Colorado Shootings -- One Life Ended to Save Others [Archive]

Papewaio

12-10-2007, 02:51

My thoughts were simple. One person, armed and willing to act in defense of others, is more valuable than the most responsive police force in these situations. This is no fault of the police -- they cannot be all places at all times.

True but how much people would have died if the attacker only had access to a set of steak knives he got with his ab builder bought at 3am...

I'm pretty sure that it is people that kill people, and that we arm our military with guns because they beat pointy sticks.

I'm also pretty sure that even if you armed everyone at some point the wacko is going to go batty and use a sniper rifle from the belfry.

No matter what, having guns freely available means that there are going to be deadly consequences. Are guns licensed and trained like cars? If not, why not. Surely both are tools that in the wrong hands (inexperienced, drugged, nutcase etc) can be disastrous.

KukriKhan

12-10-2007, 03:16

Oddity: in the Omaha mall-shooting, one might think that someone on security staff would be armed. I've not seen reports that they were.

In Colorado, a church felt the need (apparently, correctly) to have armed security.

Somehow, that seems incongruous.

Sasaki Kojiro

12-10-2007, 04:18

It's true, but one unstable teenage kid with a semi-automatic rifle in a shopping mall, willing to harm others and himself, is much worse than the worst thug armed with a broken bottle.

You can build an AK-47 in your basement.

Gun control as a method to reduce violent crime is such a red herring that it sets progress back by years.

Myrddraal

12-10-2007, 05:24

You can build an AK-47 in your basement

No, I can't. Maybe you can Sasaki, but I'd be really interested to see you try, and make some ammunition that doesn't blow up in your face. Maybe if you had an AK47 in bits you could put it back together in your basement.

Besides, even if you could, it doesn't add anything. An unstable teenage kid in a country where he has to build an AK47 in his basement, or an unstable teenage kid in a country where he can walk into a shop and buy one, which one's going to go shoot some people?

As for it being a red herring, I'd agree. It's not the differences in control, it's the differences in culture and attitude to guns that makes the difference in violent crimes.

Marshal Murat

12-10-2007, 05:34

Actually, you could build an AK-47 in your basement.

If your basement happened to be a USSR arms factory.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-10-2007, 05:44

Are guns licensed and trained like cars? If not, why not. Surely both are tools that in the wrong hands (inexperienced, drugged, nutcase etc) can be disastrous.

Nice points here. I don't think most of the Backroomers would like my answer.

Papewaio

12-10-2007, 05:46

I would assume that the licensing registry would have to
a) Be limited to a state authority.
b) Not be allowed to be viewed by or used by any Federal authority.

Crazed Rabbit

12-10-2007, 07:43

Security guard = well regulated militia not Joe Smith citizen.

Hahaha! You are misinformed. The average person with a concealed weapons permit is a better shot than the average security guard.

And even than, security guards have nothing to do with a well regulated militia, which demolishes your attempted cleverness.

Which is worse: easy access to guns for criminals/nutters/scuiciders, or a lack of the very best weaponry for self defence.

A false choice. Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.

And these events, while tragic, are very rare exceptions.

Indeed, the shooting at the mall in Omaha was at a 'gun-free' zone. There was a shooting at a different mall over a year ago; again, a gun free zone. But an off-duty cop ignored the sign and brought his gun and he was the one to end the shooting.

No, I can't. Maybe you can Sasaki, but I'd be really interested to see you try, and make some ammunition that doesn't blow up in your face. Maybe if you had an AK47 in bits you could put it back together in your basement.

With some machine tools and knowledge, it's be pretty straightforward. With no fancy tools and hardware supplies, you can build a submachine gun. (http://store.payloadz.com/str-asp-i.51958-n.EHF_VOL_II_eBooks_Education-end-detail.html)

Oh, and this was no kid; he was a felon who could not legally possess, much less buy, a gun.

I'm also pretty sure that even if you armed everyone at some point the wacko is going to go batty and use a sniper rifle from the belfry.

The one time that happened in the US, at a university in Texas, the local population, students and professors included, helped police by breaking out their rifles and shooting at the murderer in the tower, severely restricting his ability to shoot at people.

Are guns licensed and trained like cars? If not, why not. Surely both are tools that in the wrong hands (inexperienced, drugged, nutcase etc) can be disastrous.

Because owning guns is a right, owning cars is not. And I'd think the anti-gunners in the US would whine if, with an easy to obtain license, one could obtain any machinegun or firearm money can buy. Also, licensing doesn't do **** to stop crime, but does make it easy for states to later ban guns (which has happened in some states).

But the point should be that there are much more important issues to the omaha mall shooting than gun control.

CR

Tribesman

12-10-2007, 08:41

Also, licensing doesn't do **** to stop crime, but does make it easy for states to later ban guns (which has happened in some states).

So it does make it easy for States to get guns off people who legally had guns but due to changes in circumstances are no longer allowed to have guns , like when they are convicted of a felony .

Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Think again , the study used didn't prove that at all . Infact the study said that it didn't prove anything .

Ronin

12-10-2007, 11:16

so a nutjub wants into a public place and starts shooting people....a trained security officer stops him with another gun...

and this is a pointed out as a virtue of an armed citizenry? :dizzy2:

isn´t the whole problem that the nutjub had easy access to guns in the first place?

Redleg

12-10-2007, 14:17

The armed security guard did the right thing - stopped the instance of this crime from spreading farther.

Any other arguement begins to degenerate into several fallacies concerning gun control.

Vladimir

12-10-2007, 14:28

Security guard = well regulated militia.

:laugh4:

Viking

12-10-2007, 21:15

With some machine tools and knowledge, it's be pretty straightforward. With no fancy tools and hardware supplies, you can build a submachine gun.

Gonna make the bullets as well? ~D

A false choice. Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.

It does lower the chances of getting blasted to pieces by a submachine gun, however.

Vladimir

12-10-2007, 21:19

Gonna make the bullets as well? ~D

Bullets are easy to make. A complicated gas or recoiled operated automatic weapon is not. Brass can be reused, primers replaced, and bullets cast from molten lead. I really don't buy this "Make an AK at home" idea but if you can do it with planes and cars, then why not?

Viking

12-10-2007, 21:29

Bullets are easy to make. A complicated gas or recoiled operated automatic weapon is not. Brass can be reused, primers replaced, and bullets cast from molten lead. I really don't buy this "Make an AK at home" idea but if you can do it with planes and cars, then why not?

I'm quite sure these shooters would take their time to construct a machine gun....

Crazed Rabbit

12-10-2007, 21:43

Breaking News from CNN.com;
The 'security guard' was a volunteer at the church, who used her personal handgun, is not a law enforcement officer or 'trained security guard' hired from a company.

To bad we don't have a smiley offering a nice platter of crow.

Also, it is believed the shooter at both churches was the same man - Matthew Murray.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

The shooter at both a missionary center and a church Sunday in Colorado was a man who once worked on a mission with the center, a source familiar with the events said Monday.

The source said the gunman -- who was killed by a security guard at the site of the second shooting -- was Matthew Murray.

...

A security guard confronted him and shot him.

The source said there were three security guards in the area of the shooting, only one of whom had a weapon. That guard fired at him, causing him to fall down, and she told him to drop his weapon, the source said. But Murray appeared to try to grab something that may have been a grenade, so the guard shot him again, the source said.

...

A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed the gunman after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.

Two teens, identified by police as Rachael Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed in what Boyd called "a senseless, random attack."

Boyd said the teens were sisters and were shot in the parking lot. Police said their father David Works, 51, was also shot and is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds.

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.

"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.

Well done by that woman.

Security guard = well regulated militia not Joe Smith citizen.
:laugh4:

CR

Ronin

12-10-2007, 21:52

this changes nothing...

the fact remains that without a weapon the incident wouldn´t have taken place to begin with.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-10-2007, 22:11

this changes nothing...

the fact remains that without a weapon the incident wouldn´t have taken place to begin with.

How Simple! Just confiscate all of the weapons! Why didn't I think of that....

