(Close Window)
Topic: 12 Killed in UK gun rampage
Message: Posted by: Phil J. (Jun 2, 2010 02:29PM)
A gunman has killed 12 people an injured a further 25 during a shooting rampage in Cumbria http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10219655.stm the gunman later killed himself.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 2, 2010 04:44PM)
After the recent school bus crash,(Which killed 3)to have a nutcase run around killing randomly must surely knock you sideways.
Cumbria is a beautiful part of the world,with lovely people.To have this horror happen there,must be soul destroying.
12 dead plus the gunman,25 injured,5 seriously,and 3 critical.
A sad state of affairs!
Ray.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 5, 2010 05:22AM)
RIP to the Victims.

Really sad. :cry:
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jun 14, 2010 09:40AM)
Yes, very sad that defensive weapons are banned, or at least heavily restricted.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/

Carrie
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 14, 2010 09:57AM)
Defensive?

Can they also be sad, lonely or loving?

In your search for productive employment maybe you should add Spin Doctor to your list of prospective careers.

Care to compare murder rates in countries where guns are not normally available to the generaL public?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2010 10:25AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 10:57, Destiny wrote:

Care to compare murder rates in countries where guns are not normally available to the generaL public?

[/quote]

Or cite instances where a gun was used to prevent or stop a rampage.

We had four police officers shot down in a coffee shop a few months back. A guy just walked in and killed them as they sat at a table. Each officer was fully armed and trained. Yet the fact that they all had guns didn't help them to survive or stop the shooter.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 14, 2010 10:35AM)
Payne, that's a horrible story.

And pertinent in every way.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2010 11:02AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 11:25, Payne wrote:
Or cite instances where a gun was used to prevent or stop a rampage.
[/quote]
Michael Millen, a convicted felon (armed robbery) was shot and killed as he tried to rob a pawn shop in Chicago last week (June 8). Police recovered a revolver believed to have been Millen's at the scene.

On June 3rd, a 27 year-old man shot and wounded another convicted felon in the area as he broke into a house while fleeing the police.

On May 26th, a Korean War veteran shot a convicted felon who broke into his home in East Garfield Park.

In Florida in March of this year, Dave Henry was jumped and pistol-whipped by two armed robbers outside his home, where his wife and child were sleeping. Henry has a concealed carry permit; he drew his weapon, killed one of the robbers and chased off the other, surviving the attack.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2010 11:04AM)
Sorry; I misread. You got me - those didn't stop rampages. They just stopped violent felonies. But I think that being able to protect oneself and one's family from armed felons is about as good a reason as stopping a rampage.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 14, 2010 11:10AM)
In Australia our felons are rarely armed, but I understand that in other places Pandora's box is well and truly opened, and won't be shut.

Sometimes we have good reason to be grateful for our isolation.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 14, 2010 11:54AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 12:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Sorry; I misread. You got me - those didn't stop rampages. They just stopped violent felonies. But I think that being able to protect oneself and one's family from armed felons is about as good a reason as stopping a rampage.
[/quote]
Lobo, your argument is disingenuous. The only reason I should need firearms to defend my family from armed felons is that most felons in the US are likely to be armed, which raises deeper questions regarding the prudence of US gun laws. Sure, I might get murdered tonight with a gun by someone breaking into my house to steal my banjo, but the odds are much less than they would be in the States.

Few people in Germany crave banjos.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 14, 2010 12:03PM)
From http://www.nationmaster.com , here are the firearm homicide rates per 1,000 people by country.


Rank Countries Amount
# 1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
# 2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
# 3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
# 4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
# 5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
# 6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
# 7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
# 9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
# 10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
# 11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
# 12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
# 13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
# 14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
# 15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
# 16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
# 17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
# 18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
# 19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
# 22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
# 23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
# 24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
# 25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
# 26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
# 27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
# 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
# 29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
# 30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
# 31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 14, 2010 12:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 10:40, Carrie Sue wrote:
Yes, very sad that defensive weapons are banned, or at least heavily restricted.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/

Carrie
[/quote]


I am no longer surprised by your idiotic statements carrie. Your article, which fox would call journalism.., maintains that these shootings as just as common in countries where guns are outlawed. School shootings..... OK, lets think about this-I know its hard. Guns arent in schools anyway, last I checked (except by police, and that is many schools)-so for your point of view to make sense the teachers should have been packing.. Is your point that more guns are safer? Does that even make sense to anyone? Its to bad that teachers, or even the kids werent packing, cause they would surely have shot the guy, no problem.

I love how the fox trash article ends with "... but with a common factor: the attacks take place where civilians are banned from carrying guns." the piece (of ****) was written like a murder mystery, where at the end we get a surprise! yip-ee!!

Join up with sara palin.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2010 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 12:54, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 12:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Sorry; I misread. You got me - those didn't stop rampages. They just stopped violent felonies. But I think that being able to protect oneself and one's family from armed felons is about as good a reason as stopping a rampage.
[/quote]

Lobo, your argument is disingenuous. The only reason I should need firearms to defend my family from armed felons is that most felons in the US are likely to be armed, which raises deeper questions regarding the prudence of US gun laws. Sure, I might get murdered tonight with a gun by someone breaking into my house to steal my banjo, but the odds are much less than they would be in the States.

Few people in Germany crave banjos.
[/quote]

Stone -

Not sure why you think it's disingenuous. But first, I wasn't making an argument; Payne asked for examples of defensive gun use, and I provided a few.

But as for the other point, I'm curious as to what questions you think your fact pattern raises, and what you think the answers are. I agree that the degree to which you "need" to be armed is related on the degree to which your assailant may be armed (though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun). However, how would you connect that fact to gun laws?
People who don't balk at committing murder, rape, and armed robbery aren't likely to be dissuaded by laws banning the possession of firearms. So, if you lived here, and we had strong anti-possession laws, the ones they'd affect would be the law-abiding citizens. The guys stealing your banjo would still be armed; as you point out, in such a case, you might need to be, also.
We can't keep people from entering this country illegally by the bazillions; guns are a lot smaller than people. Availability of guns to criminals in the United States is a product of many things, the least of which is the Second Amendment - their guns aren't generally bought through legal channels, anyway. But we have a country with a lot of money (and thus a lot of profit motive in illegal trades with practitioners who liked to be armed, primarily narcotics traffic), and large, porous borders. Demographically, geographically, and economically, it'd be awfully tough to keep guns out of the hands of our criminals, irrespective of any laws regulating possession, sale, and transport. It seems reasonable, to me, to offer our law abiding citizens the same opportunity.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 14, 2010 01:05PM)
Lobo, your post was not disingenuous. I missed your post quoting Payne's, and thus missed your point . My bad. Sorry.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 14, 2010 01:34PM)
Lets talk about what just exactly "arms" are.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2010 03:11PM)
Those who fight Monsters should be careful not to become Monsters themselves.

