"Just a Piece of Paper"

[Crazed Rabbit]

A few points: England has always had a lower murder rate, even when you could buy a pistol and carry it about with you legally in both countries with no fuss.

A couple English pro-gun editorials for your perusing:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2409817.ece

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

We should not fool ourselves, however, that such things were possible then because society was more peaceful. Those years were ones of much more social and political turbulence than our own: with violent and incendiary suffrage protests, massive industrial strikes where the Army was called in and people were killed, where there was the menace of a revolutionary General Strike, and where the country was riven by the imminent prospect of a civil war in Ireland. It was in such a society that, as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights.

In such troubled times, why did the commonplace carrying of firearms not result in mayhem? How could it be that in the years before the First World War, armed crime in London amounted to less than 2 per cent of what we see today? One answer that might have been taken as self-evident then, but which has become political anathema now, is that the prevalence of firearms had a stabilising influence and a deterrent effect upon crime.

To all those insisting one rely on the police, I ask; can your police predict the future?

You say the police here acted wrongly; assuming they actually sought this man out and arrested him, how long could he be held for emailing a death threat?

Suppose, even, that he emailed or spoke no such threats before going to the house and crashing into cars.

Listen to the 911 call from someone from another nearby house observing the murderer as he attacked:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...778062.mp3file

He describes how the man had gotten out of his car after crashing it around the street, then approached the house. Then he says the man has gone behind the house. Then he reports gun shots.

There is no way the police could have gotten there in time to stop him. It's not an insult to police, they simply physically can't.
How could the police have stopped that? How can you have such confidence in the police? Why does there seem to be a belief that they can be anywhere instantly?

On a different angle, how is it civilized to not be self reliant, but a mere peasant depending on protection from a sort of feudal lord?

CR

[Csargo]

A society with a murder rate of zero, then? Where would that be, perchance?

Utopia??

[seireikhaan]

From my view, guns seem to have different effects on different areas. Look at Japan, for example. Incredibly strict control, and remarkably little crime. On the other hand, we have Washington D.C., which has strict gun laws, yet they seem to do little to help the problem. Personally, I'd leave it to the states to deterirmine their gun laws. Pro-gun lobbyists, such as CR, like to bring up the 2nd amendment. However, I think we need to realized the climate the second ammendment was created. The colonists were sick and tired of being abused by British soldiers, who, most of the time, didn't exactly treat them with care, to say the least. Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not. Personally, I think the second ammendment needs changing, and instead that the states should determine their own gun laws. Just my opinion.

[Lemur]

Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not.

We still have militias. It's just that they're, you know, creepy.

[Lord Winter]

We still have militias. It's just that they're, you know, creepy.

and the national guard to... which is the modern succesor

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?

[seireikhaan]

and the national guard to... which is the modern succesor

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?

Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat. Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.

[Productivity]

Because you're a fraction of the size of the US?

What does the size of a country have anything to do with a rate. Rates are usually put in a capita adjusted manner. ie. Murders/100000 people/year. I really don't see how having a larger population impacts that as it is inhernetly adjusted for in the rate.

[Marshal Murat]

What does the size of a country have anything to do with a rate.

Even adjusted, using the California -> UK data, there is a larger amount of deaths in California per 1,000 people than UK (unless I read the data wrong). To explain it better.

You have LA with 100,000 people and a 90% squalor rating
You have Bergen with 100,000 people and a 50% squalor rating

or....

There are more people in the USA killing more people, and with a smaller population you see fewer killings. One of the bugs of reality that God needs to patch... Jesus 1.1 crashed after the Romans took Judea.


Or...
you could get someone else to explain it.

Personally, I think it's the culture of society.

People will kill, and will continue to do so. It's only the means that have changed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, I think we need to realized the climate the second ammendment was created. The colonists were sick and tired of being abused by British soldiers, who, most of the time, didn't exactly treat them with care, to say the least. Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not. Personally, I think the second ammendment needs changing, and instead that the states should determine their own gun laws. Just my opinion.

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

That is not impossible today.

Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range.

Would you want to have to do that, right now, to save your life? Should we force women and those of smaller physique to rely on that?

When you go from knives to guns, you radically shift the advantage to those who are stronger and practice more - and who's that?

