is how the 5,5/100k number is calculated.
So that Lemur was right makes that case non-existant in these statistics btw.

I do love the justice for safety remark though, it's so interpretable. Are it the ones who wants guns who trade justice for safety or the other way around?

I'll maintain the idea that the "US gun factor" is the American's relations to guns as personal defense, spreading to the criminals as well, not the amount of guns itself (although it certainly not improving the problem).
That isn't the sole problem of course, so what other factor plays into that murder rate?
And why is GB and Netherlands so high in the threat rate?

BTW Don, unless you got some other source the Finns are killing eachother about 3 more than the Norweigians. I'm not sure that I would classify that as less violence.
The main reason here seems to be violent drunks (most murderers and victims are drunk).

[Tribesman]

Let's keep it civil.

That was civil , well as civil as you can be when faced with someone writing such utter nonsense .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So a gun that takes the standard American sports gun cartridge = a gun ban:dizzy2:
Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?

Similar to a Remington .223 ~;)

EDIT: You are aware that 5.56x45mm NATO and .22 Long Rifle (which I presume you're talking about) are a little different, right?

Anyways, I suppose a good example is Brazil - very, very strict firearms control in one of the world's largest economies, and yet I somehow don't think the murder rate is that good.

[Xiahou]

It seems like someone has a problem with the English language . If guns are allowed then it is pretty certin that a statement of guns are banned is best described as complete bollox

So a gun that takes the standard American sports gun cartridge = a gun ban:dizzy2:
Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?
Wow americas army doesn't have guns .
What a pathetic post you made Xiahou:yes:
You really dont know anything about guns do you? :laugh4:


EDIT: You are aware that 5.56x45mm NATO and .22 Long Rifle (which I presume you're talking about) are a little different, right?Very different. :yes:

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5272/223vs22ev9.jpg
Guess which is which?:beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

It seems like someone has a problem with the English language . If guns are allowed then it is pretty certin that a statement of guns are banned is best described as complete bollox

So a gun that takes the standard American sports gun cartridge = a gun ban:dizzy2:
Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?
Wow americas army doesn't have guns .
What a pathetic post you made Xiahou:yes:

Wow.

The caliber the US uses is not .22. You are completely and utterly wrong.

If you cannot comprehend the difference between a .22 and what the US forces use, you shouldn't be in this thread, but sit quietly and try to learn something.

The .223 is very different from the .22 - look at the picture Xiahou posted.

Your 'reasoning' about what constitutes a ban on firearms is unsound. A ban that forbids all but the lowest* rifle caliber and almost all useful-for-self-defense handgun calibers is basically equivalent to a general ban on firearms. You've played this smoke and mirror game before, but your as wrong as ever.



And personally, when I'm walking down the street, I wouldn't want to think there is some nutjob playing with his gun by the window and I just might get shot.

Do you have any evidence of such an event happening, once, much less a statistically significant number of times?

CR
*There are some .17 caliber bullets, but those are actually pellet gun sized and not that widespread even in the US.

[Tribesman]

What a bunch of muppets , is a .22 a .22 or not ?
wow a picture of a big .22 and a small .22 :dizzy2:please could you do a picture of a big 9mm and a small 9mm just for comparison :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The caliber the US uses is not .22. You are completely and utterly wrong.

The only people who are wrong are those who insist that a country that does allow firearms is a country that doesn't allow firearms .
Like this one for example

Your 'reasoning' about what constitutes a ban on firearms is unsound.
Let me remind you Rabbit as you cannot seem to grasp the basics , the claim was countries that have "outlawed pesonal firearm ownership " .....Latin countries ...bollox .....mexico ... more bollox .
It is not as you attempt to claim "basically equivalent to general ban on firearms" in fact it is absolutely nothing at all resembling a general ban on firearms , it is specific regulations on certain firearms like what most countries have .:idea2:
So for all your ...
you shouldn't be in this thread, but sit quietly and try to learn something.
given your long history of completely screwing up just about every time you talk about firearm regulations in other countries perhaps you should just sit quietly Rabbit

[woad&fangs]

Tribes, if you think the picture was showing a "big 22" then you are the one talking bollox.


About the Mexico ban.

22s are only useful for paper targets and squirrels/rabbits. They are trash for self defense.

As for the pistols, according to you, .45, .44mag, and .357 are all banned in Mexico and they are the most common calibers for self defense. Also, it effectively bans .38 cal guns as well since most .38s are built to also use .357s. Lower calibers then a .357 that I know of are .32(hard to find) and 22s(crap for defensive purposes).

So yes, for our purposes here, the Mexican law is a gun ban.

:study:

[Craterus]

Hey, how many times have you all had to defend yourselves from an attacker *EDIT: what's more, when a gun was the only suitable defense and a melee weapon would not have sufficed?

I know the American media suggests the opposite, but not everyone is out to get you.

Also, a city with a ban on guns isn't 'defenseless', there are such things as police forces but I know you all think you are more competent than those trained professionals, it doesn't surprise when such experts accidentally shoot family members while defending their property and all things American.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a bunch of muppets , is a .22 a .22 or not ?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh man, hilarious.

The US forces use .223 caliber bullets - can you see how that's different? Because it's a different number? Because it has a different number of digits? And how those different numbers mean different things? Do you understand that differently sized bullets are not the same?


wow a picture of a big .22 and a small .22 please could you do a picture of a big 9mm and a small 9mm just for comparison

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

Thats so funny Rabbit you screwed up again , the 223 is just a name it is a smaller 22 calibre than the 222

Do you understand that differently sized bullets are not the same?

Yes they have different performances , just like you can get ots of 224s with different performances , but since the liomitation is only to rifles of the 22 calibre category then it is only rifles of 22 calibre category and that is a bloody big category


Tribes, if you think the picture was showing a "big 22" then you are the one talking bollox.

Are you trying to say it is a smaller 22 and they have used photoshop then ? blimey they did a good job you can't see the seams at all , it certainly looks bigger doesn't it .


22s are only useful for paper targets and squirrels/rabbits. They are trash for self defense.

Is that why the US Navy seals use .22 pistols . I never knew seals hunted rabbits .


Also, it effectively bans .38 cal guns as well since most .38s are built to also use .357s.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: the ban is on 357 guns and ammunition , you can have a 38 but you are not allowed to buy or put 357s into it , you know its part of the law they have .:idea2:


So yes, for our purposes here, the Mexican law is a gun ban.

So for your purposes being allowed to have shotguns , rifles and handguns = a gun ban . :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Friggng moonbats .:dizzy2:
Well there you go the reason for the high level of kilings in America despite not having the same social demographics as third world banana republics is obviously because there are lots of moonbats there .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right, boys, cold shower. Let's keep it civil.

To get back to DC's post about the social contract issue. So, you are of the opinion, that your right to carry guns will allow you to defend yourself and your possessions against intruding agents. However, while the original purpose of gun ownership (to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government) is very respectable, if you did attempt to shoot a police officer who entered your house unannounced no amount of appeals to the constitution would help you avoid conviction.

There was just a thread on this a couple weeks ago--a drug dealer who shot and killed a police man who busted into his house was let off.



