NRA is too radical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.

---

Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason. ~;)

Sorry, drone. :embarassed:

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason. ~;)

Sorry, drone. :embarassed:

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

---

Here is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.

A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).

It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.

---

One vote is all you need. And each case sets precedent. No lower federal judge is going to go against the SCOTUS and accept a ban on only certain types of guns. And it is very unlikely that they are going to have another gun case where one judge is going to switch sides. Usually once the SCOTUS makes a decision, they move on to other cases talking about different subjects.

Quote:

---

So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.

Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.

---

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

Quote:

---

That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.

CR

---

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Here is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key... ~;)

---

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?

---

It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.

I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.

I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.



What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

Nothing is empirically good or bad, nothing as emotionally complicated as the wish to defend oneself and the wish to wield power can be so simply categorised. The concept of good and evil is an aesthetic but flawed philosophy and they are both in reality encompassed and replaced by humanity.

---

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

What are the statistics on firearms uses in self-defence compared to firearms used aggressively? Until that is established, this talk about needing them for self-defence is just hand-waving.

I believe the point about "living document" applies on the level of shaping the debate on such issues. A large part of the current public debate seems largely focused on reconstructing the intent of the writers; the supporters of gun rights tend to say "we need gun rights because the founding father meant this and this." I think it's not a great generalisation to say we all agree that "guns are needed for citizens to be able to overthrow the government" is less realistic today than when the document was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

---

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

---

Including being of limited or no danger to criminals. Tasers are one shot weapons which are only effective in the right conditions even when they do hit - OR they require the user to be in grappling range. Pepper spray is useless for thwarting a determined attack - it just irritates the skin, it doesn't physically impede someone.

Also, in some cities tasers have been outlawed, and single woman carrying them for protection have been arrested. One city in Washington (where it's legal to openly carry a pistol if you're older than 21 with no permit, and getting a concealed carry permit is easy) has done this, and more elsewhere.

Quote:

---

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

---

So she's drunk enough to have her judgement seriously affected, but sober enough to draw and double tap somebody in an instant?

Quote:

---

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

---

You know, we already have laws allowing concealed carry of firearms. And the hypothetical scenarios you lay out remain just that - hypothetical and nonexistent.

As it turns out because of the physics of weapons, something needs to be effect 25m away if it's to be effective at all.

Quote:

---

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

---

The majority of firearms deaths come from drug related gang violence. Staying out of the drug trade and not being in a gang reduces your risk considerably.

Quote:

---

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

---

I think we shouldn't based laws on extreme hypothetical scenarios with no chance of happening.

Quote:

---

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

---

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

Quote:

---

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

---

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

'too'

Please define 'assault rifle'.

---

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, nor even self defense, but to provide citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government (as evidence, I would submit the many statements of the founders about this. Arguments that a civilian uprising would be impossible are both irrelevant - such arguments do not change the constitution as written - and suspect, considering how well the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing).

Using a definition of assault weapons as select fire rifles (for example, the US Army M4, which fires the 5.56 cartridge in both semi-auto and fully automatic fires), they are arguably the most protected weapon under the second amendment, because they are the primary modern infantry weapon.

And what do you mean, can't be defended as legitimate civilian weapons? They're just tools, and how they are used is up to who is using them.

CR

---

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

~:smoking:

---

Alternative scenario: Young woman pulls pistol on stalker, who pulls out the AK he was carrying for self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.:laugh4:

---

We do that on a regular basis. It's called general election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

---

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.

~:smoking:

My point is, real assault weapons (fully automatic fire capable) of any make are hardly ever used in crime. Even rifles of all types make up less than 5% of weapons used to kill in the US.

So how about less imagining and more hard facts for evidence semi-auto or assault rifles are actually involved in crime?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.

~:smoking:

---

Quote:

---

Assuming access to guns, the top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9

---

Quote:

---

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 1994, included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and was a response to public concern over mass shootings.[102] This provision prohibited the manufacture and importation of some semiautomatic firearms that exhibitied military style features such as a folding stock, pistol grip and flash suppressor, as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds.[102] A grandfather clause was included that allowed firearms manufactured before 1994 to remain legal. A short-term evaluation by University of Pennsylvania criminologists, Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth, did not find any clear impact of this legislation on gun violence.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

---

So if a criminal wanted to hand guns off into the black market, all he would have to do is buy a bunch of guns legally, take them and then leave them somewhere for a bit and have someone "steal" them. Then he gets off free because it isn't his actions that will cause those guns to be used violently it's the people he worked with who "stole" them. This sort of reasoning, leaves loopholes for criminals for the benefit of what, the freedom to leave your gun where you wish?