Ronin:

Sarcasm aside, it is -- at best -- impracticable (if not outright impossible) to remove firearms from a society wherein they were a basic tool of survival for nearly half a millenium. Even today, there are a few individuals who live by their ability to hunt for food, though this is now rare. Firearms are literally integral to US culture.

Yes, you could make it very difficult and completely illegal for someone like this shooter to openly purchase firearms, but little could be done to prevent "black market" sales and the like.

That being the case, I would head the other direction -- compulsory firearms ownership and training for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 16. Licensure would be required, but only to demonstate one's competence as evaluated on a test following training.

Odd as it sounds, in the nearly ubiquitously armed "old west," there was comparatively little violence when compared to the present era.

Food for thought.

Ronin

12-10-2007, 22:39

How Simple! Just confiscate all of the weapons! Why didn't I think of that....

Ronin:

Sarcasm aside, it is -- at best -- impracticable (if not outright impossible) to remove firearms from a society wherein they were a basic tool of survival for nearly half a millenium. Even today, there are a few individuals who live by their ability to hunt for food, though this is now rare. Firearms are literally integral to US culture.

Yes, you could make it very difficult and completely illegal for someone like this shooter to openly purchase firearms, but little could be done to prevent "black market" sales and the like.

I never said that taking away all guns in a society like the USA was reasonables solution....at least not in the short run.....there are just too many of the blasted things around.

i´m not even against all guns.....hunting rifles are legal over here...I don´t have a problem with that...but the moment you make all guns legal, specially those you can carry concealed you´re just asking for trouble.

I just pointed out what the problem is......you have easy access to guns..you get this kind of problem....in my society a guy gets pissed off he might punch a couple of guys in the local bar...over there...well......I don´t even understand how you can function as a society with the knowledge that a simple argument can push someone over the edge like that......i´m better not argue with the guy at the poultry shop...hell he might go get his shotgun and come back to blow me away.

and yes you can´t stamp out the "black market" completely......but you can try to cut out the source....the source is the legal gun market....those guns that are illegally sold to criminals don´t fall out of the sky...they start out as legal firearms and then are then stolen or sold illegally.

That being the case, I would head the other direction -- compulsory firearms ownership and training for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 16. Licensure would be required, but only to demonstate one's competence as evaluated on a test following training.

..how does compulsory firearms ownership gels with the "land of the free" idea?
forcing someone to own a lethal weapon they are not necessarily comfortable with seems like a pretty big infringement on a person´s right to live their life the way they want, but that´s just me.

besides....the US constitution says "the right to bear arms"....it doesn´t say duty....

actually it would probably be a good idea if you guys re-wrote the damn thing...it would be a good place to start...using plain English that everyone can understand and agree on what it means would be something I would aim for.

Odd as it sounds, in the nearly ubiquitously armed "old west," there was comparatively little violence when compared to the present era.

Food for thought.

well....you have got a point there....

the Canadians are heavily armed too but they don´t kill each other at the rates Americans do....the only other conclusion I can reach is that there is something wrong with your society....are you people deeply disturbed on some base level or something? ...anyways..... it always seemed to me that if you´re disturbed having guns around is probably not a good idea....so there we are back at the same point.

Vladimir

12-10-2007, 22:47

That being the case, I would head the other direction -- compulsory firearms ownership and training for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 16. Licensure would be required, but only to demonstate one's competence as evaluated on a test following training.

A great idea that I wish we could implement. However that has been used in the past as the first step toward confiscation. Once the governing body knows where they all are, it's so easy to take them (e.g. Chicago).

I'm really waiting to hear what happens with the DC firearm ownership case at SCOTUS. Rabbit: Do you have an update on this? If the fear of confiscation is laid to rest then maybe we can move toward comprehensive firearm training education.

It wouldn't matter in this case as he stole the rifle from someone else. In my opinion, if someone steals a firearm from you due to your negligence and commits a crime with it, you share part of the blame.

Notice the distinct lack of the word "GUN" :furious3:

Crazed Rabbit

12-10-2007, 23:05

I just pointed out what the problem is......you have easy access to guns..you get this kind of problem....in my society a guy gets pissed off he might punch a couple of guys in the local bar...over there...well......I don´t even understand how you can function as a society with the knowledge that a simple argument can push someone over the edge like that......i´m better not argue with the guy at the poultry shop...hell he might go get his shotgun and come back to blow me away.

So, your whole position is based off a fundamental mis-perception of American society? Easy access to guns has nothing to do with it.

I'm really waiting to hear what happens with the DC firearm ownership case at SCOTUS. Rabbit: Do you have an update on this?

SCOTUS has agreed to hear it, sometime in spring '08. They should have a decision on it before July, I think. Legally, it's open and shut, but that's what I thought about Kelo vs New London and the statists in the SCOTUS screwed that one.
More info: http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/

the only other conclusion I can reach is that there is something wrong with your society....are you people deeply disturbed on some base level or something?

Are you basing your judgment of a nation of 300 million people on the actions of a very rare selection of people? Society is not violent, it's other factors (gangs and drugs, and the fact that with 300 million people, you're going to have a few crazies) that matter.

but the moment you make all guns legal, specially those you can carry concealed you´re just asking for trouble.

No, you are not. Do you have any factual evidence for anything in your post?

CR

Ronin

12-10-2007, 23:09

No, you are not. Do you have any factual evidence for anything in your post?

CR

i have the fact of living in a place where people don´t walk into church, or school, or the post office, or Macdonald's (I´m losing track and that´s just what I remember from the top of my head in the last 12 months) and shoot up the place.

what is your factual evidence for the idea that everyone having guns is a good idea?

Vladimir

12-11-2007, 01:14

i have the fact of living in a place where people don´t walk into church, or school, or the post office, or Macdonald's (I´m losing track and that´s just what I remember from the top of my head in the last 12 months) and shoot up the place.

what is your factual evidence for the idea that everyone having guns is a good idea?

Wow, look at your history. ~:eek:

Slyspy

12-11-2007, 02:34

One security guard stands firm and saves a few lives in the process. Despite a response time of less than 180 seconds (kudos to them!), the police arrived only to mop up. ....score one more for the virtue of an armed citizenry.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrrwY_69cu8IWx25NxMzVoWm8rrQ

As far as I can see it is more of a score draw. Or rather crazy-dude with gun: 4, volunteer security guard: 1.

ajaxfetish

12-11-2007, 02:46

I don´t even understand how you can function as a society with the knowledge that a simple argument can push someone over the edge like that......i´m better not argue with the guy at the poultry shop...hell he might go get his shotgun and come back to blow me away.

the Canadians are heavily armed too but they don´t kill each other at the rates Americans do....the only other conclusion I can reach is that there is something wrong with your society....are you people deeply disturbed on some base level or something?
Let's see if I can think of a time when I avoided an argument for fear of getting blown away . . . hmm, no, it's just not coming. If you think Americans live in daily fear of a lightly provoked shooting incident, you just don't get it. The consequences that come with shooting another human being make it not worth it unless you're already a hardened criminal or you're crazy, and for all the stories we generate about such people, their concentration is pretty low in most of the country. Remember, America is a big place. I've never personally seen a shooting take place in my life, and that includes a few years living in the Long Beach ghetto. You're definitely overstating the danger firearms pose to the average citizen on a daily basis.

Ajax

Seamus Fermanagh

12-11-2007, 03:29

As far as I can see it is more of a score draw. Or rather crazy-dude with gun: 4, volunteer security guard: 1.

True, but I think it really BTS out of dude with gun: 17 + self, others: targets and lots of screaming.

Devastatin Dave

12-11-2007, 04:42

KukriKhan

12-11-2007, 06:23

Devine intervention?:beam:

Andy, Loretta, or Mickey?

Nevermind. Please disregard.

An armed, volunteer security guard (sounds like the ushers I used to know when I was a kid), packing her legally-concealed handgun. I watched her on TV tonight. Touching and dramatic.

Was she uniformed? Was she sanctioned by the church? Or acting on her own?