The other issue you point at, the abundance of gun crime in places that have banned it, seems self evident. You cannot ban guns in a small part of the country, and do nothing elsewhere. This will only attract armed crime to this - now defenseless - city.

It should be evident that you can't ban guns at all in the US. We have giant borders to the north and south. We can't keep drugs and illegal immigrants out, you think we can keep guns out?



Hey, how many times have you all had to defend yourselves from an attacker *EDIT: what's more, when a gun was the only suitable defense and a melee weapon would not have sufficed?

Just about any time a woman is attacked by a man a melee weapon will not suffice. Same with an attack by multiple people. Guns equalize things. I'd rather have a pistol against two guys with machine guns than a knife against two with knives. Common sense.


I know the American media suggests the opposite, but not everyone is out to get you.

No one thinks they are, nice job trying to paint all Americans as paranoid nutjobs though.


Also, a city with a ban on guns isn't 'defenseless', there are such things as police forces but I know you all think you are more competent than those trained professionals, it doesn't surprise when such experts accidentally shoot family members while defending their property and all things American.

The police are limited in how much protection they can provide.

[Craterus]

Just about any time a woman is attacked by a man a melee weapon will not suffice. Same with an attack by multiple people. Guns equalize things. I'd rather have a pistol against two guys with machine guns than a knife against two with knives. Common sense.

That wasn't the question, did I need to bold and capitalise the YOU?


No one thinks they are, nice job trying to paint all Americans as paranoid nutjobs though.

Really? I read about a few statistics: crime has gone down in the US, but the reporting of crime in the media has gone waaay up, and with that so has the sales of firearms?

[woad&fangs]

Thats so funny Rabbit you screwed up again , the 223 is just a name it is a smaller 22 calibre than the 222

Yes they have different performances , just like you can get ots of 224s with different performances , but since the liomitation is only to rifles of the 22 calibre category then it is only rifles of 22 calibre category and that is a bloody big category

223 are bigger then 22s tribesy. The bullet itself isn't much bigger but it contains a lot more powder. I know, my family owns a 223 and several 22s. Also, what is the exact wording of this ban? Does it allow only 22 rimfires or are centerfires allowed?


Are you trying to say it is a smaller 22 and they have used photoshop then ? blimey they did a good job you can't see the seams at all , it certainly looks bigger doesn't it .


Is that why the US Navy seals use .22 pistols . I never knew seals hunted rabbits .


The cartridge on the right is a 22, the one on the left which you claim to be a 22 is NOT. I'm not sure what exactly its caliber is but it is not a 22. Also, I don't believe SEALs carry 22s. They most likely carry 9mms or .45s.



:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: the ban is on 357 guns and ammunition , you can have a 38 but you are not allowed to buy or put 357s into it , you know its part of the law they have .:idea2:


So for your purposes being allowed to have shotguns , rifles and handguns = a gun ban . :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Friggng moonbats .:dizzy2:
Well there you go the reason for the high level of kilings in America despite not having the same social demographics as third world banana republics is obviously because there are lots of moonbats there .
O deary me, you mean that law you won't post a link to. Just like how you won't back up your assertion that SEALs carry 22s. If the law does indeed allow one to purchase a 38/357 handgun but not to purchase 357 ammo then I'm wrong but I'm going off the info your spewing out.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Tribsey, I'm sorry, and you're good at bull:daisy:, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to guns and ammunition.

Anyways, there's a description of the laws on Wiki.

[Tribesman]

223 are bigger then 22s tribesy.
Wellthats a turn around , just now you said that if I thought it was bigger I was talking bollox :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Anyhow what did I just write ? the 222 is bigger than the 223 hmmmm..true or false lets see one is a 224 and one is a 2245 which is which ? and are they both 22 :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:are their bigger 22 rounds than the Nato one ? Are they still 22 calibre ? of the wide range of 22 calibre rounds why are none of them actually 22 in size ?


Also, I don't believe SEALs carry 22s.
Oh but they do Woad , on their special rabbit hunting operations :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, you never know when a dastardly wabbit will attack you .:yes:
Lets see :inquisitive:, the pistol they use that is a 22 has a name that is very similar to that iconic german pistol , in fact if Elmer Fudd said the name of both pistols you might have difficulty telling them apart as they is so similar .


If the law does indeed allow one to purchase a 38/357 handgun but not to purchase 357 ammo then I'm wrong but I'm going off the info your spewing out.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Think about it , what is the big difference between a 38 and a 357, a clue might be in what you noted earlier about interchangability , it isn't the size of the round is it , the actual size of the round wouldn't have caused nasty accidents with guns being able to fit and fire the round but not being able to take it:yes:
But anyway the thing there is with the purchasing of guns and ammunition , you cannot buy guns privately , you can only buy from licenced dealers , the owner and the gun is registered , you are only allowed to buy ammunition for the gun that you have registered from a licenced dealer , simple isn't it . You buy a 38 and you can buy the ammunition for that gun .:idea2:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That wasn't the question, did I need to bold and capitalise the YOU?

I know you said YOU. I didn't respond to that because it's clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand. You wouldn't come into a thread on racism against black people and say "how many of you have been discriminated against because of your skin color?" when clearly most of us are white. There are more people in America than there are in this thread.



Really? I read about a few statistics: crime has gone down in the US, but the reporting of crime in the media has gone waaay up, and with that so has the sales of firearms?

People are reached by the media more than ever before, but you were exaggerating needlessly. You seem to be trying to make the point that some people buy guns when they don't need to because they are scared, but that's not the issue. Some people are rightfully scared and they have a right to defend themselves.

[woad&fangs]

You claimed that both cartridges in that picture are 22s. One is and one is not.

Navy Seals carry SIG 9mms and HKUSP45s as standard issue weapons. that's a 9mm and a .45. Not a 22.

I'm not sure what you are claiming with that last paragraph. Are you claiming 357s are more powerful than .38(true) which causes the guns to break(not take it)? If that's the case than I can tell you that almost every .38 gun can fire .357s cartridges just fine. They're made to be interchangable.

I like that you brought up that only the state can sell guns and ammo. You forgot to mention earlier that the only way to purchase those is with a licence from the state. A license which you can only get if you are part of a shooting club and there are no public shooting ranges in Mexico.

So yes, if you're a yacht owning bourgeusie who can afford his monthly country club shooting range fees there isn't a ban.:toff:

[Tribesman]

Navy Seals carry SIG 9mms and HKUSP45s as standard issue weapons. that's a 9mm and a .45. Not a 22.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: you missed the Ruger :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
to which you can add the HDM which is also a 22 .:thumbsdown:



You forgot to mention earlier that the only way to purchase those is with a licence from the state.
Wow you mean the government is in charge of firearm regulation ...thats shocking that is whatever next , I suppose you are going to shock us all withsomedramtic revelation about government control of issuing a driving licence:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thats so funny Rabbit you screwed up again , the 223 is just a name it is a smaller 22 calibre than the 222

The 222? What are you talking about? Stop listing off strings of numbers you claim are calibers with no information if you want people to even read your posts in this thread anymore and not just laugh at you.