Armed or not.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 14, 2010 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
(though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun). [/quote]

Not to be picky but the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bit skewed. Technically, a knife or any edge weapon could be the better weapon of choice in a gun vs knife confrontation.

Experts in the art of shooting, an not just someone who scores in the upper 97% on a qualification range, have proven that when confronted with an assailant with a knife, it takes approximately 15 feet of reactionary distance for an expert to draw his side arm and get a shot off should that person armed with the edge weapon attack.

Should that person with the edged weapon be a person accustomed to using an edge weapon, i.e. someone from a knife culture like Mexico, South or Central America or the Far East then the dude with the gun needs 21 feet of reactionary time to clear leather and get the shot off.

Should the guy with the gun aleady have his gun drawn and the assailant attacks, the gunman needs 18-20 feet of reactionary feet to raise and fire.

If the person is not an expert with a gun the reactionary time is much greater. This, along with the fact that body armor is not designed to stop an edge weapon, is why law enforcement officers who are confronted with an assailant with an edged weapon will often shoot to kill after one quick command to drop the knife. The optimum 21 feet is not a lot of distance as it can be covered in a second or less depending on the assailant. If confronted with an assailant armed with an edged weapon, then the person with the gun needs to have the decisive advantage in order to get the drop. Also an edged weapon can be anything that can cut, slice or puncture. I once worked a homicide where a person was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, neck and groin with a #2 pencil.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jun 14, 2010 04:03PM)
Anyone who wants examples of firearms being used defensively only needs to pick up a copy of any NRA magazine, wherein they reprint local news articles about regular people protecting themselves, their loved ones or their property with their own guns.

Look for the column called "The Armed Citizen."

Statistically, firearms are used more than two million times a year to prevent crimes of all sorts. Often the appearance of a defensive weapon keeps the crime from happening in the first place, and the criminal either runs away or gets his just desserts.

Freedom on the issue of self defense was so important to the Founders that they enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed (emphasis mine)."

Carrie
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jun 14, 2010 04:13PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 16:11, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Those who fight Monsters should be careful not to become Monsters themselves.

Armed or not.
[/quote]

Indeed...that's called having rights. But rights come with responsibilities.


Kevin
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 14, 2010 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 14:34, kcg5 wrote:
Lets talk about what just exactly "arms" are.
[/quote]
They're those fleshy things that dangle down from the shoulders.
Now,if we can quantify exactly what shoulders are,we're well on our way to a decent song.....Now hear the word of the Lord,Dem bones.Ad infinitum.
Ray.
Message: Posted by: thorndyke (Jun 14, 2010 04:41PM)
I have had more than enough experiences with edged weapons that I am always worried about them because they are far more prevalent than guns. In 23 years we have had one incident with a firearm and over 200 with knives and the like. If my co-workers and I were issued with side arms I doubt we would ever need to use them....but our carrying would cause a sharp decrease in edged weapon incidents.
Next year I hit the big 5-0, and I have done so without ever having taken a human life. It hasn't been all that hard so I don't see why anyone else is having such a hard time.
Message: Posted by: John Martin (Jun 14, 2010 06:59PM)
[quote]Freedom on the issue of self defense was so important to the Founders that they enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed (emphasis mine)." [/quote]

At LEAST get your quote right!!!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Very different meaning.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2010 07:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 16:11, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Those who fight Monsters should be careful not to become Monsters themselves.

Armed or not.
[/quote]

I like Nietzsche as much as the next guy, but those who fight monsters should be careful not to become corpses, too.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2010 07:26PM)
True that.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 14, 2010 07:48PM)
I'm sorry this turned into a gun or no gun argument. It was a terrible tragic event and those people were real. In 1949 the US had people who had guns and certainly knew how to use them so based on the post by the young lady such a thing should not have occured here (the US). Howard Unruh walked around Camden NJ and killed 13 people with, I think, about 14 or 15 shots. So much for the idea that having guns available did much good.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 14, 2010 07:49PM)
[quote]On 2010-06-14 20:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I like Nietzsche as much as the next guy, but those who fight monsters should be careful not to become corpses, too.[/quote]
[b][i]You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.[/i][/b]

[b]Carry On, Jeeves[/b] - [i]P.G. Wodehouse[/i]
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 14, 2010 07:59PM)
"At LEAST get your quote right!!!"

It says in the good book "And there will be a woman called Carrie and unto her is bequeathed the right to doeth whatever she likes with quotes. She may changeth words to make meanings clearer, or more explicit, or more to her liking."

Nostradamus said, "And from the land of big ponds and fading horseless carriage makers will come a maiden called Carrie. She will find trees bearing fruits called cherries, and she will pick them, but only some of them, and those she picks she will choose carefully, and those she chooses, she will hurl contemptuously at her enemies, but many will rebound."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 14, 2010 08:05PM)
Carrie, that is the womans name....
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 14, 2010 08:12PM)
It is the only name mentioned in the good book, Nostradamus and the US Constitution! It is a name which sweeps across the length and breadth of the human experience.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 14, 2010 08:19PM)
Has that innocent sound too...like Amber.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 14, 2010 11:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 17:03, Carrie Sue wrote:
Anyone who wants examples of firearms being used defensively only needs to pick up a copy of any NRA magazine, wherein they reprint local news articles about regular people protecting themselves, their loved ones or their property with their own guns.

Look for the column called "The Armed Citizen."

Statistically, firearms are used more than two million times a year to prevent crimes of all sorts. Often the appearance of a defensive weapon keeps the crime from happening in the first place, and the criminal
either runs away or gets his just desserts.

Freedom on the issue of self defense was so important to the Founders that they enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed (emphasis mine)."

Carrie
[/quote]. What would you expect from the NRA? Articles about missused guns? Guns not used? Civilians killed? And how many people are shot/killed because of guns yearly?