Ironside

12-11-2007, 09:57

Sarcasm aside, it is -- at best -- impracticable (if not outright impossible) to remove firearms from a society wherein they were a basic tool of survival for nearly half a millenium. Even today, there are a few individuals who live by their ability to hunt for food, though this is now rare. Firearms are literally integral to US culture.

The question is if this "integral part to US culture" is the cause why your criminals prefer to arm themself up and the whacky loonies going out in a blaze of glory much more often than in the rest of the Western world?

As they come from society and if the mentality in the society is that guns are needed?

That being the case, I would head the other direction -- compulsory firearms ownership and training for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 16. Licensure would be required, but only to demonstate one's competence as evaluated on a test following training.

Would this be trying to choke a fire with gasoline or not? And while we're at it, why not give compulsary military training to all as well (know as draft, well conscription at least)?

Besides you totally ruins CR:s arguments with this one.

Hahaha! You are misinformed. The average person with a concealed weapons permit is a better shot than the average security guard.
:no:

Odd as it sounds, in the nearly ubiquitously armed "old west," there was comparatively little violence when compared to the present era.

Food for thought.

Don't say that, I heard that the LA ghetto inhabitants were really nasty at this time, all 2 of them. :laugh4:

The closest thing you get today to the wild west is the rural areas, real crime infected areas compared to the poor parts of the major cities, aren't they?

Husar

12-11-2007, 13:06

Good job whoever shot the guy.

Don't know why this is a gun debate, it's not like schoolshooters here in Germany used bow and arrow to kill people. :dizzy2:

Slyspy

12-11-2007, 15:13

True, but I think it really BTS out of dude with gun: 17 + self, others: targets and lots of screaming.

Again, true. But since all those involved were in fact armed citizens I'm not sure how these particular incidents help your case!

Devastatin Dave

12-11-2007, 16:22

Good job whoever shot the guy.

Don't know why this is a gun debate, it's not like schoolshooters here in Germany used bow and arrow to kill people. :dizzy2:
I hope everyone reads your post, good point.

Crazed Rabbit

12-11-2007, 17:34

Andy, Loretta, or Mickey?

Nevermind. Please disregard.

An armed, volunteer security guard (sounds like the ushers I used to know when I was a kid), packing her legally-concealed handgun. I watched her on TV tonight. Touching and dramatic.

Was she uniformed? Was she sanctioned by the church? Or acting on her own?

As I understand it, she was a volunteer from the congregation to act as security, and sanctioned in that she had approval from the pastor there.

As they come from society and if the mentality in the society is that guns are needed?

Things for the 'guns and US society are terrible!' people to think about:
Back in the '60s it was much easier to get guns, and guns would be taken to school for after school activities like hunting and rifle team.

Yet we did not have this rash of school shootings. Nowadays, one motivation seems to get famous by killing others. How has society changed in its acceptance of 'raging against the machine' -rebellion against authority- and glorification of celebrity?

As far as I can see it is more of a score draw. Or rather crazy-dude with gun: 4, volunteer security guard: 1.

Better than the recent mall shooting were people weren't allowed to legally carry guns.

CR

Ironside

12-11-2007, 18:32

Things for the 'guns and US society are terrible!' people to think about:
Back in the '60s it was much easier to get guns, and guns would be taken to school for after school activities like hunting and rifle team.

CR

Ah, but the question is if those guns were intended for personal defense against that nasty murdering muggar at that time.

Lord Winter

12-12-2007, 02:31

Myrddraal

12-12-2007, 03:11

If you think Americans live in daily fear of a lightly provoked shooting incident, you just don't get it.

I read a stastic that

CR, I have yet to see you provide any evidence that less guns causes a fall in violent crime. I've only seen you provide evidence that it makes no difference. The two are very different.

I actually believe that this is correct. I think that violent crime is independent of gun ownership. A gun is a means, not a motivation. If someone is going to be violent, they'll be violent.

But what all of your statistics don't show is the number of deaths due to violent crime scaled for the national crime rate, against gun ownership scaled for population. Does anyone know a reliable (official) source where I can find that kind of data?

Here's an interesting link for you:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4083/internationalqe8.gif

Note: this shows the "number of intentional firearm related deaths" but I still think it shows something of value, and that is that if you want to kill someone, and guns are more common place, you will choose it as your weapon of choice.

Another interesting statistic to see would be the number of attempted murder cases and the number of murder cases (scaled for the national crime rate) against gun ownership (scaled for population).

So far in these debates, I've seen nothing but empty conclusions by research groups, and unreliable claims by all sides. Seriously, if anyone can give me links to where I can find stats like those above, I'll willingly compile them all and plot those graphs. I'm interested to see what they would come out to show. Of course I know what I expect them to show, in the UK, where guns are less common, if someone broke into my house I wouldn't for one second think they have a gun, and generally if a burglar is caught in the act they try to get away, not assault the owner. In the US however, I read a statistic that a significant number (I can't remember exactly, but I think it was something like 40%) of guns were kept loaded, which shows something of a difference in attitude.

The whole thing about gun culture is a seperate issue. However effective or ineffective gun control is for regulating violent crime, I do believe that there's something special about the US that makes violence with guns disproportionately high for the number of guns there are around. What that something is however, I've no idea (again :shrug:)

So anyone know where to get official statistics for the US from?

Crazed Rabbit

12-12-2007, 04:01

CR, I have yet to see you provide any evidence that less guns causes a fall in violent crime.

Um...pray tell, why would I want to show that? Indeed, how could I?

Note: this shows the "number of intentional firearm related deaths" but I still think it shows something of value, and that is that if you want to kill someone, and guns are more common place, you will choose it as your weapon of choice.

The graph is flawed in several ways. It does not measure total death rates from all means. And it sounds like it includes suicide by firearms, which skews the results since countries like Japan have a firearm suicide rate a fraction of the US rate, even though the total Japan suicide rate is higher than the total US rate.

However effective or ineffective gun control is for regulating violent crime, I do believe that there's something special about the US that makes violence with guns disproportionately high for the number of guns there are around.

Considering we have the highest concentration of privately owned guns in the world, and our violent crime rate has been falling, and is close to other industrialized nations, I'd disagree. I don't think the gun ownership really has anything to do with it.

EDIT: For crime statistics, start here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

CR

Lord Winter

12-12-2007, 04:55

Apperantly the man died of a self inflicted gunshot wound. No save for the pro gun people though its not exactly a victory for the gun control lobby ethier.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-10-colorado-monday_N.htm?csp=34

Crazed Rabbit

12-12-2007, 07:55

I think it's fair to say, though, that he killed himself much earlier than he otherwise would have had he not been stopped by the woman in the church.

CR

Ronin

12-12-2007, 10:58

Another one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7139743.stm

I used to be able to write this off as a small percentage of wack cases but is their really something wrong with our socity if this is whats happening 3 in a week is just HUGE. Three in a year would be huge.

As for the whole aceses to guns issue. Even if the illegal ones come from legal sources that dosn't mean that banning the legal sources will fix the problem. Look at drugs and Proabation, only help to the mafias there.

just think...if everyone on that bus would have been armed.....they could have fought off the attackers...

or better yet...maybe they could drive the kids to school in an Abrams tank! :wall:

surely that´s the civilized way to do things :dizzy2:

you know what?....I throw in the towel on this issue..............keep your guns.....I really don´t give a damn anymore when I see these stories on tv anyway....

Seamus Fermanagh

12-12-2007, 13:42

just think...if everyone on that bus would have been armed.....they could have fought off the attackers...

or better yet...maybe they could drive the kids to school in an Abrams tank! :wall:

surely that´s the civilized way to do things :dizzy2:

you know what?....I throw in the towel on this issue..............keep your guns.....I really don´t give a damn anymore when I see these stories on tv anyway....

You seem to be suggesting that "civilized" = non-violent. Human history suggests otherwise, since most of the proto-cultures or aboriginal cultures were much more into ritualized non-violent interaction (inuit song duels, counting coup among the Amerind tribes, etc.). Civilization also brought with it a much greater degree of human-on-human violence and outright bloodshed as well as Socrates and the plow.