The .22 is a weak round. Exotic calibers near in size like the .224 WSSM don't really pertain to this discussion because they are a novelty compared to the .22 and, in the US, the .223.

How many guns in Mexico are chambered in a .22X caliber and achieve comparable results to the .223 Remington (equivalent to the cartridge used by the US) and are not used by any state forces (which would mean they can't be owned)?


Is that why the US Navy seals use .22 pistols . I never knew seals hunted rabbits .

Link for this assertion? Would that be their regular sidearm or just for when they can sneak to ten feet of a guy and pop him in the head?


So for your purposes being allowed to have shotguns , rifles and handguns = a gun ban . :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Friggng moonbats .:dizzy2:
Well there you go the reason for the high level of kilings in America despite not having the same social demographics as third world banana republics is obviously because there are lots of moonbats there .

So if a country banned all books but those under 100 pages, banned those used by universities, restricted the use of modern printing presses, didn't let people speak freely on public property, etc., etc., you'd argue that they had free speech?

And, of course, their's other restrictions Mexico has on getting guns than just their caliber. And they have very severe laws for mere possession of one bullet of a forbidden caliber. Also, I think you may not have even gotten Mexico's laws right.

Yet that has done nothing to stop crime.


Are you trying to say it is a smaller 22 and they have used photoshop then ? blimey they did a good job you can't see the seams at all , it certainly looks bigger doesn't it .

Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You know tribesy, even accepting that you usually just troll threads you usually have some semblance of an idea of what's going on. Sadly (for you), that is clearly not the case here.


what's more, when a gun was the only suitable defense and a melee weapon would not have sufficed?

You're looking at this thing the wrong way. One doesn't try to decide, when faced with an attacker, what's the minimum force and tool you could, possibly, use and not suffer serious harm. If a person comes at me such that I would consider using a weapon of any sort to defend myself, then they are serious about hurting me and I am going to take the safest course of action for myself.

CR

[Xiahou]

I'm not sure what you are claiming with that last paragraph. Are you claiming 357s are more powerful than .38(true) which causes the guns to break(not take it)? If that's the case than I can tell you that almost every .38 gun can fire .357s cartridges just fine. They're made to be interchangableWell, to be completely accurate, a .38 revolver can't fire .357 magnum rounds. The shells are longer so they won't fit in the cylinder. OTOH, a .357 can load and fire .38s with no problem at all. In practice, no one really buys .38s much anymore since a .357 is much more versatile being able to fire .38s, their high pressure variants and the .357. :yes:

Tribes is completely out of his depth here, and to top it all off, he's not even reading the law correctly- I guess that's the benefit of never providing any sources. You don't have to keep your facts straight. :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

The 222? What are you talking about? Stop listing off strings of numbers you claim are calibers with no information if you want people to even read your posts in this thread anymore and not just laugh at you.
Oh but rabbit I thought you was a gun fetishist surely you should know that the 222 (which is a .22) was the fatter but shorter round than the 223 by the same manufacturer who also made another version of the 222 (which was also a .22) but it was the same width as the .223 but longer .
So if both versions of the 222 rounds are .22 calibre then the 223 is also a .22 calibre round even though it is thinner than one and shorter than the other .
If it is a .22 round then the gun is a .22 gun , simple isn't it .:2thumbsup:


Link for this assertion?
awwwww would you like a little list of sidearms used by the US military Rabbit:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:go on have a little look on the net and see if you can spot the RugerII and the HDM on it both of which are .22 :book:


And they have very severe laws for mere possession of one bullet of a forbidden caliber.
Hey Rabbit I thought you was in favour of strict enforcement of firearm legislation . Did you change your mind or something ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


So if a country banned all books but those under 100 pages, banned those used by universities, restricted the use of modern printing presses, didn't let people speak freely on public property, etc., etc., you'd argue that they had free speech?

Is that one of them scarecrow thingies like when it sure don't look like Kansas Toto ?
If you remember the claim was that Mexico had banned private ownership of guns , so for your little lame attempt there to work it would have to be a ban on all books even those under 100 pages:yes:


Also, I think you may not have even gotten Mexico's laws right.

I know , I took some of it from that Dave Kopel idiot on the second amendment project site , I knew I shouldn't have relied on a gun nut for accurate information .:oops:

[Tribesman]

Well, to be completely accurate, a .38 revolver can't fire .357 magnum rounds.
But they used to , the .357 design was changed for exactly the reason that it fitted the same as a .38 special and the resuts could be unpleasant .


Tribes is completely out of his depth here
OK Mr smarty , when is a .22 not a .22 ? is it perhaps on the same occasion that a .45 isn't a .45 ?:dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh but rabbit I thought you was a gun fetishist surely you should know that the 222 (which is a .22) was the fatter but shorter round than the 223 by the same manufacturer who also made another version of the 222 (which was also a .22) but it was the same width as the .223 but longer .
So if both versions of the 222 rounds are .22 calibre then the 223 is also a .22 calibre round even though it is thinner than one and shorter than the other .
If it is a .22 round then the gun is a .22 gun , simple isn't it

No, you're again wrong.

A ".22" is only a .22 caliber round - most commonly the .22LR. It does not include every cartridge that starts with .22xxx under the sun. A .22 round is not a .223 round, and so .22 is not an umbrella term that fits a .223 or a .224 caliber.

"can you see how that's different? Because it's a different number? Because it has a different number of digits? And how those different numbers mean different things? Do you understand that differently sized bullets are not the same?"


I know , I took some of it from that Dave Kopel idiot on the second amendment project site , I knew I shouldn't have relied on a gun nut for accurate information .

Don't go blaming others for your out-spoken ignorance.


go on have a little look on the net and see if you can spot the RugerII and the HDM on it both of which are .22

No. You provide the info that you are basing your posts on.

And why can't you answer this question:

How many guns in Mexico are chambered in a .22X caliber and achieve comparable results to the .223 Remington (equivalent to the cartridge used by the US) and are not used by any state forces (which would mean they can't be owned)?

The standard tribesy question: are you being ignorant or obtuse?

Well, let's move on, as its clear tribesy will argue a country that kills you on sight if you have anything but a one shot, .17 caliber derringer that took five years and 50k to acquire legally hasn't banned guns.