And let's get into arms. I know it's lameduck buy how about an m60? A missle? Nukes?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2010 11:54PM)
What you'd expect from the mainstream news media, on the other hand, would be both sides. Good luck with that.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 15, 2010 12:01AM)
I was thinking the same thing... they could call it Oops! and give stories of people who were accidentally shot or shot a pal on a hunting trip. It would be fun! Thinking about it I have never met anyone who used a gun for protection but a couple who shot themselves or others by accident. Oops!
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jun 15, 2010 10:53PM)
It'd definitely be a short column, since he accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year according to the CDC were down to 824 (1999).

That's the latest figures I have. If they've been rising in recent years, please set me straight.

Liberals always head straight for the extremes when the subject of the 2nd Amendment comes up. "I know it's lameduck (sic) buy (sic) how about an m60? A missle (sic)? Nukes?"

No one is advocating any of those things for home or personal defense. So come back to reality and debate the real issue.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 15, 2010 11:26PM)
Ok, how about machine guns? Home defense??? Hey, it's covered under the 2 amendment right?

And the guns deaths? The rate has fallen, and that means that more guns=less accidents?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 15, 2010 11:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-15 23:53, Carrie Sue wrote:
It'd definitely be a short column, since he (SIC!!!!) accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year according to the CDC were down to 824 (1999).


[/quote]

still, accidental gun deaths? How about shootings, murders?

What school shooting/protect leads to a accidental gun death?

And please Carrie, grammar/spelling Nazis are just the worst!!!!
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 15, 2010 11:41PM)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html



The arguement that more guns to protect yourself is insane. Cops are qualified, not people.

Oh forget it. I have to go to work.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 15, 2010 11:53PM)
As a well known liberal I will say that NRA leadership has said in years past that they felt that anyone should be able to purchase any weapon the military has.

Let us look at the CDC numbers from 2002 or that is what it says (you know us libs, we alter some things) and what I think.
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the US:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: This tells me one thing...gun owners ain't real mentally stable, quit shooting yourselves! It's messy.

11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Let's face it, some of 'em had it coming.

762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Oops! I say that will make a good article every month, some of 'em have to be funny.

and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Santa: There! Finally....that number is pretty low. Hmmm...seems that the need for a shooting for protection column is less needed than a shooting for accident.

Again remembering that I am such a hard corp liberal that I have an Al Gore tattoo made with organic ink, in fact I said no needles, I had 'em use bamboo shoots. The number you use for protection is skewed and don't make a lot of sense. I learned that most people who claimed to have went to Woodstock for the concert in 1969, you know, the real one, didn't go to the concert. There are more ex SEALs running around than there have ever been SEALs. And gun folks claim that they used guns to protect themselves even if they did not.

Sure if someone is attacking you then by all means use a gun if you have one and god bless you but the actual numbers of reported to police use of a gun for protection don't match up. Let's face it, virtually all violent crime is street crime and that means the use of a gun is out in public and would also mean it was concealed. Again, guns or yelling "get out of here ya liberals cuz I have a gun and will use it for other than suicide if need be!" doesn't really count now does it? Nor does the belief that if a gang doesn't beat down your door and rob you at gun point because they just 'know' you have a gun doesn't count either....except to those making claims they use guns for protection. The same can be said but from an opposite perspective for those who accidentally discharge a gun and didn't hit anyone. They are not likely to rat themselves out. So much for the numbers.

Hey, if you want to keep a gun in your house even with the knowledge that you are more likely to shoot yourself then go for it. Just practice a bit more, I mean in 1.5 supposed 'protection' events and you only shot 300 successfully? That is pretty bad.

In collecting some numbers I found a cute article about a cab driver who was in the NRA magazine column as protecting themself. Turns out she did shoot the robber and injured him, unloading her gun, a revolver. The robber then smacked her upside the head and took the gun, placed it to her neck, and pulled the trigger a number of times. Seems her shooting all her rounds is what saved her life because had there been a round in there she'd not have made the magazine.

Well, I'm off to drink tea and send out post cards made of hemp about global warming. Word.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 12:08AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 00:41, kcg5 wrote:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Cops are qualified, not people.

[/quote]

Is it your position that people who are qualified should be permitted have guns for self/home defense?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 12:26AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 00:53, MagicSanta wrote:
As a well known liberal I will say that NRA leadership has said in years past that they felt that anyone should be able to purchase any weapon the military has.

Let us look at the CDC numbers from 2002 or that is what it says (you know us libs, we alter some things) and what I think.
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the US:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: This tells me one thing...gun owners ain't real mentally stable, quit shooting yourselves! It's messy.

11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Let's face it, some of 'em had it coming.

762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Oops! I say that will make a good article every month, some of 'em have to be funny.

and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Santa: There! Finally....that number is pretty low. Hmmm...seems that the need for a shooting for protection column is less needed than a shooting for accident.

Again remembering that I am such a hard corp liberal that I have an Al Gore tattoo made with organic ink, in fact I said no needles, I had 'em use bamboo shoots. The number you use for protection is skewed and don't make a lot of sense. I learned that most people who claimed to have went to Woodstock for the concert in 1969, you know, the real one, didn't go to the concert. There are more ex SEALs running around than there have ever been SEALs. And gun folks claim that they used guns to protect themselves even if they did not.

Sure if someone is attacking you then by all means use a gun if you have one and god bless you but the actual numbers of reported to police use of a gun for protection don't match up. Let's face it, virtually all violent crime is street crime and that means the use of a gun is out in public and would also mean it was concealed. Again, guns or yelling "get out of here ya liberals cuz I have a gun and will use it for other than suicide if need be!" doesn't really count now does it? Nor does the belief that if a gang doesn't beat down your door and rob you at gun point because they just 'know' you have a gun doesn't count either....except to those making claims they use guns for protection. The same can be said but from an opposite perspective for those who accidentally discharge a gun and didn't hit anyone. They are not likely to rat themselves out. So much for the numbers.

Hey, if you want to keep a gun in your house even with the knowledge that you are more likely to shoot yourself then go for it. Just practice a bit more, I mean in 1.5 supposed 'protection' events and you only shot 300 successfully? That is pretty bad.

In collecting some numbers I found a cute article about a cab driver who was in the NRA magazine column as protecting themself. Turns out she did shoot the robber and injured him, unloading her gun, a revolver. The robber then smacked her upside the head and took the gun, placed it to her neck, and pulled the trigger a number of times. Seems her shooting all her rounds is what saved her life because had there been a round in there she'd not have made the magazine.