Non-violence is a moral objective not a norm of morality. Perhaps when we all get this one right, Gabriel blows the trumpet, I don't know -- but we're not there yet.

sapi

12-12-2007, 14:25

"Church guard"
"School guard"

Can anyone in Britain, or in Australia, remember seeing any of those?

I'm not really interested in arguing statistics; the very existence of the person that the pro-gun camp is now holding up as a shining example of how things should be is really a failure of their society.

The minute that I see the need for armed guards on in places of worship or education in a mostly gun-free society such as that in Britain, or here in Australia, I will concede the anti-gun case immediately.

~;)

Ronin

12-12-2007, 14:59

You seem to be suggesting that "civilized" = non-violent. Human history suggests otherwise, since most of the proto-cultures or aboriginal cultures were much more into ritualized non-violent interaction (inuit song duels, counting coup among the Amerind tribes, etc.). Civilization also brought with it a much greater degree of human-on-human violence and outright bloodshed as well as Socrates and the plow.

Non-violence is a moral objective not a norm of morality. Perhaps when we all get this one right, Gabriel blows the trumpet, I don't know -- but we're not there yet.

no one is arguing for some sort of "nirvana like" state of affairs in the world...

bottom line is the state is supposed to ensure the safety of the population.....if a state fails to do so to the point that people are actually proposing everyone should go around armed to defend themselfs I say you have a problem....that´s all.

Husar

12-12-2007, 16:13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1952869.stm

Old news but there are a few more. Guess the german society is a pure failure with our anti-gun laws and note how he was a gunman, not a bowman. ~;)
The result after this and some other shootings: More restrictions on "killer games", age restrictions on games should be enforced better, propositions to ban "killer games" completely and to ban importing games completely.
Long live our (gun) free society! :dizzy2:

Does anyone think it will never happen again? :juggle2:

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 00:05

Bah, that's the other extreem Husar, one I don't agree with either.

Um...pray tell, why would I want to show that? Indeed, how could I?

Gah! Stupid English. You know I meant to say the opposite.

The graph is flawed in several ways. It does not measure total death rates from all means. And it sounds like it includes suicide by firearms, which skews the results since countries like Japan have a firearm suicide rate a fraction of the US rate, even though the total Japan suicide rate is higher than the total US rate.

I accept all that, I mentioned so myself. It doesn't prevent it from showing the attractiveness of a firearm as a method for crime where it is available.

Sapi, well said.

Tribesman

12-13-2007, 00:43

The minute that I see the need for armed guards on in places of worship or education in a mostly gun-free society such as that in Britain, or here in Australia, I will concede the anti-gun case immediately.

Well Sapi if you expand on Britain to include the 6 then you have to concede the case ~;)

Lord Winter

12-13-2007, 00:52

"Church guard"
"School guard"

Can anyone in Britain, or in Australia, remember seeing any of those?

Some of the "School guards" are on campus cops.

Tribesman

12-13-2007, 01:09

Some of the "School guards" are on campus cops.

That makes it even worse doesn't it , education establishments are so in fear of lawlessness that they have their own police force .:inquisitive:

So shopping centers feel the need for guards with guns , schools feel the need for guards with guns , churches feel the need for guards with guns ...why is this ?
errrrr.......because there are lots of citizens with guns so when a citizens commits crime or goes on an insane rampage there is a fair chance that he/she has got a gun .:idea2:
Yay for gun rights

Lord Winter

12-13-2007, 01:21

That makes it even worse doesn't it , education establishments are so in fear of lawlessness that they have their own police force .:inquisitive:

So shopping centers feel the need for guards with guns , schools feel the need for guards with guns , churches feel the need for guards with guns ...why is this ?
errrrr.......because there are lots of citizens with guns so when a citizens commits crime or goes on an insane rampage there is a fair chance that he/she has got a gun .:idea2:
Yay for gun rights

No its more that they're there to deal with the drug problems and what not and just happen to have guns as part of the standard police./

Also having a gun armed police officer to deal with can still be a detterent if the physco had to do it with a sword or crossbow or what other sharp pointy object.

Husar

12-13-2007, 01:57

errrrr.......because there are lots of citizens with guns so when a citizens commits crime or goes on an insane rampage there is a fair chance that he/she has got a gun .:idea2:
The problem I tried to show is that when someone goes on a rampage in a country with strict gun laws like Germany, that person usually manages to bring a gun just as well, despite all the gun laws. :shrug:

Papewaio

12-13-2007, 02:00

No its more that they're there to deal with the drug problems and what not and just happen to have guns as part of the standard police.

So apart from dealing with the symptom. Is much being done to resolve the root cause?... RAND style?

Crazed Rabbit

12-13-2007, 02:56

So shopping centers feel the need for guards with guns ,
Most security at malls isn't armed. They aren't for stopping attackers, they for keeping teens from loitering too much and the like.

schools feel the need for guards with guns ,

I know a lot of high schools have a police officer from the city, but the prime motivation, again, isn't to stop shooters, but deal with petty crime (minor in possession of controlled substance) - even when they do have to deal with weapons, its gang related, not some crazy guy trying to shoot up the school.

churches feel the need for guards with guns

The vast majority don't. This one in Colorado did after one of their missionary centers several hours away got shot up, and they have, apparently, a congregation of thousands.

...why is this ?
errrrr.......because there are lots of citizens with guns
Or not, considering none of your examples support that.

Not surprising, considering, despite the news they make, these styles of attacks are very, very rare.

And Husar ably pointed out that such events even happen in nations with stricter gun control.

Is much being done to resolve the root cause?... RAND style?

I'd recommend Lemur's War on Drugs thread.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

12-13-2007, 04:17

You learn new things everyday.

For example, today I learned that ireland and australia don't have any police.

Tribesman

12-13-2007, 08:39

The problem I tried to show is that when someone goes on a rampage in a country with strict gun laws like Germany, that person usually manages to bring a gun just as well, despite all the gun laws.
What you showed was that when someone goes on the rampage with a gun they go on a rampage with a gun .

sapi

12-13-2007, 13:10

Some of the "School guards" are on campus cops.
Last I checked, we didn't need any of those, either ~:)

As Tribesy points out, it's an even worse symptom of some problem in your society for a bunch of kids to need armed protection, for whatever reason.

Also having a gun armed police officer to deal with can still be a detterent if the physco had to do it with a sword or crossbow or what other sharp pointy object.The next time I see someone wielding a sword or a crossbow wandering around my school, I'll let you know :grin2:

The problem I tried to show is that when someone goes on a rampage in a country with strict gun laws like Germany, that person usually manages to bring a gun just as well, despite all the gun laws. And when someone decides to go on a rampage in the US, they always manage to bring a gun.

Your point? ~:)

I know a lot of high schools have a police officer from the city, but the prime motivation, again, isn't to stop shooters, but deal with petty crime (minor in possession of controlled substance) - even when they do have to deal with weapons, its gang related, not some crazy guy trying to shoot up the school.So having your crime confined to gang members makes it okay now?

The vast majority don't. This one in Colorado did after one of their missionary centers several hours away got shot up, and they have, apparently, a congregation of thousands.Again, I haven't noticed any churches getting shot up lately in our largely gun-free society ~:)

And Husar ably pointed out that such events even happen in nations with stricter gun control.Surely you cannot deny that the rate of such events is higher in the US, a nation with lax gun laws, than it is in a country such as Britain or Australia, with tight gun laws. Yes, it's merely a correlation, but how's this for food for thought:

http://users.on.net/~purdsa/temp/gundeaths.jpg
Homicide deaths by firearm in Australia, 1991-2001

The blue line indicates when firearm controls were enacted. I seem to see a pattern there :yes:

source (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html)

Husar

12-13-2007, 14:29

What you showed was that when someone goes on the rampage with a gun they go on a rampage with a gun .
That's true, but it also showed that someone can go on a rampage with a gun in Germany, where guns are outlawed.

And when someone decides to go on a rampage in the US, they always manage to bring a gun.

Your point? ~:)
The shooters in Germany and shooters in schools with no-gun policies tend to kill more people, the shooter in the OP was stopped by an armed person before he could even get 10 people, had he not been stopped at that point, he'd likely have killed a lot more people.