CR

[Redleg]

Oh what fun.... The article from the Mexico Law




Artículo 11.- Las armas, municiones y materia para el uso exclusivo del Ejército, Armada y Fuerza
Aérea, son las siguientes:
a).- Revólveres calibre .357 Magnum y los superiores a .38 Especial.
b).- Pistolas calibre 9 mm. Parabellum, Luger y similares, las .38 Super y Comando, y las de calibres
superiores.
c).- Fusiles, mosquetones, carabinas y tercerolas en calibre .223, 7 mm., 7. 62 mm. y carabinas
calibre .30 en todos sus modelos.
d).- Pistolas, carabinas y fusiles con sistema de ráfaga, sub-ametralladoras, metralletas y
ametralladoras en todos sus calibres.
e).- Escopetas con cañón de longitud inferior a 635 mm. (25), las de calibre superior al 12 (.729 ó 18.
5 mm) y las lanzagases, con excepción de las de uso industrial.
f).- Municiones para las armas anteriores y cartuchos con artificios especiales como trazadores,
incendiarios, perforantes, fumígenos, expansivos de gases y los cargados con postas superiores al 00
(.84 cms. de diámetro) para escopeta.
g).- Cañones, piezas de artillería, morteros y carros de combate con sus aditamentos, accesorios,
proyectiles y municiones.
h).- Proyectiles-cohete, torpedos, granadas, bombas, minas, cargas de profundidad, lanzallamas y
similares, así como los aparatos, artificios y máquinas para su lanzamiento.
i).- Bayonetas, sables y lanzas.
j).- Navíos, submarinos, embarcaciones e hidroaviones para la guerra naval y su armamento.
k).- Aeronaves de guerra y su armamento.
l).- Artificios de guerra, gases y substancias químicas de aplicación exclusivamente militar, y los
ingenios diversos para su uso por las fuerzas armadas.
En general, todas las armas, municiones y materiales destinados exclusivamente para la guerra.
Las de este destino, mediante la justificación de la necesidad, podrán autorizarse por la Secretaría de
la Defensa Nacional, individualmente o como corporación, a quienes desempeñen empleos o cargos de
la Federación, del Distrito Federal, de los Estados o de los Municipios.

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/102.pdf

Basically what it says concerning the arguement about .223 caliber weapons is that the caliber is for the exculisive use of the military in Mexico.

[Tribesman]

No, you're again wrong.

A ".22" is only a .22 caliber round - most commonly the .22LR. It does not include every cartridge that starts with .22xxx under the sun. A .22 round is not a .223 round, and so .22 is not an umbrella term that fits a .223 or a .224 caliber.


Lets see , a nice little thing from "guns and ammo" on .22 rifles


What does all this mean? Faster cartridges are going to wear out barrels more quickly than slower cartridges. There is no real threshold that I'm aware of, but the very fast .22s like the .22-250, .220 Swift and .223 WSSM are going to wear out barrels much faster than milder .22s like the .222 and .223. The .223 WSSM has been reported to be a barrel burner, and it might be in some rifles, but compared to what? The cartridge is so new that I think this is a premature rap. From what I've seen in the field this past season I don't think there's much difference between it and the .22-250 or .220 Swift.


did you get this bit
but the very fast .22s like the .22-250, .220 Swift and .223 WSSM
and this bit
faster than milder .22s like the .222 and .223.
So Rabbit you is talking bollox , you can neck down a .303 cartridge to take a .22 bullet and it is a .22 round and the gun that uses it is a .22 gun .:yes:


Well, let's move on, as its clear tribesy will argue a country that kills you on sight if you have anything but a one shot, .17 caliber derringer that took five years and 50k to acquire legally hasn't banned guns.

And I would be right because a one shot pistol is a gun isn't it . Try again rabbit .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Oh I forgot , for the sake of this topic banning private gun ownership does not mean banning private gun ownership .
:dizzy2:

And just for rabbit .

High Standard HDM (Suppressed Pistol, .22 LR) (Navy SEALs and USMC Force Recon)
Ruger Mk II (Integrally Suppressed variant; Automatic Pistol, .22 LR) (Navy SEALs)

[HoreTore]

Anyways, I suppose a good example is Brazil - very, very strict firearms control in one of the world's largest economies, and yet I somehow don't think the murder rate is that good.

Take a look at the slum area of Brazil and you'll see why they have crime.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Take a look at the slum area of Brazil and you'll see why they have crime.

They have very strict firearms control laws - but still manage to have 25% more gun deaths than the United States.

[HoreTore]

They have very strict firearms control laws - but still manage to have 25% more gun deaths than the United States.

As I said, take a look at their slum areas.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As I said, take a look at their slum areas.

And? All that goes to show is that the firearms laws don't prevent deaths.

[HoreTore]

And? All that goes to show is that the firearms laws don't prevent deaths.

uh....? Yes, firearm laws reduce the number of deaths. The reason Brazil has a high murder rate, is that they have two bigger factors at work, namely extreme poverty and corruption. Also, if you as I said took a look at the slums, you'd notice that everyone and their grandmother owns a gun...

If you want to compare something, you need a valid comparison. When you're talking about firearm laws and crime, you need to compare two countries that you'd think would have roughly the same crime rate, like britain and the US, for example. You can't compare a wealthy state with a third world country.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

uh....? Yes, firearm laws reduce the number of deaths.

No, and Brazil is the perfect example. With strict penalties for having firearms as well as the corruption you mentioned, the ordinary citizen has a more difficult time defending himself.


You can't compare a wealthy state with a third world country.

Brazil is not a third world country anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Human_Development_Report_2007_(2).svg

Maybe not first world, but certainly not third world.

[HoreTore]

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/brazil-estrutural-slum.jpg

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TAR1255.jpg

Yes, Brazil is certainly a glorious country...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A high Human Development Index rating is a better indicator of how a country is doing than a few pictures. I saw slums in Costa Rica too (with a higher HDI than Brazil), but it's not really an indicator of how the average person is doing or how happy they are.

[HoreTore]

A high Human Development Index rating is a better indicator of how a country is doing than a few pictures. I saw slums in Costa Rica too (with a higher HDI than Brazil), but it's not really an indicator of how the average person is doing or how happy they are.

No, but we're talking about crime here, and a major part of Brazil's crime comes from the slum areas.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, but we're talking about crime here, and a major part of Brazil's crime comes from the slum areas.

It's quite clear that the gun laws in Brazil can't be working...

[LittleGrizzly]

It's quite clear that the gun laws in Brazil can't be working...

I think its fairly obvious to most people that poverty is the cause of so much crime there rather than gun laws, even if everyone was packing guns the only difference would be a whole lot more killing.

Can anyone explain to me why people keep bringing 3rd world or 2nd in the guess of brazil countries for comparison, the US is going to have less crime than a 3rd world country whether they allowed guns or not, is this really a difficult concept to grab poverty breeds crime, you can justify just about anything if your going to compare america to a third world country.... "ohh look how much richer those americans are than brazilians... having stars on your flag has to have an economic impact, what else could it be ?"

[HoreTore]

It's quite clear that the gun laws in Brazil can't be working...

The gun law is irrelevant, since everyone has a gun anyway, and the poverty, corruption and extreme class difference makes crime skyrocket anyway.

Comparing the US with Brazil is even more irrelevant though. Compare the US to countries where you would expect to see the roughly the same crime numbers, ie. western europe.

If gun laws are working like you say, that they increase crime instead of reducing it, then certainly places like britain and norway should have record levels of crime, since the average citizen don't have access to guns to protect themselves, right? But why is it that we don't have those levels of murders then?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4368598.stm


If I had the money, I would have a weapon to try to protect myself and my family... The police are never going to arrive in time

Maybe Brazil should invest in a better police force instead of trying to enforce restrictive gun laws?

EDIT:

How about Canada?

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/434-Murder-Rate-in-the-United-States-and-Germany.html

I'd say you can't get a better example than Canada...

EDIT2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

EDIT3:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[Husar]

And? All that goes to show is that the firearms laws don't prevent deaths.