Here several police with guns are seriously stabbed by one man with a knife - and they weren't ambushed at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?search...&v=J3HR2O2m068

Crazed Rabbit

[Lord Winter]

Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat. Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.

A little, I would agree if it was a sword we were talking about but with a knife to get close enough you'd ussaly have to be within the guys reach, meaning that the average joe is going to get his stab blocked, doged or have himself punched away. Plus if you can disarm some guy with a knife you still have to face him with bare hands and he can always grab the knife again and your back to square one. This time you may not be so lucky. I guess the question is how much do you want to test faith.

[seireikhaan]

Would you want to have to do that, right now, to save your life? Should we force women and those of smaller physique to rely on that?

Here several police with guns are seriously stabbed by one man with a knife - and they weren't ambushed at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?search...&v=J3HR2O2m068

Crazed Rabbit

1) Would I want to? Hell no, of course not. I doubt I'd ever want to be in a situation where its me and some nutjob in a life and death case. But considering I've never shot a gun in my life, I'll go with the knife fight.
2) People of smaller stature? Smaller stature doesn't make you an incompetent fighter. I know a person at my school who's about 5'7'' and about 120 pounds of string, and I've personally seen him fight off and beat 2 guys considerably larger than himself. All guns do in comparison is compell people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

Can't comment on the video, as I'm only 17 and couldn't watch it.

[Marshal Murat]

It depends on the person in question, but the end-all would be the gun. No matter height, weight, size, you just gotta pull a trigger. With a knife, you need to be fighting someone who is inexperienced or your good with it.

But if you take away guns, you can still use rocks to pummel someone to death. Bricks, crowbars. List is endless. Personally, I wouldn't favor my chances with a knife, but I could try.

All guns do in comparison is compel people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

Data for that?

[seireikhaan]

It depends on the person in question, but the end-all would be the gun. No matter height, weight, size, you just gotta pull a trigger. With a knife, you need to be fighting someone who is inexperienced or your good with it.

But if you take away guns, you can still use rocks to pummel someone to death. Bricks, crowbars. List is endless. Personally, I wouldn't favor my chances with a knife, but I could try.

Never have I said that creating more strict gun control would completely get rid of violence. Anyone who does is a fool. No system will ever completely get rid of violence, due to the fact that the human race will always be at least a little f@#!d up. If you read my earlier post, I think ultimately that gun laws ought to be left up to the individual states to decide, as what what will work in one state may not be right for a different one. It just depends on the culture and climate of the area.
(PS-reference to climate was not to be meant in weather terms, obviously)

Data for that?

Searching for good data now now.
However, in the meantime, I'd like to present a list of trusted gun manufactureres, according to Fort-Liberty.org.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.fortliberty.org/gun-acces...acturers.shtml
Accuracy International
Accuracy International is the manufacturer of an excellent series of sniper rifles.

Armalite
Armalite is the gun manufacturer who put the AR into AR-15. Armalite manufactures the AR-10, AR-15, and AR-50 rifles.

Barrett
Barrett is the manufacturer of several excellent .50 caliber rifles.

Beretta
Beretta is the manufacturer of the Cx4 Storm carbine and some excellent centerfire hand-guns.

Benelli
Benelli is the manufacturer of the amazing M-4 semi-automatic shotgun.

Browning
Browning is the manufacturer of the Browning Hi-Power centerfire hand-gun.

Cheyenne Tactical
Cheyenne Tactical is the premier manufacturer of rifles for the 408 Cheyenne Tactical cartridge.

Colt
Colt is the manufacturer of the Colt Match Target (i.e. the AR-15) and the original line of 1911-style hand-guns.

Dakota Arms
Dakota Arms manufactures the Longbow Tactical Rifle.

Desert Toys
Desert Toys is a gun manufacturer which specializes in large caliber rifles, like the Rebel .50 BMG.

Ferret50
Ferret50 is the manufacturer of a 50BMG rifle conversion for the AR-15.

FN Manufacturing, Inc.
A precision machining manufacturer specializing in the production of small caliber weapons and machine guns such as M16, M240, M249, SAW, and the 49 hand-gun for military and law enforcement markets.

GatlingGuns.com
Gatling Guns is the manufacturer of a conversion kit to turn Ruger 10-22's in gatling guns.

Glock
Glock is an Austrian gun manufacturer of an excellent series of hand-guns.