Quote:

---

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:

CR

---

It is their interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave them the legal basis to incorporate the Bill of Right onto the States. But this interpretation did not suddenly appear along with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, for many years after its ratification, the SCOTUS still held that the Bill of Rights is only for the Federal government, see United_States_v._Cruikshank from 1875.

In fact take a look at that case very carefully CR. Let's go over the holding of that case from 1875:
The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

So the precedent since the beginning of the country was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and even after the 14th Amendment this view was given as the legal doctrine to be enforced.

In fact the first case of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until 1925, with Gitlow_v._New_York when that SCOTUS made their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow incorporation. They went against precedent that stemmed all the way back to the founders and treated the Constitution as a living document, able to given new interpretations. And if it wasn't for treating it as a living document, well CR, Chicago would still be asking for your guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

---

North Hollywood shootout-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856...me_and_courts/


Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:


Enjoy the new year.


:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

---

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

My point being that while you do have a statistically higher chance of being shot and killed in America than in Europe, the actual chance that you will die by gunfire in either place is highly remote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rory

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

---

Certainly. I wouldn't trust my life to pepper spray. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

---

Why would the girl in the example walk home alone? I understand that you are reaching to try and invalidate the example, but such hypotheticals should at least make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

---

An example is not a definition.

What characteristics of the AK-47 make it more dangerous and/or deadly than other firearms?

What about hunting rifles like this? Would you ban them?

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...248KzAQxX1.jpg

Are you suggesting that in the course of a year there are no women who unwisely walk home alone?

And why be afraid when you've got a semi-automatic pistol in one's handbag - I thought that these guns make people safe?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

North Hollywood shootout-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

---

Semi-auto rifles illegally modified into assault rifles. Can you explain how making assault rifles illegal would have stopped that?

Quote:

---

In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

---

Wrong. It was a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle.

Quote:

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856...me_and_courts/

---

That is a stupid article written by a stupid reporter. It is thin on facts and long on fear mongering. All incidents cited are of semi-auto weapons, not assault rifles.

None of your links are examples of the criminal misuse of a legally owned assault rifle.

Quote:

---

Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:

---

What's paranoia got to do with it? And you haven't even begun to explain why assault rifle use cannot be defended. Also, what is and is not a 'legitimate civilian weapon'?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.

I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.

I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.



What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

---

For a Frenchie? Consult French law on the subject. I'm not informed well enough on that system of laws/rights/etc. to speak ot the issue.

Here in the USA? You have a personal right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution has NOT been interpreted as you having a right to a private army to enforce your will, or a private nuclear arms service for that matter. Multiple subscribers for such a service would probably not fly. So my thoughts are such that, if you can personally buy and use such weapons, then so be it. The government should not be able to infringe upon such. They may have some grounds for denying an indirect provider service from giving you access to such weapons -- while not preventing outright ownership. Gun rental isn't big over here, at least in terms of exiting the range with the weapon still in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

---

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

My gut reaction is to view firearms as one of the reasons for the difference. Such weapons are readily available, lethal even with limited or no training in their use, and often very portable. The ready availability of such tools suggests that, when drunk or upset, the typical American is far more likely to have a gun available with which to vent their frustrations than is the typical Brit. The likelihood of an attack of some form is probably pretty similar in both cultures, but the Yank is likely more lethally armed and more likely to kill the person who has angered them. Moreover, the ready availability of weapons yields a higher number of accidental gun deaths (though there is nothing in the data to suggest that we're more likely to have such accidents than some other culture, only that we have more weapons per person and hence more accidents).

Personal firearms are a right and a guarantor of rights and freedoms. In strict terms of physical safety, the confiscation of all such weapons and their restriction to government military use only is likely to result if fewer deaths.

To me, the right is worth the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

---

Again, while the difference may be statistically significant, that does not mean that the average American has a significant chance of being killed by gunfire in the traditional sense of the word. Gun control advocates mix the two to try to create public anxiety over guns, which is likely the reason that our European friends have such a skewed understanding of American life.