Well, I'm off to drink tea and send out post cards made of hemp about global warming. Word.
[/quote]

Citing the number of suicides doesn't seem to prove much of a point either way. If someone has decided to take his or her own life, he or she will choose a means, and if one means is unavailable, another will be chosen. Well over 10,000 people commit suicide without guns; should we similarly question the mental stability of non-gun-owners? Or should we eliminate all guns from society, then when people start sticking their heads in ovens to commit suicide, should we question the mental stability of oven owners and bad them (the ovens, not the owners), too?

I'm not sure about your source; lethal self defense and defense of others IS homicide. Legal intervention, etc. - those are homicides. So I'd say you're right - some of them DO have it coming. If a police officer shoots and kills someone to prevent a crime, that's homicide. I'm curious as to why it's treated as a separate category.

762 accident shootings...well, I guess a 400,000-1 chance of being killed is the price you pay for a Second Amendment. The Constitution doesn't guarantee that anyone has a right to a car; if we want a safer, accident-free society, we could discuss the tens of thousands of people who die in the USA each year in auto accidents; the car death toll in a week approximates the gun death toll in a year.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 12:28AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 16:51, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
(though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun). [/quote]

Not to be picky but the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bit skewed. Technically, a knife or any edge weapon could be the better weapon of choice in a gun vs knife confrontation.

Experts in the art of shooting, an not just someone who scores in the upper 97% on a qualification range, have proven that when confronted with an assailant with a knife, it takes approximately 15 feet of reactionary distance for an expert to draw his side arm and get a shot off should that person armed with the edge weapon attack.

Should that person with the edged weapon be a person accustomed to using an edge weapon, i.e. someone from a knife culture like Mexico, South or Central America or the Far East then the dude with the gun needs 21 feet of reactionary time to clear leather and get the shot off.

Should the guy with the gun aleady have his gun drawn and the assailant attacks, the gunman needs 18-20 feet of reactionary feet to raise and fire.

If the person is not an expert with a gun the reactionary time is much greater. This, along with the fact that body armor is not designed to stop an edge weapon, is why law enforcement officers who are confronted with an assailant with an edged weapon will often shoot to kill after one quick command to drop the knife. The optimum 21 feet is not a lot of distance as it can be covered in a second or less depending on the assailant. If confronted with an assailant armed with an edged weapon, then the person with the gun needs to have the decisive advantage in order to get the drop. Also an edged weapon can be anything that can cut, slice or puncture. I once worked a homicide where a person was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, neck and groin with a #2 pencil.

Peace and Godspeed
[/quote]

Thanks Dread...interesting and illuminating.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 16, 2010 12:45AM)
I just cut and pasted the data from the CDC, I didn't like it to be honest with you. It proves what they say, statics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.

My response was mostly due to my dislike of using skewed numbers, which they are. As for the suicides they really should be more considerate and, say, hang themselves. Less mess to clean up. I think they use the term homicide to indicate a death that was criminal while they put the accidental into its own catagory and then there are those they were not sure what the heck went on.

As I said, own guns if you like, doesn't bother me. Just cut it with the stupid numbers. One last thing Dread, I could not find a single event where someone threw knives at themselves in order to commit suicide so they are more sound it seems.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 16, 2010 01:14AM)
I believe the Port Arthur massacre here in Australia when Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured another 21 is the worst single gunman rampage of the 20th century. At the time just about anyone could have a gun. After that the Australian government with bipartisan support, brought in strict regulation and did a buyback. As we were mostly not as enamoured of weapons as the citizens of the US, this was affordable. There were the odd crazies who buried guns in PVC pipes against the day we needed to protect ourselves against a crazed dictatorship, but again, very few Australians have such extreme fears.

Guns can now only be owned by people who have good reason to possess them, farmers, sportspersons, collectors etc. These people must be approved and checks are run to ensure they have good mental health and no criminal record. The weapons, when not in use, must be stored securely and there are substantial penalties if they are not. We never had a high murder rate to start with, but it's gone down. Also I have read suicides have declined. People who really want to kill themselves will - but some will think twice if there is some time intervention. A readily available gun means a very fast exit. Hanging, jumping off cliffs, running a tube from the exhaust pipe of the car into the car etc all require a deal of preparation and time to think.

I read yesterday of an 84 year old man in Sydney who lives opposite an iconic suicide spot at the entrance to Sydney Harbour - over the years government records show he has saved the lives of at least 160 would be jumpers. His secret method - he wanders over the road and asks them if they would like to come and have a cup of tea!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 16, 2010 01:38AM)
Destiny, it sounds like the current gun regulation in Germany is similar to Germany's.

Everyone note that rampages occur regularly in Germany (though admittedly not as regularly as in the US), in spite of those regulations.

Regarding Dread's post: to murder a family a good knife or hatchet might be sufficient. But to go on a rampage in a school or a shopping mall a semi-automatic gun is probably more efficient, don't you think?
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jun 16, 2010 08:29AM)
Good point, Stone.

Criminals know where the defenseless people are, so that's where they go when they want to cause the most damage. You don't ever hear of a crazed gunman shooting up a gun show, or even a police station.

Regular people can be just as qualified to defend themselves and others as a police officer, and if a criminal doesn't know whether or not his targets might be armed, he will -- WILL -- think more than once about doing the dirty deed.

Period.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 16, 2010 10:18AM)
[quote]On 2010-06-16 02:38, stoneunhinged wrote:
Destiny, it sounds like the current gun regulation in Germany is similar to Germany's.[/quote]
I'm guessing that they're identical.

;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 16, 2010 10:29AM)
HA!

A tautology a day keeps the ego at bay.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 16, 2010 10:41AM)
San Jose California around 1998ish a drunk driving suspect took a gun off an officer in the police station and shot and killed him. There Carrie, you now have heard of a shooting in a police station. Doesn't have anything to do with the points made but still it has happened...
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 16, 2010 10:56AM)
"Regular people can be just as qualified to defend themselves and others as a police officer, and if a criminal doesn't know whether or not his targets might be armed, he will -- WILL -- think more than once about doing the dirty deed."

Why then does Australia, where the criminals can know fairly certainly that we are not armed, have so many less murders and attempted murders per capita than the US? We should be at constant risk of attack by your reasoning.

We also cannot possess tasers or capsicum spray and their ilk. We have to worry about criminals breaking into our homes with water pistols and getting us all wet.

Unfortunately I doubt there is a solution for the US. It is obvious the opponents of any form of gun control are too powerful a lobby to be overcome - and there are so many weapons already in circulation it would take enormous time, effort and money to effect any effective level of control.