Heckler & Koch
Heckler & Koch (H&K) is a German gun manufacturer of the excellent USP and Mark-23 lines of centerfire hand-guns, the FABARM shotguns, and the HKM4 and XM8 centerfire carbines.

Kimber
Kimber manufactures a high-quality line of 1911 style hand-guns.

Les Baer Customer
Les Baer manufactures custom 1911 pistols and AR-15 rifles.

Maadi Griffin
Maadi Griffin provides .50 BMG rifle plans and kits.

Magnum Research
Magnum Research manufactures the Desert Eagle and Baby Eagle pistols.

Mossberg
Mossberg is the manufacturer of the excellent 590 and Mariner pump shotguns.

Nor-Cal Precision
Norcal Precision specializes in highly accurate, durable, and precisely made Remington 700-based rifle systems by premiere rifle builder Jerry Rice.

Para-Ordnance
Para-Ordnance is the manufacturer of an excellent line of 1911 style hand-guns.

Remington
Remington is a the manufacturer of the 870 and 1100 shotguns and the 700 series rifle.

Robinson Armament
Robarm manufactures the excellent M96 and XCR Modular Weapon Systems.

Ruger manufactures the Mini-14, the 10-22, and execellent centerfire and rimfire hand-guns.

Sako
Sako is a Finnish gun manufacturer of highly accurate rifles, including the TRG-22 and TRG-42 sniper rifles.

Savage Arms
Savage manufactures the 10FP series centerfire rifles.

Serbu Firearms
Serbu manufactures the BFG-50, the Super-Shorty, and the Siris silenced guns.

Sig Arms
Sig manufactures excellent centerfire hand-guns.

Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson is the manufacturer of a wide variety of service pistols which are the favorites of many police departments.

Springfield Armory
Springfield Armory is the manufacturer of an excellent line of rifles based upon the M1A. Springfield Armory also manufactures the M6 Scout survival rifle. In addition, Springfield Armory manufactures a line of 1911-A1 pistols and a new line of high-tech pistols called the XD.

Steyr
Steyr manufactures the excellent Steyr SSG sniper rifle and the incredible Steyr AUG assault bull-pup carbine.

Tactical Operations
Tactical Operations manufactures very nice custom sniper rifles.

Taurus
Taurus manufactures the Millenium series of hand-guns.

Walther
Walther manufactures the P99 and PPK hand-guns.

Weatherby
Weatherby is the manufacturer of a line of excellent large-caliber rifles, including the Treat Response Rifle.

Wilson Combat
Wilson combat manufactures customer 1911 pistols, custom 12ga shotguns based upon the Remington 870, and custom AR-15 rifles.

Winchester
Winchester is the manufacturer of the Model 1300 and Super X2 shotguns.

Z-M Weapons
Z-M Weapons is the manufacturer of the LR-300 weapon system.

Stag Arms
Makers of truly left-handed AR-15 rifles.

And these are just the companies that these guys like. Hmm, lets see...39 different corporations just for making guns? How many different ways are there to shoot people?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat.

I think this is completely wrong. Knife disarming doesn't really work. When they teach it at martial arts dojos they are either teaching the students goofy stuff that the students think are cool to keep them paying, or are teaching knife dueling. Someone trying to kill you with a knife is going to rush you as fast as they can as stab you when their up close. You can't disarm that. And what if he has two knives? Or a knife and a hammer? He's going to stack the odds in his favor as much as he can.

You have a much better chance with a gun fight. You know your house better than they do. You can hide somewhere in a cul de sac and shoot him as soon as he turns the corner. You'll hear him coming he won't know your their. Aiming isn't hard.

I think your more likely to survive a gun shot than getting stabbed with a knife as well.

Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.

And then he'll stab her and she'll die

[HoreTore]

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?

Because of the simple fact that a gun-armed man is a lot more dangerous than a knife-armed man. And yes, that's true. Period.

[seireikhaan]

I think this is completely wrong. Knife disarming doesn't really work. When they teach it at martial arts dojos they are either teaching the students goofy stuff that the students think are cool to keep them paying, or are teaching knife dueling. Someone trying to kill you with a knife is going to rush you as fast as they can as stab you when their up close. You can't disarm that. And what if he has two knives? Or a knife and a hammer? He's going to stack the odds in his favor as much as he can.