I think the problem aren't as much the guns as what leads people to go on a rampage with guns because when they really want to go on a rampage with guns, they'll probably find a way to get a gun, well, or do it with a knife (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2034303,00.html). :shrug:

Crazed Rabbit

12-13-2007, 19:19

Surely you cannot deny that the rate of such events is higher in the US, a nation with lax gun laws, than it is in a country such as Britain or Australia, with tight gun laws.

While it may seem easy to assume that, I am loathe to accept such statements without facts. One must consider that the US is basically as large as all of Europe, and since these incidents are very rare but always reported on for days, the perception might be skewed.

And when someone decides to go on a rampage in the US, they always manage to bring a gun.

Mmm, nope:
http://www.drudge.com/news/99369/psycho-goes-knife-rampage-nyc

And of course, this guy with a knife killed 9 people in the Philippines:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277253,00.html

So having your crime confined to gang members makes it okay now?

:laugh4: Way to miss the point.

The blue line indicates when firearm controls were enacted. I seem to see a pattern there

I see a different pattern when I look at overall homicide rates:
https://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7846/australiahomicidetrendvf5.png

Again, I haven't noticed any churches getting shot up lately in our largely gun-free society

Where you watching the news a couple years ago? Sounds like multiple churches were 'shot up';
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17570541-2,00.html

Nearly all mass shootings occur in places that legally don't allow guns. The gunman attacking this church managed to kill only two people out of hundreds because a civilian was armed and prepared to stop him.

CR

Husar

12-13-2007, 21:22

One must consider that the US is basically as large as all of Europe
Geographically speaking maybe but population wise the US has 300 million, Germany 82 million, France 64 million, Great Britain 60 million, Italy 59 million, Spain 45 million, Poland 38 million etc.
My guess is that Europe's population exceeds that of the US by quite a few million people. ~;)

edit: Europe as in EU has around 493 million and Europe as in continent has around 680 million according to Wikipedia.

Another good question might be how many such shootings happen in arabian/muslim countries not counting politically motivated terrorism?

Tribesman

12-13-2007, 22:08

That's true, but it also showed that someone can go on a rampage with a gun in Germany, where guns are outlawed.

Guns are not outlawed in Germany:shrug:

Tribesman

12-14-2007, 02:22

Mmm, nope:

Wow a nutter with some knives stabs a chef who tries to stop him thieving and an old woman who needs a stick to walk with , lucky he didn't have a gun eh

And of course, this guy with a knife killed 9 people in the Philippines:

And of course if he had been using a gun then he wouldn't have just managed to kill people who were asleep, pregnant or little kids , he could have gone banging away through the whole wake crowd:dizzy2:

Now fair enough Rabbit , Sapi did use the word always , but wouldn't those two stories you posted have a very very very high possibility of being much much worse if the nutters had guns instead of knives ?

Sasaki Kojiro

12-14-2007, 03:03

Hey Tribesman, how many people die in ireland as a result of drunk driving?

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 03:10

Sasaki, if I understand your point correctly, it's a very interesting one:
To drive a car, you need training and a licence, and the car needs to be registered!

Sasaki Kojiro

12-14-2007, 03:50

Sasaki, if I understand your point correctly, it's a very interesting one:
To drive a car, you need training and a licence, and the car needs to be registered!

I agree 100%.

I don't agree with banning alcohol...

Crazed Rabbit

12-14-2007, 08:06

Now fair enough Rabbit , Sapi did use the word always , but wouldn't those two stories you posted have a very very very high possibility of being much much worse if the nutters had guns instead of knives ?

Read the OP much?

In other words - no, so long as the law abiding weren't forbidden from effectively defending themselves. The Wild West, after all, really wasn't that wild.

One armed citizen stopped a madman with a long gun and lots of ammo attacking a church full of hundreds of people before he could kill anyone inside the church (he killed two at the missionary center in another location and two in the parking lot, IIRC) - less dead than that guy with a knife in the Philippines.

CR

Tribesman

12-14-2007, 08:49

In other words - no, so long as the law abiding weren't forbidden from effectively defending themselves.
How do you defend yourself when you are stabbed to death in your sleep ?

Hey Tribesman, how many people die in ireland as a result of drunk driving?
A bad example to choose .
have a clue why ....To drive a car, you need training and a licence, and the car needs to be registered!.....its Ireland:yes:

Ser Clegane

12-14-2007, 09:40

I agree 100%.

I don't agree with banning alcohol...

But I would assume that drunk driving is banned in Ireland (at least I hope so :uhoh:)

sapi

12-14-2007, 09:43

While it may seem easy to assume that, I am loathe to accept such statements without facts. One must consider that the US is basically as large as all of Europe, and since these incidents are very rare but always reported on for days, the perception might be skewed.Hence my use of the term 'rate' rather than absolute values ~;)

Mmm, nope:
http://www.drudge.com/news/99369/psycho-goes-knife-rampage-nyc

And of course, this guy with a knife killed 9 people in the Philippines:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277253,00.htmlSigh, guess I'm back to debating language then :grin2:

In the USA, a much higher proportion of violent crimes are perpetrated by felons with guns than are in other countries, with stricter gun laws.

I might just have to quote you to answer those stories :laugh4:

Way to miss the point.

I see a different pattern when I look at overall homicide rates:
https://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7846/australiahomicidetrendvf5.png
Yes, you do; but that is because in our country (I can't seem to speak for yours on this, for some reason ~;)) a large proportion of firearm-related deaths are as a result of suicides. Put simply, someone who wants to commit suicide, and has a gun, will do so using that weapon. That is a matter of convenience, entirely unrelated to the number of deaths by homicide, which is decidedly not a matter of convenience.

And please, don't hide the fact that such deaths have also gone down since the controls were enacted here; in fact, the only increase (or more correctly, fluctuation) has been in deaths by 'accidents', which can naturally be explained away to population growth ~;)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269-1.gif

Where you watching the news a couple years ago? Sounds like multiple churches were 'shot up';
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17570541-2,00.html
I'm slightly disturbed to know that, evidently, in America such racial riots are common enough not to be discounted as statistical outliers :2thumbsup:

Nearly all mass shootings occur in places that legally don't allow guns. The gunman attacking this church managed to kill only two people out of hundreds because a civilian was armed and prepared to stop him.
How ironic.

While it may seem easy to assume that, I am loathe to accept such statements without facts.

Tribesman

12-14-2007, 10:02

But I would assume that drunk driving is banned in Ireland (at least I hope so )

Yep , but some people consider that it is their right to drink and drive , we even had a politician recently saying that the enforcement of those laws is an infringement of peoples rights .... just as two men in wednesdays news appealed their charges of not having licences , tax , insurance or registration(they were not actually convicted of the charges but instead made a donation to the local lifeboat ) , two months ago they tried to bring in enforcement of a law that meant that you cannot drive without a valid licence ....but it wouldn't be fair to people without a valid license so they didn't bother:dizzy2:
Its Ireland innit ...not a good example to use by way of it being a banana republic .

Sasaki Kojiro

12-15-2007, 01:27

A bad example to choose .
have a clue why ....To drive a car, you need training and a licence, and the car needs to be registered!.....its Ireland:yes:

That's not really any different from guns in the us. Do you support banning alcohol? If no one drank we would cut out our biggest cause of violent deaths.

But I would assume that drunk driving is banned in Ireland

So is shooting people...

Myrddraal

12-15-2007, 01:32

Sasaki Kojiro

12-15-2007, 01:43

So alcohol could drive a man to shoot his wife. It could drive a man to drive* badly.

The fact remains the same - the dangerous instrument, which is instrumental** in the crime, requires training, licensing and registration in one case, and not the other.

Why? Would you remove the need for a drivers license?

I could drive a car round my property and not need a license, but in America you can have a gun in a public place, a dangerous weapon, and you need no licensing, no registration, and no training. How can this be a good thing?

* I love puns
** Damn I'm good

Um, having a gun requires a permit and you are only allowed to carry it in a public place if you have passed tests to get a special permit. Some places don't allow you to carry handguns at all (you can still own them).