Speaking of stats, here are a few that I found interesting.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

---

Quote:

---

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...rjaeger/dc.jpg

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]


* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

---

Quote:

---

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/england.jpg

† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings[41]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

---

Quote:

---

* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]

* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...o_handguns.jpg

---

Quote:

---

* On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective.[103]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.[104]

* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[106]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/florida.jpg

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

* From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure

• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.[109]

---

Quote:

---

* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry law became effective.[110]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a handgun proficiency course.[111]

* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active licensees,[112] constituting roughly 2.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[113]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...eger/texas.jpg


* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]

---

[/QUOTE]

And finally...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1.../accidents.jpg

---

So it appears that the unfortunate case of our young woman double-tapping her friend by mistake would be an exceedingly rare event. :book:

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically.

---

Statistical significance and practical significance are often conflated, and this I think is one situation where it is particularly likely. It sounds like the chances of being killed by firearm violence are unquestionably higher in the US than in Europe. The question is, are they enough higher for it to matter?

Ajax

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

---

Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Unlike Europe, much of which has steeped itself in the Marxist notion of labor's centrality to the politico-economic character of society, the USA, and its laws, are steeped in the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property as the central values.

Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property as property is a result of the effort/skills/capital/labor of the person owning it. As an extension of self, the defense of one's property is no more nor less reasonable than the defense of one's physical self or one's family.

---

Why do communists drink herbal tea?

Because proper tea is theft!


:drummer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).

---

Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.

Quote:

---

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

---

To carry a weapon in public, every state (IIRC) requires a permit. Part of obtaining that permit is attending and passing a class on proper firearms handling and appropriate usage.

In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger. They are taught that one should only draw and discharge one's weapon when every other avenue has been rendered unacceptable - including calling the police, giving up personal property, and fleeing. Such instructions preclude jumping into a firefight, guns ablaze.

I too must ask whether you have ever been to the United States. Surely just a few days in country would eliminate such Wild West fantasies.

I used to be a big control control advocate, but changed my mind when I realized that the situation is a Pandora's Box. Like it or not, guns are already everywhere in the US. It's impossible to get rid of them, so pointless to even have the argument. What can be done is to place proper checks on purchasing weapons so that people cannot purchase them when they are mentally ill or in a temporary rage. The rules implementing those checks are very weak in some states, but they can be improved. Banning them outright is just pointless.

As for the assault weapon thing... no one commits crimes with those things. The issue is handguns, pure and simple.

It sounds like you are in favour of control, but view that banning is not realistic. I think that there are further refinements that should be made in terms of regulating storage and implimenting "smart" features that are coming into all other walks of life but remain firmly out of guns.

~:smoking:

“Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?”
Yes I did.
And I don’t think you need a weapon in the US streets…you, guys, are the ones who think so.

“Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.” Just reading what is posted… Girl alone in the street needs a gun, shoot to people walking on my garden, right to have a nuclear bomb, right to have minefields, right to defend against my neighbours’ nuclear bomb…

“In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger”: Yeah, and in classes people are taught to be polite, no swearing, to be respectful of the elders and to never hit a woman. And we all obey the rules…

Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.
We speak here not of freedom, and the respect of the Constitution…
We speak of the NRA greed and money in one side.
And we speak of weapons on the other. I like weapon. I like to carry weapon. I like to use weapons. I use a lot of them, from missile (Milan) to 20 mm canon, gun, machine guns, riffle assault rifles, grenade (all of them), mines, learned how to blow-up bridges, buildings, railways. I used flamethrower (rule is to use it only on obstacle, not on human, yeah right), learned how to strangle people, knife them in the back etc. I was a trained soldier…

So, you can tell me you want to have weapons. I understand the feeling.

But, to pretend it is to defend your rights that no body want to take from you, please…
Have more faith in your Army and Soldiers…
In France the last Coup failed because the soldiers and most of the Hierarchy refused to follow…

In allowing weapons for all, you in fact increase the danger on you freedom. You give power to individual the right to shoot who they want (even after the classes) when they want.
Those who read me know I am a leftist, a combat one. I have no past of criminality; even I am a “veteran”.
So if I was a US citizen, a part the left side, I am a perfect citizen.
So I would have the right to have weapons.
So I would be able to create a group (armed) that is more a threat for you than a Federal imaginary will to take your freedom away…

In a pure Robert Heinlein "Starship Troopers" books (not movie, please) fashion...

And this is true for all political and religious groups, extremist or not…
Free access to weapons is the door from simple accidents to organised plots (private militias to mobsters).