You have a much better chance with a gun fight. You know your house better than they do. You can hide somewhere in a cul de sac and shoot him as soon as he turns the corner. You'll hear him coming he won't know your their. Aiming isn't hard.

I think your more likely to survive a gun shot than getting stabbed with a knife as well.

You make it seem as though the average attacker is going to put a giant sign in your yard with giant neon green letters saying "I'm going to attack you at 1:30 A.M". How are you going to plan this whole thing out if you've got some psychopath breaking into your house when you're asleep, giving you perhaps 30 seconds to actually have a chance to get out of the house, depending on layout. Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun. People might be surprised at the number of household implements that can actually make handy weapons.

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
A few points: England has always had a lower murder rate, even when you could buy a pistol and carry it about with you legally in both countries with no fuss.

When did the UK allow people to buy and carry firearms? Certainly not in my lifetime.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You make it seem as though the average attacker is going to put a giant sign in your yard with giant neon green letters saying "I'm going to attack you at 1:30 A.M". How are you going to plan this whole thing out if you've got some psychopath breaking into your house when you're asleep, giving you perhaps 30 seconds to actually have a chance to get out of the house, depending on layout. Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun. People might be surprised at the number of household implements that can actually make handy weapons.

You hear a noise downstairs, get the gun, point it at the door? How are you going to defend yourself with a knife in that situation?

Any household implements you can use he can use too. You're still going to have to fight him and that's very very risky. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt here and saying that outlawing guns guarantees he doesn't have one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1) Would I want to? Hell no, of course not. I doubt I'd ever want to be in a situation where its me and some nutjob in a life and death case. But considering I've never shot a gun in my life, I'll go with the knife fight.

Using a gun is really simple, much, much more so than knife fighting - in which both people will get cut if they're both cautious, and which someone will likely die if the attacker is determined.

I don't see how anyone could choose a knife over a gun for self defense.

2) People of smaller stature? Smaller stature doesn't make you an incompetent fighter. I know a person at my school who's about 5'7'' and about 120 pounds of string, and I've personally seen him fight off and beat 2 guys considerably larger than himself.

You're missing the point. Criminals will have the advantage in contests of strength like melee fighting, simply because they won't attack someone whom they don't have an advantage against.

All guns do in comparison is compell people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

What? Do you mean they aren't forced to spend hours a day training to adequately defend themselves?

Can't comment on the video, as I'm only 17 and couldn't watch it.

Are you serious?

And these are just the companies that these guys like. Hmm, lets see...39 different corporations just for making guns? How many different ways are there to shoot people?

So what? It's called capitalism.

Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun.

And having a gun for self defense will give you the greatest advantage. If you get into a struggle with an intruder, you're going to get injured, probably beaten bad, maybe killed.

CR

[The Celtic Viking]

Uhm, if someone broke into my house with any kind of weapon, be it a knife or a gun or his bare hands, the first thing I'm thinking about is NOT fighting back. My first thought is to get the hell away from there ASAP. So I'd much prefer my attacker to be armed with a knife than a gun, as I have a better chance of running away from him than a bullet.

If I couldn't get away, I still wouldn't try to fight, except as a VERY last resort (like, being cornered with nowhere to go, not just being fired upon). I would comply to his wishes the best I could, do whatever he wants and avoiding provoking him as much as possible. Chances are he'll just take what he wants and leave... if you don't give him a reason to do something worse, like, you know, by trying to kill him. That has a tendency to piss people off.

I suppose that the attacker could be a homicidal maniac, who's just after killing me. I'm not denying that possibility. However, the guy breaking in is much more likely just to be after my stuff and not my life, so I find it much safer taking that risk, rather taking the risk of losing in a shootout. Especially since guns in homes kill more than they protect.

[Tribesman]

Using a gun is really simple, much, much more so than knife fighting

Especially when you are a slightly insane jilted lover , using a gun is really simple .

[Don Corleone]

Don..read the friggng article, it might help you in relation to what was written
You should be able to do better Don

I did read the article. I don't think you did, or if you did, you're ignoring portions that don't comply to your view.