I'm serious, do you think banning alcohol is a good way to reduce drunk driving deaths?

Myrddraal

12-15-2007, 01:55

Since you insist, but I think we're getting side-tracked.

Effective, or good?

Effective depends entirely on the effectiveness of the ban. A very effective ban would make drunk driving impossible, a US prohibition style ban would probably increase drunk driving cases. Good? No. But who said anything about banning guns? I'll repeat it again for those who didn't read the last gun debate: I target shoot as a sport. I live in the UK. Is this so hard to understand?

I think the reason British gun enthusiasts accept the need for gun control is a certain respect for the power and potential damage they can cause. If I dare to stereotype, I think in the US a gun is seen more as a commodity.

Crazed Rabbit

12-15-2007, 03:28

I think the reason British gun enthusiasts accept the need for gun control is a certain respect for the power and potential damage they can cause. If I dare to stereotype, I think in the US a gun is seen more as a commodity.

To be vulgar, it's because the heads of shooting organizations are wusses and they never worked together and so hung separately.

but in America you can have a gun in a public place, a dangerous weapon, and you need no licensing, no registration, and no training. How can this be a good thing?

Note - nearly all states require some sort of license to carry a handgun in public.

As to why its a good thing - good people do not misuse guns, violence or crime does not increase when people can carry weapons legally, but they can defend themselves from criminals.

CR

Tribesman

12-15-2007, 13:51

To be vulgar, it's because the heads of shooting organizations are wusses and they never worked together and so hung separately.

Its not because they are wusses , its because they are different , if someone stood up at a British gun assocition meeting made a speech about the government having to prise his firarms from his cold dead hands the orgnisation would revoke the persons membership and report them to the licensing authorities because the person is clearly crazy and shouldn't have access to firearms . In America they make him a hero of the orgnisation and buy the bumper sticker of his words .

sapi

12-15-2007, 14:06

Its not because they are wusses , its because they are different , if someone stood up at a British gun assocition meeting made a speech about the government having to prise his firarms from his cold dead hands the orgnisation would revoke the persons membership and report them to the licensing authorities because the person is clearly crazy and shouldn't have access to firearms . In America they make him a hero of the orgnisation and buy the bumper sticker of his words .
Exactly; the key difference between the two countries is that in one, guns are regarded as a right; but in the other, they are rightly seen as a privilege ~:)

Sasaki Kojiro

12-15-2007, 18:32

Self defense is not a right?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-16-2007, 04:12

No Sasaki, that's not what they mean. They believe in self defense, but view firearms as representing a gross danger to others (especially in under-trained hands). Moreover, many Europeans really do conceive of the government -- in the guise of the police etc. -- as the better repository FOR self defense, as in: if we have good laws that are well enforced, there will be NO NEED for such an extreme self defense tool.

I agree with them that training matters. That's the primary reason I do not yet own a gun. I would never bother unless and until I had the funds and time to secure the proper training (and maintain it) first.

Interestingly, my wife was mostly anti-gun (raised in the P.R. of the Willamette Valley) until she worked with the police department near here and ended up taking the gun training course as part of her OJT. Training makes a huge differece.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 05:23

Self defence is not a gun.

Seamus I think you've got the jist of it.

Crazed Rabbit

12-16-2007, 05:39

But a gun is good for self defense, and banning them doesn't reduce crime.

Trusting the police to protect you is like trusting the UN to stop someone from invading you.

CR

sapi

12-16-2007, 05:57

But a gun is good for self defense, and banning them doesn't reduce crime.I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion ~:)

Trusting the police to protect you is like trusting the UN to stop someone from invading you.I'm sorry, but that is a sad, sad, reflection on your society ~:(

Proletariat

12-16-2007, 05:59

What does our society have to do with the response time to a 911 call?

Crazed Rabbit

12-16-2007, 06:40

I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion ~:)

Look at the debate thread.

I'm sorry, but that is a sad, sad, reflection on your society ~:(

Oh, so everyone in Australia has a personal police bodyguard? Or are you just spouting BS?

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

12-16-2007, 07:23

Self defence is not a gun.

Seamus I think you've got the jist of it.

There are reasonable restrictions on the right to self defense, and there are unreasonable. This is the same for all rights. Guns are regarded as a right in America because they aren't considered unreasonable.

There was a news story a month or so ago about a young woman who broke up with a man who then threatened to kill her. The police can't do anything in that situation. He later broke into their house and killed her. If you were in her situation wouldn't you want a gun to protect yourself? How else do you thing women are going to defend themselves against an armed attacker?

I'm sorry, but that is a sad, sad, reflection on your society

This is the "gun debate" thread, not the "why my country is better than yours" thread.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 07:50

The police can't do anything in that situation.

What do you mean? Are you saying that the police can't act on death threats in the US? That's crazy...

Sasaki Kojiro

12-16-2007, 08:19

What do you mean? Are you saying that the police can't act on death threats in the US? That's crazy...

Not if there isn't a history of death threats or any solid evidence of one. You can't arrest someone because someone said they were threatened. Police can't exactly wait around outside the girls house either.

Xiahou

12-16-2007, 08:36

I agree with them that training matters. That's the primary reason I do not yet own a gun. I would never bother unless and until I had the funds and time to secure the proper training (and maintain it) first.Knowing how to accurately fire a gun and maintain it is certainly important, but I'm not in favor of training requirements to own a gun. First of all, I learned almost everything I know about guns and gun safety from relatives and what I didn't learn from them I learned from reading the gun laws and discussion with other knowledgeable people. I seriously doubt that any 1-day course would teach me anything I don't know when I've been around guns most of my life. Secondly, I'd liken class requirements to a poll tax for gun ownership- it'd keep some of the poor who need them most from being able to afford one.

Interestingly, my wife was mostly anti-gun (raised in the P.R. of the Willamette Valley) until she worked with the police department near here and ended up taking the gun training course as part of her OJT. Training makes a huge differece.Being able to see, hold, and use a gun in a safe manner does wonders for most gunaphobes. After a firing a few cylinders full from my .357 magnum, I've seen a couple people go from being anxious about even touching it to asking me how to go about buying one and heard about it happening to many others. Actually seeing something for what it really is always does a lot to lessen irrational fears. :yes:

sapi

12-16-2007, 08:57

This is the "gun debate" thread, not the "why my country is better than yours" thread.Hence my comment, saying that the key difference between our countries in this area is that of gun control, and hence did I draw a comparison between a country in which the police are trusted, nay, entrusted, with the safety of the populace, and one where rampant crime has led to that no longer being viable (or, at least, that is what is implied in your arguments ~;))

Oh, so everyone in Australia has a personal police bodyguard? Or are you just spouting BS?In Australia, we are not in danger of being shot as we walk down the street; hence we do not need guns for self defence; thus the police forces are sufficient to ensure our safety.

Look at the debate thread. That debate was filled with a lot of assertions, and very little proof (on both sides). At no point did you provide data that conclusively proved that a reduction in the supply of guns would not reduce crime; you certainly were not able to prove that the guns themselves reduce it :grin2:

Banquo's Ghost

12-16-2007, 09:59

The only thing I have gleaned from the data posted in these debates and threads is that the vast majority of Americans are safe most of the time, using their methods - and that the vast majority of Europeans are safe most of the time, using ours.

There are examples from both solutions to prove they are not perfect.

:shrug:

Husar

12-16-2007, 12:38

What does our society have to do with the response time to a 911 call?
A lot, european and australian murderers usually give you a phone before executing you so you can call the police to clean up the mess. Our response times are also artificially higher so that the murderer gets a fair chance to escape, we give noone an unfair advantage here.
Obviously your society is unfair and that is reflected by the fact that murderers do not give victims a chance to call 911 and thus response times can be up to a month or more when someone strolling along finds the dead body. :no:

Also Banquo is right, both systems have their pros and cons, it's not like the US were in a state of anarchy with street fights on every corner, neither are criminals executing droves of helpless citizens on european streets. :shrug:

Crazed Rabbit

12-16-2007, 15:41

That debate was filled with a lot of assertions, and very little proof (on both sides). At no point did you provide data that conclusively proved that a reduction in the supply of guns would not reduce crime; you certainly were not able to prove that the guns themselves reduce it :grin2:

:dizzy2:
Well here you go then:

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

:beam:

In Australia, we are not in danger of being shot as we walk down the street; hence we do not need guns for self defence; thus the police forces are sufficient to ensure our safety.