By the way, Carrie - do you get your insight into the criminal mind from some factual source - or are you relying on your own legendary powers of perception?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 11:56, Destiny wrote:
By the way, Carrie - do you get your insight into the criminal mind from some factual source - or are you relying on your own legendary powers of perception?
[/quote]

We can all be legends...let's play the hypothetical game. Say you're chosen profession is armed robbery, and you live on the border of two states. In one of those states, there are very permissive concealed carry laws, and 1 in 2 residents is armed. In the other, they have very strict gun laws, and nobody other than police officers owns a gun. You're going to work tonight. You don't want to be too close to home, so you're going to drive 50 miles deep into either state A or state B for your armed robbery. Seriously now...with a straight face...which way are you going?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 16, 2010 11:49AM)
To the house where there are injured family members due to gun accidents?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 16, 2010 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 01:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 16:51, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-06-14 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
(though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun). [/quote]

Not to be picky but the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bit skewed. Technically, a knife or any edge weapon could be the better weapon of choice in a gun vs knife confrontation.

Experts in the art of shooting, an not just someone who scores in the upper 97% on a qualification range, have proven that when confronted with an assailant with a knife, it takes approximately 15 feet of reactionary distance for an expert to draw his side arm and get a shot off should that person armed with the edge weapon attack.

Should that person with the edged weapon be a person accustomed to using an edge weapon, i.e. someone from a knife culture like Mexico, South or Central America or the Far East then the dude with the gun needs 21 feet of reactionary time to clear leather and get the shot off.

Should the guy with the gun aleady have his gun drawn and the assailant attacks, the gunman needs 18-20 feet of reactionary feet to raise and fire.

If the person is not an expert with a gun the reactionary time is much greater. This, along with the fact that body armor is not designed to stop an edge weapon, is why law enforcement officers who are confronted with an assailant with an edged weapon will often shoot to kill after one quick command to drop the knife. The optimum 21 feet is not a lot of distance as it can be covered in a second or less depending on the assailant. If confronted with an assailant armed with an edged weapon, then the person with the gun needs to have the decisive advantage in order to get the drop. Also an edged weapon can be anything that can cut, slice or puncture. I once worked a homicide where a person was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, neck and groin with a #2 pencil.

Peace and Godspeed
[/quote]

Thanks Dread...interesting and illuminating.
[/quote]

Planning, Lobo. It's in the planning. Know your home like the back of your hand. Every home pretty much has a choke point, ie top of the stairs, end of a hall. That's where you keep the gun. Close quarter combat... screw the pistol... grab the Mossberg 500, 12 gauge, 18" barrel, modified choke, double 00 buck. Lock n load brother.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 16, 2010 12:50PM)
They don't listen to us libs Landmark. Seems per the police most people who use guns for protection do so with people they knew.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 16, 2010 01:21PM)
Yup Stone. Guns are more efficient. However, the difference between someone who really knows what to do with one vs. someone who just points and shoots is astronomical.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 01:24PM)
The shotgun doesn't fit under my pillow.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 16, 2010 01:24PM)
As for personal protection, the best protection is not placing oneself in the position where having to use a gun is necessary. It's called staying alert. Be careful of your surroundings, keep proper distance between you and the car in front of you. Do not go jogging or walking with the IPOD headphones rammed into your ear (I'm guilty of that one at times). Have the exterior doors on your house open out rather than in and have sufficient lighting outside your home.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2010 01:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 14:24, Dreadnought wrote:
Be careful of your surroundings, keep proper distance between you and the car in front of you.


[/quote]

And when the guy in the next lane cuts you off, don't give him the finger; take a deep breath or two.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 16, 2010 01:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 14:24, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The shotgun doesn't fit under my pillow.
[/quote]

Then you need a bullpup version :yikes:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 16, 2010 05:55PM)
Here is an opening to a news article I found today which explains why gun control may be good in Germany:

BERLIN (Reuters) – A German student created a major traffic jam in Bavaria after making a rude gesture at a group of Hell's Angels motorcycle gang members, hurling a puppy at them and then escaping on a stolen bulldozer.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 16, 2010 06:52PM)
OMG. Santa I was about to award you the coveted "Freakin Cleverest Post in Magic Café History" Award but just be sure I googled and danged if it aint [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E39Q20100615]true[/url]!

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 16, 2010 07:18PM)
Dang right it is true....best opening to an article ever.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Jun 16, 2010 10:52PM)
I'd like to imagine the Hell's Angels looking down at the spent puppy-missile, then at each other muttering "That just ain't right" - or the German equivalent.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2010 10:26AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-16 11:41, MagicSanta wrote:
San Jose California around 1998ish a drunk driving suspect took a gun off an officer in the police station and shot and killed him. There Carrie, you now have heard of a shooting in a police station. Doesn't have anything to do with the points made but still it has happened...
[/quote]

This one too

Officer slain in Virginia police station shooting

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/08/virginia.shooting/index.html

So another Carrie hypothesis bites the dust
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2010 11:00AM)
Why? Doesn’t the exception prove the rule any more?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 18, 2010 11:16AM)
[quote]On 2010-06-18 12:00, tommy wrote:
Doesn’t the exception prove the rule any more?[/quote]
Yes, but it's "prove" in the sense of "test", as in the phrase, "proving ground".
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 18, 2010 02:21PM)
Tommy, while you are generally correct it was a response to the word never.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2010 01:45PM)
The key to freedom is the ability to defend yourself against those in power.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 19, 2010 05:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-19 14:45, tommy wrote:
The key to freedom is the ability to defend yourself against those in power.
[/quote]

Well said.

:online:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2010 07:28PM)
Knives aganist guns in home invasion.

Lets see now. I own a gun for protection and I hear someone downstairs while my children and wife are upstairs with me. I know where they are. I do not put my gun in a holster and walk downstairs to get to that 15 to 20 feet before I present my weapon to make it a fair fight with the guy with the knife. If anyone here is familiar with home defense weapons you have to know that a shotgun is "just about" the ultimate weapon. Quite honestly if you announce that you have a shotgun and rack the slide it is enough to scare off most intruders unles they are on drugs in that case all bets are off you are probably going to have to shoot him. Again however you do not wait until he appears before you arm yourself. When he appears (you have visual contact) and he poses a threat (a knife, a gun, a club, or begins to close the distance between you and him). You shoot him.

The examples of shooting in police stations are positivley ridiculous and I cannot even imagine you posted then as an example to try and prove a point.