If you cannot enforce them they can't. I could also say that laws against murder and rape are superfluous and should be abandoned, just look at Africa!!! they do not work, OMG!!!

You sound like you're trying to say firearms legislation would not work in the US because basically the US are as corrupt as Brazil and cannot manage to enforce the laws anyway. :dizzy2:

There's not a single law that prevents anything by itself, if you have corruption or no police forces, there's hardly a law that "works".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Alright, I see what you mean. My point is that banning/heavily restricting guns in Brazil is not a good thing. Some of my points on gun laws in America...post #70.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tribesman, If I took a peanut that was the same size as a .22 caliber projectile; I threw the peanut and you shot the .22 caliber projectilve, would you say that they are the same because they are the same size? Stopping power is totally different between then and, ultimately, that is what determines the difference.

Just curious, but have you ever fired a gun before? If you haven't it wouldn't mean that you couldn't know what you are talking about, but it would be insightful. Being raised in the U.S. you can't really avoid it, but I'm not sure about the Irish.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think you might have got the wrong thread. ~;)

[seireikhaan]

Bah. All this 'guns are bad' and 'guns are good' stuff just makes me wanna hurl. Let each society choose what's best for them. What works for some may not work for others.

Ex- Japan, with strict laws on gun ownership, has an astonishingly low murders per capita. Switzerland, where, I believe, each resident is actually required to own a rifle, also has an astonishingly low murder rate. :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

As I said, take a look at their slum areas.

And where do you think all of America's gun deaths come from? Middle class folks in the suburbs?

You don't see anywhere near as much violence committed with guns among people who are raised around lots of firearms then you do as urban thugs who know little about firearms.


Yes, firearm laws reduce the number of deaths.

Evidence? Because in the US, a government study found no evidence to back up such a claim.

Also - tribesy, are you having trouble understanding the difference between a quote and a link?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

The funniest thing has to be tribesy quoting a lazy gun rag writer, though. Seriously, google "gun rag" and the first link that actually lists magazines (the third link) has "Guns and Ammo" right at the top.


Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?

Still as wrong as ever :beam: :yes: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

Also - tribesy, are you having trouble understanding the difference between a quote and a link?

Are you still having trouble with the fact that a 22 is a 22 which is a 22 .:yes:


Tribesman, If I took a peanut that was the same size as a .22 caliber projectile; I threw the peanut and you shot the .22 caliber projectilve, would you say that they are the same because they are the same size? Stopping power is totally different between then and, ultimately, that is what determines the difference.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: different stopping power between different .22s doesn't mean they are not .22s the calibre size is determined by the width of the projectile which surprisingly corresponds with the bore of the barrel of the firearm which makes the gun a .22 .


Just curious, but have you ever fired a gun before? If you haven't it wouldn't mean that you couldn't know what you are talking about, but it would be insightful. Being raised in the U.S. you can't really avoid it, but I'm not sure about the Irish.
Guns ? me ? no never , guns are evil , bullets are the spawn of satan:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: For an answer why not try one of the many other gun topics on this forum , for a good laugh see if you can find the one where rabbit claims that gun ownership is illegal in Ireland ...which of course if true would mean that I am a criminal :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Are you still having trouble with the fact that a 22 is a 22 which is a 22 .:yes:

No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is. I also think he understands a .22 is not a .223 or a 5.56x45mm NATO.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, quite. I own a .22 rifle, and I assure you people would look at me as though I were trib an idiot if I called a .223 rifle a .22.

But it's clear that tribesy believes, laws of physics and man notwithstanding, what he posts. He can't defend anything, so he just launches into new absurd quips. The sad thing is his inability to learn when he's wrong. :shame: :no:

Oh, tribesy, hows about a link to where I said all guns are banned in Ireland? And not just N. Ireland.

CR

[HoreTore]

And where do you think all of America's gun deaths come from? Middle class folks in the suburbs?

You're saying that some areas of the US are like the slums of Brazil, with the same poverty, number of orphans, utterly corrupt police force and government, etc?

If so, I'd say you have more important things to care about than gun laws.

[Tribesman]

Oh, tribesy, hows about a link to where I said all guns are banned in Ireland? And not just N. Ireland.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
well Rabbit that would have been even worse , because if you remember the gun nut weekly article you linked used murders from the troubles in the 6 counties and added them to the republic to show that the republic had a real big problem with gun crime . Perhaps you will remember as well that N.Ireland has different gun laws than the rest of the UK , you know laws where even people with a very dodgy criminal past can apply for a firearm licence and get one .


No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you are saying that a 223 isn't a .22 calibre round and the basis of that is because it has a bigger more powerful cartridge .
So let me get this straight before I have a big laugh at your expense .
A round that has a bullet calibre of .224 isn't a .22 because of the size of the cartridge and the amount and type of propellant the cartridge contains ?


Oh my is it time for a link ?:inquisitive:
Here you go then kids , I hope you enjoyed the ride to pwnage .
http://www.reedsammo.com/Page.html
Please take note of the words .22 cal on the box of bullets , also take note of the size of the bullet which at .224 is the same as the bullet in the 223 , note also the fact that they is big fat catridges that look nothing like an LR .:2thumbsup:
Now of course an ammunition manufacturer might be getting it all wrong , after all I doubt they know much about guns and stuff and I am sure they will bow down before your wisdom and change their business practices:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Quintus.JC]

I live in North-East London and teenage gangs are rife, now not everybody have guns but it's easy to get access to knifes. The division between races and more ridiculously post-codes is getting more evident. and it's no longer safe for a young person to walk around a different neighboroughood alone or even with friends. Things are even worse in south London, and I don't see what the government doing now is improving the situation.

[Ironside]

You're saying that some areas of the US are like the slums of Brazil, with the same poverty, number of orphans, utterly corrupt police force and government, etc?

If so, I'd say you have more important things to care about than gun laws.

It's America, every complicated issue gets boiled down a simple question with 2 extremes, "If we ban all guns violent crime will go down as the criminals won't be armed", "no, no if everyone gets a gun, then the law bidding citizens will shoot all the scared criminals, who will stop comitting crimes".

Talking about more advanced soci-economic factors will be ridiculed and ignored.

Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"

But since I'm a liberal tree-hugging, gun-hating, pinko-commie who thinks that all prisoners should be released because "it's not thier fault, but society's fault" my opinion can safetly be ignored and all the violent crimes in the US can be explained due to the lack of guns. :logic:


And for the boring ammo discussion.
It's gun restrictions or "de facto" gun-bans, not gun bans.
While the .223 is technically a .22(X), the terminology isn't used, to separate the obvious different sizes and avoid confusion.
And assult rifles are appearently banned in Mexico (I don't red Spanish and trust Redleg enough).

Discussion settled. Capiche?


Edit: Quintus, because they got knives, the situation is still better compared to if they get guns and I suspect one of the reasons the debate in the US is so singleminded. To put it simply:
Guns are a neutral enhancer, gangs are bad and guns+gangs are really bad. People seems to mix that up.

[Redleg]

And assult rifles are appearently banned in Mexico (I don't red Spanish and trust Redleg enough).


Now I dont think I said that assualt rifles are banned - I know from reading the Mexican law that any weapon of .223 is for the exclusive use of the Mexician Military. Now I am sure if I read the whole law, and confirm it with a translation program to verify I am right, that the law indeed states assualt rifles are banned, but I haven't read that far into it.

But I am sure about the .223 portion though - that round and all weapons of that caliber are for the exclusive use of the military according to how I read the provided link.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's America, every complicated issue gets boiled down a simple question with 2 extremes, "If we ban all guns violent crime will go down as the criminals won't be armed", "no, no if everyone gets a gun, then the law bidding citizens will shoot all the scared criminals, who will stop comitting crimes".

Talking about more advanced soci-economic factors will be ridiculed and ignored.

Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"

But since I'm a liberal tree-hugging, gun-hating, pinko-commie who thinks that all prisoners should be released because "it's not thier fault, but society's fault" my opinion can safetly be ignored and all the violent crimes in the US can be explained due to the lack of guns. :logic:

More like "Irony wins again" :smash:

[Redleg]

So you are saying that a 223 isn't a .22 calibre round and the basis of that is because it has a bigger more powerful cartridge .
So let me get this straight before I have a big laugh at your expense .
A round that has a bullet calibre of .224 isn't a .22 because of the size of the cartridge and the amount and type of propellant the cartridge contains ?

What confuses many people on ammunition is that there is one distinct difference from what most people view as a .22 calibre round and what is in the family of .22 calibre. .22LR which most people equate to a .22 calibre round is a rim fire round, which does not require the firing pin to contact a specific point on the round. These rounds are often smaller in the number of powder grains included in the round.

.222 and above are indeed .22 calibre rounds, there main distinction is that they are primarily of a centerfire type. Centerfire allows for a more consistent burning of the powder which also allows for more powder being included in the round. Makes for a faster bullet, which requires for some other modifications to the round versus the standard soft lead of the .22 calibre rimfire.

In short, Tribesman is correct any round with the .22 at the beginning of the calibre is indeed a .22 calibre round be it a .222, .223, .224 or any of the many variants of the .22. The key in ammunition is the first two digits of the calibre on small arms amunnition - it establishes the overall calibre family of the ammunition. It doesn't make all ammunition equal within the catergory, only that they fall within the same calibre range.



Oh my is it time for a link ?:inquisitive:
Here you go then kids , I hope you enjoyed the ride to pwnage .

I rather enjoyed it, however you did make one error in your arguement about .22 calibres being allowed into Mexico.

[Tribesman]

So lets just recap .

You really dont know anything about guns do you?

You are completely and utterly wrong.

you shouldn't be in this thread, but sit quietly and try to learn something.

you are the one talking bollox.

22s are only useful for paper targets and squirrels/rabbits.

The US forces use .223 caliber bullets - can you see how that's different? Because it's a different number?

The cartridge on the right is a 22, the one on the left which you claim to be a 22 is NOT.

you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to guns and ammunition.


Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Tribes is completely out of his depth here

.22 is not an umbrella term that fits a .223 or a .224 caliber.

are you being ignorant or obtuse?

No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is.

Still as wrong as ever
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
In short, Tribesman is correct

[Husar]

I learned something today.

[SwordsMaster]

Wow, I leave you boys for a weekend, and my attempt at a sociological discussion derails into a ridiculous argument about gun calibres? Seriously, guys. Shame.

Now, to settle the issue once and for all, yes, assault rifles are banned in Mexico, just as any other weapons capable of burst fire and full automatic modes, so leave that question alone.


Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"

Ironside raises the important issue here in my opinion. Would you say that the trust of US citizens in their own police force is so low, that they feel they must supplement the police?

My admiration for policework in the UK has been slowly eroded over the past years, but I still admire that they dare do their job without firearms.

I do understand that there are circumstances where a gun is needed, like rural settings, and rare self-defence cases, however, these cases are few and far-between.

I do also believe, that with fewer guns on the streets, the work of police would be much simplified, their lives made less threatened, and therefore their procedures would become less violent, which would also lead to fewer indiscriminate shooting by police, and give them more self confidence to do their job without fear. Which in turn might lead to lower crime rates as police efficiency would be increased, and so would their morale.

Now, I think the argument that guns are necessary to repel the government is a pile of cr*p, and self-defence situations where a gun might have been necessary for ONE of the parties are not so many as to justify its use by BOTH parties. Why do we always imagine the gun in the hands of the victim? What about the attacker?

And of government studies linking guns to crime. Of course nothing will be found. How many people does gun business employ? Could the economy absorb it if half of them were unemployed? How much money does the government get from taxing guns?

So unless you can show me an independent study done by non-US researchers in a foreign country about the situation in the US, I will not take that argument.

[Tribesman]

Well here is one to think about Swordsmaster .
Calls by certain parties for the Irish police to be armed .
Now given that their job puts them in dodgy situations where they can often be outnumbered and face people armed with a variety of weapons surely they should be leading the call for them to be armed because according to some people on this forum being armed with a gun is a great equailiser when you have to defend yourself in those situations .
Yet at all levels from the very top down through the inspectors and sergeants representatives all the way to the rank and file groups they all strongly oppose any suggestion that the routine issue of firearms to the police is a good idea.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Having been sunning myself on a quiet beach this last week, I am in a relaxed and happy mood.

I would not appreciate my equable state of mind being further disturbed by the trends of this thread. There have been far too many beastly imputations put abroad for my liking, and I trust they will cease forthwith.

Let any ongoing discourse be constructive and illuminating rather than derisive and divisive.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[SwordsMaster]

Well here is one to think about Swordsmaster .
Calls by certain parties for the Irish police to be armed .
Now given that their job puts them in dodgy situations where they can often be outnumbered and face people armed with a variety of weapons surely they should be leading the call for them to be armed because according to some people on this forum being armed with a gun is a great equailiser when you have to defend yourself in those situations .
Yet at all levels from the very top down through the inspectors and sergeants representatives all the way to the rank and file groups they all strongly oppose any suggestion that the routine issue of firearms to the police is a good idea.

While I could make a host of bad jokes about rank-and-file gardai, I think that, since they have experienced both the armed and unarmed versions of upholding the peace, they would be able to make an informed decision.

However, in Dublin, about 7 weeks ago, there was a fight on the street between a bum and some drunk dude, and a garda car parked just opposite, with the gardai just sitting and watching. After the fight was over, they got out to inspect the scene. So irish policing standards could be higher too. Then again, it's not like a bum fight is a threat to anyone but the people involved...

On a tangential issue, I seem to recall that there was an issue raised also about the increasing numbers of Armed Gards. Am I completely off track here?

[Tribesman]

However, in Dublin, about 7 weeks ago, there was a fight on the street between a bum and some drunk dude, and a garda car parked just opposite, with the gardai just sitting and watching.
Same out west when the clans go chopping each other up in mass brawls over their family "honour" , the police leave them to it , take notes , then let the courts deal with it , police intervention isn't going to stop them much and they will only directly intervene if it affects other normal people or holds up traffic .
The only time they will bother elsewise is if its something big like a funeral or a wedding when they know that the different families are going to be together in a "civilised" setting and they have the armed police and the army present to ensure good order by searching for weapons beforehand .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Eh, I fail to see the big 'gotcha' moment.

Tribes just argued what he's been arguing all along. Except now he has a link to an obscure company that had slapped a sticker that said 22 CAL on a box they did not make.

Meh. I still think calling all .22x caliber bullets "22 caliber" is needlessly vague. There's no reason not to specify what caliber you're talking about, especially when the term .22 is widely used to indicate a certain cartridge. Indeed, it reduces confusion and helps facilitate discussion.



You're saying that some areas of the US are like the slums of Brazil, with the same poverty, number of orphans, utterly corrupt police force and government, etc?

If so, I'd say you have more important things to care about than gun laws.

Yeesh. Can we please stop with the strawmen?



Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"
Ironside raises the important issue here in my opinion. Would you say that the trust of US citizens in their own police force is so low, that they feel they must supplement the police?

Maybe because the police are not a protection force - they try to deter and solve crimes, but they'll arrive after a crime has happened.


My admiration for policework in the UK has been slowly eroded over the past years, but I still admire that they dare do their job without firearms.

I do understand that there are circumstances where a gun is needed, like rural settings, and rare self-defence cases, however, these cases are few and far-between.

Rare self defense cases? In the US, about 2 million people each year defend themselves with a firearm.

CR

[Tribesman]

Tribes just argued what he's been arguing all along. Except now he has a link to an obscure company that had slapped a sticker that said 22 CAL on a box they did not make.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey Rabbit don't forget the article from Americas most popular firearms publication :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey if you want to maintain your nonsense how would you like a whole pile of links to firearms and ammunition producers that prove you wrong ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Bite the bullet Rabbit , you screwed up .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.

[SwordsMaster]

Now, firstly, drop the damn calibres. I don't care and it makes no difference anyway.



Maybe because the police are not a protection force - they try to deter and solve crimes, but they'll arrive after a crime has happened.

Absolutely. It is this way in every country. I don't see your point.



Rare self defense cases? In the US, about 2 million people each year defend themselves with a firearm.

CR

Sure. I'll trust your stats. Tell me, how many of these were attacked with a firearm? How many people were arrested for gun related crime? You can't look at stats in isolation. That's what politicians are for.

[Tribesman]

Sure. I'll trust your stats.
I wouldn't as the survey he usually uses is really badly flawed as the only false positive it takes into account is the "were you participating in a crime when you think you defended yourself with a gun" .


haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.
Given the pile of comments made by people who were completely wrong it is rather funny don't you think .
I didn't even have to ask Redleg for his expert opinion on if a 105 is always a 105 no matter if is has a big fast one a short fat one or it it went clang bang or whoosh , a designation by bore is always a designation by bore .

[Redleg]

Now, firstly, drop the damn calibres. I don't care and it makes no difference anyway.

As it relates to the Mexician law calibre does make a difference. In fact the error Tribesman made in his arguement was to include .223 in the arguement since that calibre is for the sole use of the military in Mexico and all weapons of that calibre can not be brought into Mexico. All other .22 calibre weapons can be. Now in Tribesman defense in that arguement it is a single type within the calibre family so, he might have actually included it in the arguement and I misread it in my amusement. But for now I would have to say he included it in the arguement.

[Redleg]

a designation by bore is always a designation by bore .

indeed you are correct. Now one could get into the arguement about rifling in that bore and why different grains of powder and ignition methods were developed for the .22 calibre weapons. Its really a rather interesting subject once one delves into it.

[HoreTore]

Yeesh. Can we please stop with the strawmen?

Well ok then, if the US is nothing like the slums in Brazil, what was the point of your post again?

[Crazed Rabbit]

My point is what I said before, that crimes in the US happen often in our ghetto areas. They are not as bad as Brazil, true, but they are not as good as the rest of the US.


Absolutely. It is this way in every country. I don't see your point.

Police do not magically appear when you are attacked to protect you. You need to take responsibility for protecting yourself.


haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.

Indeed. Especially funny when he doesn't answer any of the questions posed to him, like how many .22x caliber rifles besides .22LR there are in Mexico.

And then he goes off on what I allegedly said about a gun ban in Ireland, which is complete BS. :laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

Indeed. Especially funny when he doesn't answer any of the questions posed to him, like how many .22x caliber rifles besides .22LR there are in Mexico.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well rabbit for that answer perhaps you can write to Ruger and ask them about their descision to re-chamber the mini-14 to .222 specially for the mexican market . Because of course if they didn't have much of a market down mexico way they wouldn't bother:yes:


And then he goes off on what I allegedly said about a gun ban in Ireland, which is complete BS.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Awwwww poor wabbit doesn't remember claiming that two countries have banned guns and have really bad crime rates because of it......Jamaica and Ireland:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Bite the bullet rabbit , you consistantly screw up in your favourite special topics about your favourite subject:oops:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jamaica

*sigh...*


Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

Source: Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.257-277, ISBN 0-87975-756-6

And Tribsey, quit the sarcasm. It's extremely aggravating and it doesn't make anybody respect you more.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well rabbit for that answer perhaps you can write to Ruger and ask them about their descision to re-chamber the mini-14 to .222 specially for the mexican market . Because of course if they didn't have much of a market down mexico way they wouldn't bother:yes:

Did I dispute the existence of such rifles? I asked for numbers. You know, hard facts. Not some yammering about a rifle made 20+ years ago according to various sources.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Awwwww poor wabbit doesn't remember claiming that two countries have banned guns and have really bad crime rates because of it......Jamaica and Ireland:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Bite the bullet rabbit , you consistantly screw up in your favourite special topics about your favourite subject:oops:

Yet you can't come up with any proof of that. :laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

And Tribsey, quit the sarcasm.

Well maybe , but Mars coud you consider what has been written in this topic .
How wise is it to post.....

Source: Kopel, David B.
when earlier I wrote....

I know , I took some of it from that Dave Kopel idiot on the second amendment project site , I knew I shouldn't have relied on a gun nut for accurate information .


I asked for numbers. You know, hard facts.
Oh I see , so as some sort of pointless exercise you want me to write to the Mexican government and get a list of every registered firearm in the country then sort them all by calibre then sort all the 22 calibre guns into rim fire and centre fire just because your "expert" knowledge of firearms and firearm legislation let you down badly yet again:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Yet you can't come up with any proof of that.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I don't have to Rabbit since I am not the only Irish gun owner on this forum and I am sure they remember the crap you wrote about Irish gun laws , just as british gun owners on this forum will remember the crap you wrote that said they were not allowed guns either .
A bit of a pattern there eh...
Rabbit + other countries gun laws = lots of bollox:yes:

[SwordsMaster]

As it relates to the Mexician law calibre does make a difference. In fact the error Tribesman made in his arguement was to include .223 in the arguement since that calibre is for the sole use of the military in Mexico and all weapons of that calibre can not be brought into Mexico. All other .22 calibre weapons can be. Now in Tribesman defense in that arguement it is a single type within the calibre family so, he might have actually included it in the arguement and I misread it in my amusement. But for now I would have to say he included it in the arguement.


Again, please drop the ******* calibres. They make no difference on the issue i was trying to raise here.


Police do not magically appear when you are attacked to protect you. You need to take responsibility for protecting yourself.

Again, I don't see your point. In any country police don't magically appear anywhere, so what is so special about the US police?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Again, please drop the ******* calibres. They make no difference on the issue i was trying to raise here.

It's kind of getting frustrating now, because nobody's going to win that one...


Well maybe
Definately.


but Mars coud you consider what has been written in this topic .
How wise is it to post.....

when earlier I wrote....


So if someone is wrong once, it doesn't mean they're always wrong. Maybe you'd like to try on a professor (http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_slideshow.ppt) for size.

At any rate, Dave Kopel has a rather nice resume.

[Tribesman]

So if someone is wrong once, it doesn't mean they're always wrong.
But it is a pretty good indication , and since you wish to quote him in........

Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.
It does provide a good example .
Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?:inquisitive:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Again, I don't see your point. In any country police don't magically appear anywhere, so what is so special about the US police?

The point is, self defense can be necessary, and a gun is very good for that.


Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?

Technically, DC didn't ban handguns. But I guess SCOTUS is just talking "bollox", eh?


I don't have to Rabbit since I am not the only Irish gun owner on this forum and I am sure they remember the crap you wrote about Irish gun laws , just as british gun owners on this forum will remember the crap you wrote that said they were not allowed guns either .

You 'don't have to' or can't? :laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

Technically, DC didn't ban handguns. But I guess SCOTUS is just talking "bollox", eh?

Kopel makes a very definate claim does he not , if the claim is not true then it shows the reliability of his writing .
Now I am sure you can remember what weapons are actually banned in Jamaica from the topic where you said ireland and Jamaica had banned gun ownership , then again as either your memory is very poor or you are in a state of denial maybeyou can't:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



You 'don't have to' or can't?
I don't have to , I shall leave people with working memories to judge for themselves your history of posting complete bollox about firearm legislation .:yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But it is a pretty good indication , and since you wish to quote him in........

So you and I are always wrong about everything we say? Awesome.



Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?:inquisitive:

Did you see my above link about Jamaican law, by a professor? Here it is again, if you don't want to scroll up.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_slideshow.ppt

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't have to , I shall leave people with working memories to judge for themselves your history of posting complete bollox about firearm legislation .:yes:

No, I would say something like people aren't allowed to carry guns in public in Britain, and you'd come back with some irrelevancy about a few N. Irish politicians granted special permission by the government, in a way totally impossible to the average person, to carry firearms. So I'm right, as those are exceptions to the rule, and there will always be exceptions to the rule.

But all your posts rest mainly on picking out irrelevant exceptions and acting as if they disprove a point.


Now I am sure you can remember what weapons are actually banned in Jamaica from the topic where you said ireland and Jamaica had banned gun ownership

I know why you don't want to provide a link. Obviously I said something like the esteemed professor EMFM has linked to in relation to gun bans in Ireland and Jamaica. So posting such a link would make you look like a fool. Especially since your entire argument would rest on some technicality.

But technically, handguns were not banned in DC. However, the Supreme Court of the United States, which I take to be a much more legally scholarly institution than yourself, said DC's laws "banned handguns" and was a "total ban on handguns". So you see, you're the one talking bollox.

You flit around the subject by taking the position that if a law does not explicitly ban a gun, even if other laws make it impossible to acquire a gun, that said gun is not banned.

You know what? SCOTUS says bollox (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)to that stupid argument. (PDF warning, 2.7Mb)
:laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

No, I would say something like people aren't allowed to carry guns in public in Britain
No rabbit you would say all guns are totally banned , you have said it about many countries , Jamaica and Ireland for example and you have claimed it about handguns in britain .
None of which was true .


You flit around the subject by taking the position that if a law does not explicitly ban a gun, even if other laws make it impossible to acquire a gun, that said gun is not banned.

If it was impossible for a person to legally possess a gun in Jamaica why are there gun clubs , shooting associations and such ?
If it was impossible then people couldn't have a licence could they and certainly couldn't have a gun to go with their licence .
Since the weapons that are banned for private ownership are cannons , howitzers , mortars , hand grenades , rocket launchers and flame throwers (unless of course they are pre-1850) how is it impossible to own a gun ?
Here Rabbit , your major flaw....
But all your posts rest mainly on picking out irrelevant exceptions and acting as if they disprove a point.
....your problem is that you make absolute claims , your absolute claims are disproved by the relevant legislation:yes:
Instead of writing "Jamaica bans all guns" you should write "Jamaica has severe restrictions on obtaining a gun licence so that coupled with the corruption in that country apart from liceces granted to people whose job entitles them to special licence only about 30,000 private citizens have managed to obtain all the relevant paperwork that entitles them to own a gun legally ."
But of course that isn't quite as dramatic is it . Then again accuracy isn't your strong point when you want to make a drama out of firearm legislation .

[HoreTore]

My point is what I said before, that crimes in the US happen often in our ghetto areas. They are not as bad as Brazil, true, but they are not as good as the rest of the US.

Yes, ghetto areas. Poor people live there, poor people commit crimes. However, poor people will commit a lot more crimes with the help of corrupt police, like they have in Brazil, and I'm assuming you don't have those in the US.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

SCOTUS: 1 Laughing smiley's: 0

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If it was impossible for a person to legally possess a gun in Jamaica

...



http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc/ASC2004/ASC2004_slideshow.ppt

I'm sure we can all agree that Jamaica's gun laws, at the very least, are very restrictive.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No rabbit you would say all guns are totally banned , you have said it about many countries , Jamaica and Ireland for example and you have claimed it about handguns in britain .
None of which was true .

Proof, I say, proof! Until then your argument has no substance. My post need only be a slight variation from what you allege and I'd be right.


However, poor people will commit a lot more crimes with the help of corrupt police, like they have in Brazil, and I'm assuming you don't have those in the US.

Perhaps you should find some things out about Chicago. No corrupt police- I wish!

There was a thread a whiles back about a cop who beat up a bartender woman. After he left, some cops came back to threaten her not to press charges. Then the police charged him with a misdemeanor and lobbied a judge to let him keep his gun during the trial.

CR

[HoreTore]

Perhaps you should find some things out about Chicago. No corrupt police- I wish!

Then I'd say that is the first thing you need to fix in order to get your crime rates down.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And you'd be correct. Heck, even in Seattle, there's some places with lax enforcement of laws:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/271689_drugs26.html

CR

[Tribesman]

Proof, I say, proof!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Until then your argument has no substance.
It has all the substance that it needs rabbit , because all it needs is people with a decent memory to judge for themselves, and since many people at those times said you was talking bollox I have no doubt that the substance of my arguement is entirely sufficient:yes:
It is rather sad that you remain in denial and wish to hide behind the time limit on the archives of this forum . It says a lot about you though .


I'm sure we can all agree that Jamaica's gun laws, at the very least, are very restrictive.
Yes they are restrictive , most countries have restrictive laws on firearms , but they have not banned guns and despite what that muppet Kopel claims they have not banned handguns .




SCOTUS: 1 Laughing smiley's: 0
Not in the slightest as that ruling is based on a unique circumstance so is not otherwise applicable .