Wow. So no one is ever assaulted, mugged, robbed, or raped in Australia? The police prevent every attempted crime? Now where did that story about a gang of gang-rapists several years ago come from?

CR

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 16:18

I didn't hear Sapi mention assault, muggings, robbery or rape. I heard him say he wasn't in danger of being shot.

I also think BG is right. It's easy to be carried to extremes on this topic.

Actually seeing something for what it really is always does a lot to lessen irrational fears.
Is that meant to diminish those arguing for gun control here on the basis that they haven't seen or used a gun? :shrug:

Sasaki Kojiro

12-16-2007, 18:35

In other news, the UK has decided to ban imitation samurai swords:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7139724.stm

:laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-16-2007, 18:43

Banquo: Once again, your penchant for reasonableness is at odds with the hallowed traditions of the Backroom. How did you end up moderating this exercise in differend? :smartass2:

Questions regarding cultural/societal difference?

Where you are from, is it "permissable" (allowed by law, no sanction against the person so doing) to use violence to:

Defend your person from grievous harm/death?

Defend your person from any physical harm?

Defend another person from grievous harm/death?

Defend another person from any physical harm?

Defend your property from harm/theft?

Defend another's property from harm/theft?

Are there different rules if weapons are involved?

Are there different rules if firearms are involved?

Comments?

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 20:16

The problem with asking about the law in Britain is that in the case of self defence, the wording of the law itself is very vague, and the actual implementation of the law is heavily based on common law and precedent.

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

In common law, this translates as the right to defend yourself, another, or your property. I'm not sure about someone else's property, but I'd guess it's covered too.

If you legally possess a gun, you can use in self defence. The controversial cases are those where criminals have been shot as they escaped, after the point when they presented any threat.

But this argument for less gun control as a method of self defence isn't really relevant when comparing the US to the UK. If you have a gun legally, you can use it for self defence. That's the same in the UK and the US.

The difference and the argument, is about what should be necessary to obtain a gun, and wether you should be allowed to take that gun (loaded) outside of your own property or controlled environments like ranges.

So if we look at the laws of self defence, I think we'll find them to be very similar. If we look at the laws of self defence with firearms, I think we'll find them to be very similar again.

This isn't where the difference lies. (Which is why I find it slightly confusing as to why self defence is considered such a strong argument against gun control)

Tribesman

12-16-2007, 20:55

Well here you go then:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
He asked I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion . what you provided yet again is not proof and is certainly not conclusive .

KukriKhan

12-16-2007, 21:08

How did you end up moderating this exercise in differend?

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

Perhaps some headway could be made in these gun discussions, by examining the cultural disconnect between Europe & the Commonwealth on one hand, and the US on the other.

Is there, or could there be, a fundamental difference of perception, based on the one group's extensive political-cultural history of privileges being granted to subjects from "above", versus rights being taken or assumed by a revolutionary citizenry?

If so, that may inevitably lead to the difference of opinion on the issue of individual self-defense being an individual duty, versus the "that's what police are for" outlook.

If that makes any sense.

Trying to restate it more simply: Euro/C'wealth and the US have many similarities, but a couple of significant differences, that will almost always result in friction.

Banquo's Ghost

12-16-2007, 22:55

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

In short, I was drafted. :wink3:

Lord Winter

12-17-2007, 02:23

In other news, the UK has decided to ban imitation samurai swords:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7139724.stm

:laugh4:

This a great start, finally our politicians are realizing what may be the biggest threat to our society. Next we need to look into the problem of Chainsaw murderers, these clearly need to baned except for lumberjacks where is absolutely vital that they need to be carefully screened since god knows that we can't have such a dangerous tool in the hands of just anyone off the streets. Then cars are just a massacre waiting to happen, do you know how many people some manic could take out with one of those on a crowded street? and don't even get me started about kitchen knifes [/SARCASM]

Crazed Rabbit

12-17-2007, 02:25

I didn't hear Sapi mention assault, muggings, robbery or rape. I heard him say he wasn't in danger of being shot.[QUOTE]

Oh, right. His argument didn't make that much sense. He claimed that guns can only defend one against being shot, and since he wasn't afraid of that, he could rely on the police. Now it seems to me there's more to worry about than just being shot - knives can be just as deadly, and various violent crimes exist, so obviously the police can't protect against them all.

[QUOTE]
In common law, this translates as the right to defend yourself, another, or your property. I'm not sure about someone else's property, but I'd guess it's covered too.

Most of the US has no nonsense about 'reasonable force' - the absurd idea that one must engage only in a fair fight with a man who's broken into your house at night.

But this argument for less gun control as a method of self defence isn't really relevant when comparing the US to the UK. If you have a gun legally, you can use it for self defence. That's the same in the UK and the US.

Yes, but its much harder to obtain a gun in Britain.

Which is why I find it slightly confusing as to why self defence is considered such a strong argument against gun control

Gun control reduces people's ability to buy guns, which are the most effective means of self defense.

CR

Slug For A Butt

12-17-2007, 02:54

Gun control reduces people's ability to buy guns, which are the most effective means of self defense.

CR

And would you use that same argument to allow every country in the world to have a nuke? They are very effective you know...

Lord Winter

12-17-2007, 02:58

And would you use that same argument to allow every country in the world to have a nuke? They are very effective you know...

Except for the fact that kill millions of life in one go, and spread enough radition to not only hit the target country but all its neighbors. Guns are totally different then nukes for one they only can kill on person and are also frequently used by others against you. Something which you can't say about nukes. Also there's the fact that if one country nukes somebody then you get the whole MAD argument working and in the end all you end up with is a scorched waste land.

Slug For A Butt

12-17-2007, 03:11

It's just a sliding scale.
Same principle.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-17-2007, 03:22

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

Nicely turned. :yes:

And our kindly moderators are necessary as, in the Backroom if not everywhere, "to speak is to fight, in the sense of playing...."

Lord Winter

12-17-2007, 03:30

It's just a sliding scale.
Same principle.

Can something like welfare and communism not be seen as the same principle to. I don't see agreeing with Welfare the same as agreeing with a peoples state.

Slug For A Butt

12-17-2007, 03:41

Can something like welfare and communism not be seen as the same principle to. I don't see agreeing with Welfare the same as agreeing with a peoples state.

Without getting sidetracked too much, no. I don't know what Welfare in America equates to, but there is a huge difference between giving a safety net to people when they need it to get them back on their feet and equality for all irrespective of the job they do.
We can make as many analogies as we want, rightly or wrongly. But I think that giving someone a deadly weapon to protect themselves is only going to generate an arms race on a local level as I think is proved in inner city America where the problem seems to be endemic.
I think my argument with nukes still stands too, give them to everyone as a deterrent and it will deter a lot of agression in the world. But there will always be the occassional megalomaniac/mentally unstable guy that will want to shoot another nation in the head because "he wants to be famous".

Lord Winter

12-17-2007, 04:06

The so called arms race is not spawned by realtivly easy access to guns and will not be stoped by it ethier. Do you think that organized crime is going to stop using guns just because the law says they can't? If anything removing guns will benfit organized crime, think about it if your the only one who has illegaly smuggled in guns which you can not only use but sell for a massive price would you regard that as a failure?

I'm not sure how the RN does with smugglers but the U.S. does not have anyway to stop any smuggling attempts and guns will not be removed from socicity as long as there is a demand. It would be better to focus on the causes of the violence instead of treating just one symtom of this cancer we call violence.

Ironside

12-17-2007, 10:39

Most of the US has no nonsense about 'reasonable force' - the absurd idea that one must engage only in a fair fight with a man who's broken into your house at night.