Get it through your head..criminals prey on the weak and defenseless, it is much easier and safer for them. However remember that when using a firearm... your life and or family or other people must be in jeopardy of extreme bodily harm or death. God forbid this situation occurs. If it does use deadly force to defend yourself whether it be with a gun or that number 2 pencil. There is no silver medal in these instances. The only winner is the survivor and for your sake I hope it is you and you are prepared if and when it occurs. Just pray it doesn't.

One last thing. Know your firearm. Shoot it and maintain it. If and when needed it will serve you as nothing else can. If you are in fear or firearms by no means acquire one. They are not to be feared. However they demand respect in their treatment and use. Firearms are only a tool or in many cases a piece of sporting equipment whether it be for hunting or target shooting, and yes last but not least self defense.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 20, 2010 02:27PM)
We can get most of that from Dread, AND FIREARMS ARE TO BE FEARED!!!!!!!!








if not, what is to fear
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 20, 2010 03:48PM)
The shooting in police stations proves nothing except that Carrie was wrong to say no one 'never' shoots in a police station. In San Jose the detective was at fault for entering the area the cuffs were on the guy with his gun rather than locking it up.

I still say most people who say they used a gun for protection are full of it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2010 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-20 15:27, kcg5 wrote:
We can get most of that from Dread, AND FIREARMS ARE TO BE FEARED!!!!!!!!








if not, what is to fear
[/quote]

Read my post. Firearms are not to be feared. Did I studder. If you are afraid of them do not acquire one then you should not fear it.

If you fear a double lift do not do it. If you fear a firearm stay away from them. Sounds like a no brainer. Unless you are now going to tell other people not to own one because you fear them. That is a different matter altogether when you begin to tell other people what they can and cannot own.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2010 09:10PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-20 16:48, MagicSanta wrote:
The shooting in police stations proves nothing except that Carrie was wrong to say no one 'never' shoots in a police station. In San Jose the detective was at fault for entering the area the cuffs were on the guy with his gun rather than locking it up.

I still say most people who say they used a gun for protection are full of it.
[/quote]

Just curious. What do you use for protection? Or are you of the opinion you do not need protection? And please do not say condoms.

By the way are the shootings at the said police stations the only ones you could find? If so It sure seems that her statement while not to be taken at face value seems to hold true and I would say that a police station is probably one of the safest places to be if you do not want to be shot. Would you agree?

If I was to make a wager I would say that tonight someone will be shot by a burgular or drug addict in their home and I would wager that no shootings will occur in a police station this week. I also would wager that no burgulars will try and rob a police station tonight mainly because they know that the police are armed.

Hate to be trite hee but it sure holds true saying this:

Better to have and know how to use a firearm and not need it than need it and not have it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 20, 2010 09:37PM)
First you misread my post. I said that most people who say they USED a gun for protection not that those who have guns for protection are full of it.

Now to answer your question... I am street smart. I pay attention, I walk with confidence even with my cane when needed, I avoid situations that look like a problem. In my house I have a club in two locations but that is specifically for my old neighbor who is gone now...he was in need of a clubbing. Do I worry about a home invasion? Not at all. I do not do or sell drugs nor am I of a culture that members of said culture would likely have money in large sums in the house. I also do not associate with people who are scumbags who might be in the house visiting and drinking.

Here are some interesting tidbits. Most violent crime occurs on the street where people are not likely to be carrying a gun, in fact I believe it is 90%. Since only the paranoid and hard corp gunnies carry (other than those with a license to carry and most of them are at home hiding) that means the majority of the protection gun shootings take place in the home. In fact the study that many love to point at as there being 1.5 million events states that most people shot during a self defense situation are relatives and friends who got out of line at someones house. At least that is what they tell the cops! The 1.5 million events also includes, per the author of the study, people who yell into the darkness "get out of yar! I'ze gotsme a gun!" and then the invisible attackers silently sneak off without being seen...but by golly that feller protected his self and his family!

As I've always said, I don't care if you have a gun, I don't care if you shoot your friend The Duke because he spilled a beer on your couch, just do it and knock off the BS. It is like deer hunting, virtually everyone does it cuz they like to hunt and more power to 'em, just stop with the "I'z need meat fer my family! So what if my trip cost a total of $27 a pound!". That and I wear a condom.

I actually didn't look up anything about police shootings. I am from the bay area and it was in the news paper and news because the detective was killed, as was the shooter, and that stuff tends to make the papers. I'm fully aware it is a rare event but it does happen.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2010 10:03PM)
Well I havea to agree with you ..Crap Happens.

I have been shooting since I am 10 years old. So that means I have been shooting for 57 years and been around individuals who have been shooting and I can say that in all those years there has not been one accidental discharge of a firearm much less a wounding or killing (this does not take into account Nam, I have been around several accidental discharged firearms in Nam) Also unfortunately I have seen and been around friendly fire accidents in Nam. I am talking about civilans and firearms in the United States at target ranges both indoors and outdoors and several lodges and cabins. I do not feel that this is luck but rather responsible handling and knowledge of firearms by those individuals.

There are a few rules that one must keep in mind when around firearms. First. All firearms are loaded. Second Do not poiint your firearm at something unless you intend to destroy it or punch a hole in it.

I am not afraid to be with individuals who know how to handle firearms, but give an individual a firearm that is afraid of them and you are inviting an accident. That is what I mean when I say do not fear firearms. Know how to handle them and as I stated before they can do what nothing else can in a self defense situation be it in your home or in the street and that is neturalize a situation at a distance if handled correctly.

Have to agree with magicsanta street smarts are vital. More so if you have a firearm in your posession.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 20, 2010 10:29PM)
I was hurt very badly in a shooting incident. I don't like discussing this. I was on the shooting range in the Navy and there was a SEAL (this was Vietnam nutty SEAL time) running the place. My weapon jammed so I said to the SEAL "Gunny, my weapon is jammed". He didn't hear me and was looking at me and I raised the weapon to show him. That was all I remember until I woke up and my face hurt.

(This same SEAL tried to shove a drunk into a wall locker and dang near got him into it before he was pulled off...that guy was scary)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2010 10:57PM)
Well it all depends as to how you presented your jammed weapon. If you pointed it at him you got less than you deserved. However if you simply held it up in a netural position you got one of those "nutty seals" for sure.

With the additional story about the stuffing of the guy in the locker I tend to believe you got a "nuty seal".
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 20, 2010 11:14PM)
I pointed at him.

The seal was nuts. He would jump in and out of windows and off the second floor. The drunk guy who was shoved in the locker cuz he decided he didn't need to visit the head to take care of business. To this day it was the single most facinating beating I ever saw, gunny wasn't letting skin or nothing keep him from inserting that guy into the locker...the best part was the drunk was charged for the offense! Loved it.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 21, 2010 12:01AM)
Well, I am familiar with guns, have shot all types and have seen what they can do although never to a person or animal). They shoot bullets, bullets kill. Guns are to be feared.

Did I stutter is a dead phrase
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 21, 2010 12:05AM)
"Did I stutter" will never die, as it appeared in The Breakfast Club, which is immortal.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 21, 2010 07:36AM)
If guns are such wonderful protection against attack, why per capita, are so many more potentially armed Americans subject to violent assault, than the almost definitely unarmed Australians?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 21, 2010 08:15AM)
Let's ban Mosquitoes!

Malaria and dengue fever kill more people than guns.

:online:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2010 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-21 08:36, Destiny wrote:
If guns are such wonderful protection against attack, why per capita, are so many more potentially armed Americans subject to violent assault, than the almost definitely unarmed Australians?
[/quote]

I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense.

My response is because they live in America. Maybe it is because of big cities and the vast difference in economic levels of population. Maybe it is the attitude of people here in America as many believe they have the right to have what more afflunet people have without working for it. Maybe it is the water we drink or the air we breathe. I don't know and neither do you. I do know that people from all over the world want to come here to live (not everyone but many more than any other country). I would also assume that many of the crimes commited with a gun are commited by a person who does not legally own it.

Also in answer to your above question I would assume that most assaults are to individuals that are not likely to have a firearm whether they are livinig in Austrila or America. Most 80 year old women do not carry firerms. Most young women do not carry firearms. Again remember the criminal preys on the weak and defenseless and not those that are likely carrying a firearm.

It is ones choice to carry firearm or not. Obviously you choose not too. Perhaps because it is very difficult to carry legally in your country or you are one of those people who fear guns and would probably harm yourself with one if you had one. Or you truly believe that owning a firearm will not help you in a home invasion or assault in the street. With owning and carrying a firearm comes awesome responsibility. You must learn how to use it, learn how to maintain it and learn how to discharge it when necessary.

This topic can go on endlessly and neither you nor I are going to change are position on it. It is a very volitle topic that obviously has arguements for both sides. I choose to arm myself legally and know my firearm and you don't. So be it.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 21, 2010 09:24AM)
Acesover - I agree with much of your answer - "I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense." That particular sentence has particular resonance - I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. Sometimes here I do feel compelled to google before stating something I generally feel to be true, because I know it will be challenged by someone demanding statistics and evidence.

I think a lot of the problem with guns in the US is chicken and egg stuff and to me it is simple logic that more guns in circulation will lead to more gun crime. Santa makes a good point that more people use guns against loved ones than against criminals. But I also think the genie is out of the bottle - there are far too many guns in circulation for any control to be effective.

Luckily for us in Australia the vast bulk of the population is in agreement that we don't want anyone 'carrying' but law enforcement, and that we do not want anyone but mentally stable people with no criminal history, and even then only those with very good reason, to possess weapons. Kids cannot come across the weapons and accidentally shoot themselves or friends, because the weapons must be securely stored when not in legal use. It works for us - but then we have a smaller population and fewer people possessed weapons when the decision was made to effect stricter control. The control has bipartisan support and our constitution contains no provision guaranteeing the right of citizens to be armed. I can't think of many places I would be afraid to go in Australia because I am not allowed to carry a gun.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jun 21, 2010 09:28AM)
"Let's ban Mosquitoes!

Malaria and dengue fever kill more people than guns."

Pakar, we don't have much problem with Malaria here but Dengue is a regular issue and Cairns, where I live, is an important centre for research into Dengue and the Egyptai Mosquito which carries it. Some very good progress has been made recently.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 21, 2010 09:34AM)
If you had guns you could shoot the mossies!
Everybody would be happy.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 21, 2010 02:22PM)
Yes! Let's kill them ALL! :angry:

Mosquitoes I mean...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 21, 2010 04:27PM)
Sorry, if you murder misquitoes that would mean other insects, fish, and birds that eat misquitos would die. Then the insects, fish, and birds, and mammals that eat those would not have access to them and so forth. As an enviro I must say it is better those humanoids, which ruin the universe, die instead.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 21, 2010 04:58PM)
Ok then, let's just kill some of them...

Mosquitoes of course...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 21, 2010 05:10PM)
Sorry, skeeters, and lets call them skeeters out of respect, have not caused global warming thus they deserve to live.

The reason on one cares about guns in Australia is cuz they wrestle crocs and you don't mess with a guy who wrestles crocs.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 21, 2010 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-21 09:32, acesover wrote:

I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense.
[/quote]
"Googling" may not be the best thing to do, because many sources on the web cannot be trusted, but doing serious research into a subject before forming an opinion is surely a good thing.

Opinions are not created equal, and informed opinions are of more value than uninformed opinions. And common sense is anything but common. What many people consider obvious on the basis of common sense isn't, because their own common sense is lacking.

Note, I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other about the Australian (or likewise the Canadian, British, etc.) situation. But there are facts available out there, and opinions people have formed using those facts shouldn't be dismissed or denigrated because they are informed opinions.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2010 06:47PM)
And who may I ask is going to give this good info you speak of? The Government perhaps? The Government are the biggest liars and propagandists on earth. They are mind control experts. Yet people say look these are the official government figure and they say this and that as if what they say must be true. Oh yeh right! Informed opinions?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 21, 2010 09:22PM)
[quote]Sorry, if you murder misquitoes that would mean other insects, fish, and birds that eat misquitos would die. Then the insects, fish, and birds, and mammals that eat those would not have access to them and so forth. As an enviro I must say it is better those humanoids, which ruin the universe, die instead. [/quote]

After the misinformation in Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," spread like wildfire, DDT was banned nearly worldwide. In the intervening years, it has been estimated that as many as 100,000,000 people (at least half of them children) died miserably and unnecessarily from malaria, which DDT would have prevented.

Is that what you had in mind?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jun 21, 2010 09:36PM)
Silent Spring from wikipedia:

"The book argued that uncontrolled and unexamined pesticide use was harming and even killing not only animals and birds, but also humans. Its title was meant to evoke a spring season in which no bird songs could be heard, because they had all vanished as a result of pesticide abuse. Its title was inspired by a poem by John Keats, "La Belle Dame sans Merci", which contained the lines "The sedge is wither'd from the lake, And no birds sing."[12]

Support

History professor Gary Kroll commented, "Rachel Carson's Silent Spring played a large role in articulating ecology as a 'subversive subject'— as a perspective that cut against the grain of materialism, scientism, and the technologically engineered control of nature."[13]

According to Time magazine in 1999, within a year or so of its publication, "all but the most self-serving of Carson's attackers were backing rapidly toward safer ground. In their ugly campaign to reduce a brave scientist's protest to a matter of public relations, the chemical interests had only increased public awareness."

Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem. However, some critics asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides.[14]

In response to the publication of Silent Spring and the uproar that ensued, U.S. President John F. Kennedy directed his Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson's claims. Their investigation vindicated Carson's work, and led to an immediate strengthening of the regulation of chemical pesticides.[15][16]

Criticism

Even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962, there was strong opposition to it. According to Time in 1999:

Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto Company, Velsicol, American Cyanamid — indeed, the whole chemical industry — duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.[17]

In the 1960s, biochemist and former chemical industry spokesman Robert White-Stevens stated, "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth."[18]

Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring. In a 2005 essay, "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", British politician Dick Taverne was ***ing in his criticism of Carson:

Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...) It is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life (...) Rachel Carson is a warning to us all of the dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach and the need to weight potential risk against benefit: it can be argued that the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century.[19]

However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial use,[20] and Carson argued in Silent Spring that:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields contributed to the selection of DDT-resistant mosquito populations. This threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.[21]

In the 2000s, Carson and Silent Spring have come under increasing attack from authors who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused needless death, and more generally that environmental regulation unnecessarily restricts economic freedom.[22][23] For example, the conservative magazine, Human Events, gave Silent Spring an "honorable mention" in its list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries,"[24] and in 2002, to mark its 40 anniversary, Reason magazine published an essay by economist Ronald Bailey, a former fellow with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.[25] Bailey argued that the book had a mixed legacy:

The book did point to problems that had not been adequately addressed, such as the effects of DDT on some wildlife. And given the state of the science at the time she wrote, one might even make the case that Carson's concerns about the effects of synthetic chemicals on human health were not completely unwarranted. Along with other researchers, she was simply ignorant of the facts. But after four decades in which tens of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing imaginary risks without measurably improving American health, her intellectual descendants don't have the same excuse.[26]

Some environmentalists consider this latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT to be an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement.[27][28][29][30] For example, Monica Moore of Pesticide Action Network has argued that "Renewed promotion of DDT and attacks on those who would limit its use isn’t about malaria, or even DDT. It is a cynical 'better living through chemistry' campaign intended to discredit the environmental health movement, with support from the Bush administration and others who seek nothing less than the dismantling of health and environmental protections."[31]."

I think the attacks on Rachel Carson are the result of a misinformation campaign from the multi-national corporations. It is the same type of fake science and manipulated data sponsered by the tobacco companies, and later the energy industries, and others who are trying to prevent governments from protecting people and the environment from the excesses of their predations. I am always surprised how easily bad science can be swallowed by those who distrust their own government more than the titans who are willing to destroy lives for the sake of profit.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 21, 2010 09:38PM)
Exactly Woland! That is 100,000,000 people that would have grown up to light fires to cook with and caused pollution. They they would have breeded and then we'd have had 700,000,000 more people on the planet...that is just wrong. Thank you for proving my point Woland. Remember, enviromentalism means people pruning. I'll have you know I went to Rachel Carson Elementary in San Jose, Ca. for a couple years.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2010 10:59PM)
WOW! Go back to the original post and read it. OK.. myself included...do you think this thread drifted off topic?

Got to love the internet and The Café.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2010 11:09PM)
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.


Read his book; Ecocience.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Beats me why any people would even think the governments or their scienists would want to save any lives?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 21, 2010 11:58PM)
DDT is good stuff. When people say this I cringe. I am from South Louisiana along what was once considered the petrochemical corridor, a span of some 90 or so miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where the biggest concentration of petroleum and chemical plants in the United States is found producing chemicals that are extremely dangerous, like chlorine and caustic soda. I've worked summers at Dow Chemical and off shore as an electrician's helper and I have been chlorinated and it isn't a pleasant feeling when the oxygen is rapidly depleted and your mouth, nose, throat and lungs start to burn. Gas driven vehicles cease running because the O2 is gone. And then there is the rapid corrosion of metal that is ever present even when the stuff is contained.

Since the mid 1980's this area has been know as Cancer Alley because along with the largest concentration of Petro-Chemical facilities in the U.S. is also found one of the highest cancer death rates. My father, an operator at Dow Chemical, one of Dow's largest facilities in the U.S., is a cancer victim.

The Louisiana facility produced agent orange in the 60's as well as napalm. Ciba-Geigy and Monsanto, also in the corridor, were producers of DDT. These chemicals along with many others have contributed to the high cancer rate. So,in my opinion, if a person thinks DDT is such a great thing then they are clearly mis-informed.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 22, 2010 12:19AM)
[quote]On 2010-06-22 00:58, Dreadnought wrote:
Gas driven vehicles cease running because the O2 is gone.[/quote]
This is interesting. Most combustible materials - e.g., gasoline - do not need O2 to burn; they do need an oxidizing agent. Nitrous oxide (N2O), for example, is an excellent oxidizing agent, and gasoline burns quite well in N2O. Similarly, chlorine is an excellent oxidizing agent; indeed, acetylene burns spontaneously when it contacts chlorine gas (with a bright green flame).

I'd think that gasoline would burn well in chlorine.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 22, 2010 01:01AM)
Doesn't though. Everything spits sputters and stops. Man lifts require the use of the electrical backup system to operate.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 22, 2010 12:59PM)
That’s a strange coincidence. I have never heard of any of that stuff or this before but I happened to be listening to this fellow just going on about his miracle cure for everything. I am sure his stuff could fix the cars up. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPgRrlqsTII
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jun 23, 2010 10:18AM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-21 01:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
"Did I stutter" will never die, as it appeared in The Breakfast Club, which is immortal.
[/quote]

I have to give that to you lobo. Great film

I have
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 23, 2010 03:16PM)
12 Killed in UK gun rampage.

:(
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 23, 2010 04:10PM)
And if the shooter died of malaria it wouldn't have happened, see the connection?