So he had a history of threatning people but they couldn't stop him from buying a gun because buying a gun is his right until he does something like kill someone upon which he forfiets the right to buy a gun .
Is that what you are trying to say Rabbit

There was no history. The guy cleaned out her checking account late in the morning. He sent the email around 7PM. The deputy came by and said "Tough luck, you're own your own, try to get a restraining order, it should be in place in a few days". He showed up and killed them all at 11PM. ALL IN THE SAME DAY. There's no history in that.

Besides, I said you and Hore Tore were right. We should just let criminals have the run of the place. It's the only civilized thing to do.

[Ironside]

When a homicidial maniac breaks into your house, the only civilized response is to simply call 911 and tell them how to dispose of your remains. Civilized people just let the criminals do what they want. Protecting yourself or your family... that's just so... uncivilized. Just shut up and die, like you're supposed to.

Not really, but if the assulter is armed with a knife it's easier to flee, use chokepoints (aka doors) and if it's the worst case scenario, you still have about the same armament as the intruder, with easier access than that shotgun (that is the best gun for home defense from what I've heard).

And

If I had a choice between a knife fight and a gun fight with someone breaking into my house, I'd choose the gun fight hands down. In a knife fight you'll probably both die.

means that if you end up in the third scenario, only those that are willing to risk thier lives and almost certainly end up taking stabs or beatings even if they succeed to kill you, will proceed with the attack.

So it's easier to get out alive from a knife vs anything else scenario, than with a gun vs gun scenario.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, but if the assulter is armed with a knife it's easier to flee, use chokepoints (aka doors) and if it's the worst case scenario, you still have about the same armament as the intruder, with easier access than that shotgun (that is the best gun for home defense from what I've heard).

Fleeing is of course the first course of action but it's just as easy to flee an assailant with a gun as it is with a knife. Most inside doors will kick in. If you keep your gun in your bedroom it's accessible.

means that if you end up in the third scenario, only those that are willing to risk thier lives and almost certainly end up taking stabs or beatings even if they succeed to kill you, will proceed with the attack.

So it's easier to get out alive from a knife vs anything else scenario, than with a gun vs gun scenario.

Only those willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison taking stabs and beatings will try and kill someone.

[Redleg]

If someone is determined to stick a knife in you - no matter how much self defense training you have your chances of getting stuck are great. What self defense training does or should do is train you to take the stab in a part of the body that you might or can survive.

Ie the arm versus the body.

Its not the weapon that kills the individual, its the one using the weapon. Guns and knifes are only tools.

You want to lower the crime rate address the causes of crime, not the tools that are being used.

[Husar]

Ok, so why is this a gun debate? And who would really wake up from a sneaky intruder before he stands next to his bed?
And who didn't notice that people with guns in america still die?
And who really thinks that a gun that is stored properly (i.e. not loaded and unlocked under your pillow but unloaded, secured and locked away from the kids) will be handy once someone is already inside, maybe even standing next to where you have stored the gun?
Same goes for knives of course, if the intruder is already in my kithcen, how on earth am I supposed to get to the knives or pans or whatever?
My best but most expensive chance would be throwing my computer and my living room furniture at him

Well, being a poor student I have a floor, bath, kitchen and living room with bedniche. Then again, who would try robbing a poor student anyway? A murderer would come right to my bed or get me at the door when I open it or something, just like these people were surprised in their car and home respectively. Guns and better aim do not protect against the surprise effect most attackers use, the only thing that has a chance there is a ballistic vest/suit.

Concerning nightly attacks your best chance are probably mines or living in a bunker. Or well, living awake all night long but then you might go crazy or die of sleep deprivation or so.
A world with knives only would of course be better since chainmail isn't outlawed in Germany while ballistic vests are, concerning the general public, but then sleeping in chainmail isn't that comfortable either so most people might not use it.

Now you may be at the point where you already stopped reading or ask yourself "does he have some sort of point? am I stupid for not getting it?". Well, let me tell you I don't know either, consider it brainstorming.

[Tribesman]

I did read the article. I don't think you did, or if you did, you're ignoring portions that don't comply to your view.

Wow Don are you sure ?

There was no history

Ahem...

But former UCF student Erinn Redd, who knew Allred and Ruschak since their days at Oviedo High School, remembered Allred as "deviously clever and capable of taking matters to the extreme."

He had threatened other friends in the past, she said. "But we never expected him to go murder someone."

Hmmmmm..try again
Now of course the police officer couldn't have known that this individual had a history of threatening people , the people that knew him didn't think that is threats meant anything much.
There was nothing at all to hinder this jilted turd from legally obtaining a firearm was there..... its his right


Now this isinteresting

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

Hmmmmm...so it isn't an inalianable right for anyone to use their constitutional right to have as many of whatever guns they choose as is their right for whatever purpose they seem fit with no restictions at all as is set out in the second quite clearly and can only be interpretted in one way .

Rabbit have you attended gun safety courses ? as it seems that you have shot yourself in the foot yet again .

If someone is determined to stick a knife in you - no matter how much self defense training you have your chances of getting stuck are great. What self defense training does or should do is train you to take the stab in a part of the body that you might or can survive.
Ie the arm versus the body.


Its not the weapon that kills the individual, its the one using the weapon. Guns and knifes are only tools.

You want to lower the crime rate address the causes of crime, not the tools that are being used.

Stop it Red please be less sensible in your writing .
OK just to be pickyIe the arm versus the body.ie the weaker of your arms
However that doesn't cover small knuckle blades where you don't realise you have been stabbed but are just confused how a punch could make you bleed so much

[Redleg]

Stop it Red please be less sensible in your writing .
OK just to be pickyIe the arm versus the body.ie the weaker of your arms
However that doesn't cover small knuckle blades where you don't realise you have been stabbed but are just confused how a punch could make you bleed so much

Yes one should use the left arm if one is right handed - got a knife wound in the left arm to verify that scenerio.

Now knuckle blades are just evil - lots of blood can be drawn with them especially around the face and upper body. Not much one can do to defend themselves against them either.

Except to avoid the fight in the first place.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And who really thinks that a gun that is stored properly (i.e. not loaded and unlocked under your pillow but unloaded, secured and locked away from the kids) will be handy once someone is already inside, maybe even standing next to where you have stored the gun?

That's not stored properly, that's stored stupidly. The DC circuit court ruled that requiring storage in such a manner is unconstitutional.

And who would really wake up from a sneaky intruder before he stands next to his bed?

Gee, people who hear the guy breaking your door down? Which is lots of people in America.

If I couldn't get away, I still wouldn't try to fight, except as a VERY last resort (like, being cornered with nowhere to go, not just being fired upon). I would comply to his wishes the best I could, do whatever he wants and avoiding provoking him as much as possible. Chances are he'll just take what he wants and leave... if you don't give him a reason to do something worse, like, you know, by trying to kill him. That has a tendency to piss people off.

Is this the mindset of the civilized?

That one should feebly cow before our attackers and risk our very lives on their whims? That mindset killed three people in Connecticut, when their attackers had only knives:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/23/hom....ap/index.html

In the US, if someone is attacked or mugged in the street, if they fight back with a gun they are less likely to get injured. And that's where the mugger has the advantage and ambushes his victims.

Guns and better aim do not protect against the surprise effect most attackers use, the only thing that has a chance there is a ballistic vest/suit.

Wrong. See above.

I suppose that the attacker could be a homicidal maniac, who's just after killing me. I'm not denying that possibility.

And what then? You're just going to go quietly into the good night?

I still have not seen from any of our more 'civilized' members how the police can be relied upon to save your bacon when your house is under attack. Which is funny, since a lot of people were saying it's civilized to just do that.

CR

[Husar]

That's not stored properly, that's stored stupidly. The DC circuit court ruled that requiring storage in such a manner is unconstitutional.

So you would lock it away loaded?
I hope you're not referring to locking it away from your kids or else I'll bring it up next time some kid makes a school shooting with the gun his dad had lying around on the kitchen table.

Gee, people who hear the guy breaking your door down? Which is lots of people in America.

You know, cutting glass isn't all that hard and doesn't make nearly as much noise. You know, there are intruders who don't intend to wake the whole neighborhood.

In the US, if someone is attacked or mugged in the street, if they fight back with a gun they are less likely to get injured. And that's where the mugger has the advantage and ambushes his victims.

Wrong. See above.

Well, I doubt your gun would help a lot once he put several bullets into your back but then I don't know how many criminals there are who can aim properly.
I've also been told that drawing a gun when one is already pointed at you is rather suicidal.