So I can break the legs and arms on a pickpocketeer after catching him taking my vallet? Can I shoot a burgler fleeing from my property a few times extra aswell even if I don't kill him? :inquisitive:
Resonable force is there to prevent legal use of excessive force.

Seamus Fermanagh, as Myrddraal mentioned, all those things are allowed, using "resonable force", but this will of course depend on the nature of the crime.

sapi

12-17-2007, 11:06

:dizzy2:
Well here you go then:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

:beam:
Two things:
1. That's an isolated example, and proves nothing. You need more than the evidence from one state to actually 'prove' something.
2. That other evidence would be a lot more convincing if it didn't come from a website that has on its homepage the phrase Until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, this web site will always be under construction... and suggests that the one thing that you should get from it is this (http://www.guncite.com/onething.html) ~:)

Wow. So no one is ever assaulted, mugged, robbed, or raped in Australia? The police prevent every attempted crime? Now where did that story about a gang of gang-rapists several years ago come from?
Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out. It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

Except for the fact that kill millions of life in one go, and spread enough radition to not only hit the target country but all its neighbors. Guns are totally different then nukes for one they only can kill on person and are also frequently used by others against you. Something which you can't say about nukes. Also there's the fact that if one country nukes somebody then you get the whole MAD argument working and in the end all you end up with is a scorched waste land.But surely MAD is the situation that you are trying to create with liberal gun laws? ~:)

Seamus Fermanagh

12-17-2007, 13:54

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out. It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

Myrd's example did not really say that, Sapi. He said English common law condones the use of violence to protect life, limb, and property. I suspect he'd agree as to your belief that a firearm as the tool for that defence enhances danger all around, but he noted it's legality as a tool for defence -- presuming one had the right/permission etc. to possess one.

Are you suggesting that violence in defence of one's property is either illegal or considered immoral in antipodean lands? Or only the use of "likely-to-be" lethal force?

Myrddraal

12-17-2007, 14:34

Are you suggesting that violence in defence of one's property is either illegal or considered immoral

I don't think anyone would suggest that. However I disagree with CR's idea that reasonable force is nonsense.

Defence it to defend, not for revenge. You cannot shoot people in the back as they flee from your property.

Also, excessive violence is (imo) morally wrong even in some situations where you are defending your property. You don't gun someone down as they make off with your wallet. (or at least, I hope you don't)

Sasaki Kojiro

12-17-2007, 19:05

So I can break the legs and arms on a pickpocketeer after catching him taking my vallet? Can I shoot a burgler fleeing from my property a few times extra aswell even if I don't kill him? :inquisitive:
Resonable force is there to prevent legal use of excessive force.

Seamus Fermanagh, as Myrddraal mentioned, all those things are allowed, using "resonable force", but this will of course depend on the nature of the crime.

Both of those things are extremely illegal in the united states.

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal,

US law and morals would agree with you. But when someone breaks into your house you don't know if they are a just a robber.

I think people misinterpret what "property" means in context of the time. Hint: it doesn't mean your silverware or dvd's.

Crazed Rabbit

12-17-2007, 19:54

For sapi, from the same site:

The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

Whether or not one believes a portion of the drop in violent crime is due to "shall-issue" legislation, Lott's study provides strong evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not increase gun crime or fatal gun accident rates.

1. That's an isolated example, and proves nothing. You need more than the evidence from one state to actually 'prove' something.

Hundreds of thousands of people in a state population of millions of people is an isolated example?

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out.
Ridiculous. Are you just supposed to ask nicely whilst they steal what you've worked your life to obtain?

It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

Do you have any evidence for that silly reasoning? You think maybe criminals might decide not to attack when they face a greater threat? Or that it might be a more dangerous situation that prompts a person to draw a handgun to protect themselves?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, using a gun makes you less likely to be injured:

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice (1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes). He found victims that defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, had the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion. Using more recent data, Lawrence Southwick Jr. found that "victims using guns were consistently less likely to lose cash or other property than other victims, and also establishing that this was true regardless of what weaponry was possessed or used by the offenders." Another study also "found that burglaries in which victims resisted with guns were far less likely to be completed." (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997, pp 170-71.)

A National Institute of Justice publication, Firearms and Violence, cites Kleck stating, "victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_previous.html

So you're wrong.

A clarification on the lethal force thing; I'm not talking about shooting people in the back or other red herrings brought up. I'm saying that laws that forbid you from using a gun when confronted by a criminal who 'only' has a club or knife, or even just his fists, are wrong.

If anything removing guns will benfit organized crime, think about it if your the only one who has illegaly smuggled in guns which you can not only use but sell for a massive price would you regard that as a failure?

Are you saying a mafioso, a 'made man', might push for a large city, like, say, Chicago, to ban handguns? How absurd! Or, not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Roti)

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

12-18-2007, 01:24

So you're wrong.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah Kleck again , and how many studies question specifically the results offered as "proof" by Gary Kleck , moreover how many challenge both the NRAs and sites like guncite.coms use of his work and their lame attempts at rebuttals to criticism of what they publish ?

Remember he asked.....I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion ..... and you have still failed to deliver .
Now the problem you have is that you are trying to prove something , and for every study that supports that proof there is another that doesn't support it .
Why don't you go with the rather comprehensive one that you used in the debate that said it couldn't prove conclusively that answer A was true , but also that didn't mean that answer B was true either:idea2:

Oh sorry you didn't like the bit about answer B so you like to try and ignore itdon't you:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Myrddraal

12-18-2007, 02:48

I'm saying that laws that forbid you from using a gun when confronted by a criminal who 'only' has a club or knife, or even just his fists, are wrong.

Well those laws don't exist...

This is why I think we're getting side tracked into talking about the different laws in different countries. The laws of self defence are very similar around the world. In the UK (and I'm sure Australia too) you can defend yourself with a gun, if you legally own it.

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out. Ridiculous. Are you just supposed to ask nicely whilst they steal what you've worked your life to obtain?

And there's nothing in between. Seriously, that response it a little worrying, even though it's an exaggeration, you seem to be trying to push the point that nothing less than the most deadly response is appropriate. Screw reasonable force, the more the merrier.

Lord Winter

12-18-2007, 03:21

Well those laws don't exist...

This is why I think we're getting side tracked into talking about the different laws in different countries. The laws of self defence are very similar around the world. In the UK (and I'm sure Australia too) you can defend yourself with a gun, if you legally own it.

Would the act of self defence be any left valid with an illegal gun?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-18-2007, 04:03

Would the act of self defence be any left valid with an illegal gun?

Yes, in most of the 50 states (possibly all).

The person using the illegal gun may well end up charged, separately, for the possession of same, but the use of an illegal tool to perform a legal act does not negate the legality of the act.

sapi

12-18-2007, 14:33

Hundreds of thousands of people in a state population of millions of people is an isolated example?Yep, as an isolated (aka scientifically unsound) example is defined by location and resultant external, uncontrolled factors (in this case) rather than numbers. To use your logic would be to say that because the fishing is good in Brisbane, it would automatically be so everywhere else; there simply isn't the evidence to support that.

Instead, there is the evidence to support that in one case, in one location, your hypothesis was not disproven ~;)

Ridiculous. Are you just supposed to ask nicely whilst they steal what you've worked your life to obtain? Myrdd said it better than I could have ~:)

Do you have any evidence for that silly reasoning? You think maybe criminals might decide not to attack when they face a greater threat? Or that it might be a more dangerous situation that prompts a person to draw a handgun to protect themselves?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, using a gun makes you less likely to be injured:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_previous.html

So you're wrong.The flaw in that study is that it includes the effect of a gun on crime completion rates. We're not arguing about that; we're arguing about safety, and I would still suggest that an armed person is more of a threat than an unarmed one, and thus more likely to come to harm.

Robberies happen. C'est la vie. I'm only interested in surviving ~:)

A clarification on the lethal force thing; I'm not talking about shooting people in the back or other red herrings brought up. I'm saying that laws that forbid you from using a gun when confronted by a criminal who 'only' has a club or knife, or even just his fists, are wrong.Would chopping their heads off with a samurai sword be okay too? :beam: