Gunman kills 13 in New York siege
Rob Henderson
Banned
Did I say anything CLOSE to that? I said that you're only one person. I never said anything about you not having any idea what you're talking about... I said that one person's experience is NOT enough to be conclusive. One cop in one city isn't going to be indicative of the entire United States.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I would explain it as a very dodgy story as I can name vast numbers of towns in various countries (because believe it or not the "free world" extends beyond the borders of the USA) where no one is armed and no one has been shot which would indicate that there are other factors involved such as economic stability, employment etc. etc.
perseus
Active member
Like this? There are a lot of other mitigating factors such as security of firearms, population density, glorification/culture of firearms. Of course this probably relates only to legal arms. It seems that New Zealand are doing something else right that Belgium isn't. Moreover the US performs poorly even allowing for firearm numbers, perhaps it is no coincidence that we have a string political gun lobby in the US.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
That is the first time I have seen the data presented like that and it is interesting because it makes me wonder about handguns, here it is almost impossible for your average Joe to buy a handgun legally but things like shotguns and rifles are a dime a dozen.
senojekips
Active member
Rob, I don't know how you have missed it but, "Everyone here is only one person" I never saw where any person said otherwise.
If you cared to take off your blinkers, I think you'll find that 03USMC was perhaps indicating that as a LEO he sees the problem a lot closer and a lot more often than you ever will, and therefore his opinion is a lot better informed than your own,... unless of course at some time in the future you become a victim yourself.
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
The problem with this so called UN study, is that it lumps together legal self defence with a legal firearm, turf and/or drug wars and other crimes committed with illegal firearms, neither does it show gun crime using illegal firearms in South Africa, so in reality its seriously flawed
According to another UN so called study it shows:-
South Africa 64.64 gun deaths per 100,000 persons
USA 8.95 gun deaths per 100,000 persons
7 times more firearm deaths in South Africa then the USA
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html
If you really want to see the effect of gun control in South Africa, I have official South African police murder scene photographs. They are too graphic and horrendous to post, however, if you wish to see them, and have a strong stomach, send me a PM with your email address and I will send them to you. Warning, they aint pretty.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Those figures match Perseus's figures but lack the "firearms per household" figure which I actually believe is important because it indicates the actual level of state control on firearms.
However the only thing that lowers the USA down the list in the figures you have supplied is the inclusion of dodgy third world nations and countries with minor rebellions and terrorist activity.
However the only thing that lowers the USA down the list in the figures you have supplied is the inclusion of dodgy third world nations and countries with minor rebellions and terrorist activity.
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
South Africa wasnt regarded as a "dodgy 3rd world nation," yet has the second worse murder rate on the planet, the 1st being Columbia if my memory is correct. Neither included in my list is Switzerland, which has among the lowest gun crime in the world, yet has a military firearm in nearly every home.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
I too would like to address the graph.
Before anyone jumps, know that I understand that gun violence is lower in areas where guns are not present - that's simple common sense. Take away guns, and gun violence goes away to a large degree. Only the criminal fringe elements will procure and use them from other, illegal sources.
But this is where the mindset changes.
Crime doesn't stop. Yes, violent crime diminishes to a degree. But crime itself still happens. People still get assaulted and mugged, homes and businesses are still invaded, thefts still occur.
There are people in this world, myself included, that still consider these otherwise nonviolent crimes... crimes. And we want an ability to stop them - to not be a victim. I realize that to some here -- probably many here -- the idea of taking a life in defense of something as tangible and replaceable as money or property is absurd. Even cruel and hateful.
Perhaps it is. To kill over property is, to a large extent, abhorrent to many. My fellow Christians likely condemn me for the willing attitude to do so. They, like many of you, view it as an unfair disparity of force: if someone mugs me on the street and they are unarmed, I am legally and morally obligated to refrain from shooting them.
Some of us do not see it this way. Once you've violated my person or anyone under my protection, I am fully within my rights to use whatever level of force I deem necessary to end the threat. That protection includes innocents I may not know - you can bet your bottom dollar that if I witnessed a man raping a woman I would end his life without a moment's hesitation, accepting my legal ramifications as stipulated by the law. I would not chance the perpetrator overcoming my actions to stop him, ending my threat to him, wherein he can continue his deviant behavior.
It is this attitude that must be prevalent if you truly want to end crime.
If a criminal knows that he has a good chance of being shot if he carries out a crime, no matter the crime itself... if he knows that he will be afforded no protection from the very system he chose to violate... then crime will cease.
For all the feel-good tactics, only the fear expressed in bold above will stop a man intent on violating you. From taking what is rightfully yours, be it money, property, or your own life, happiness or peace.
If he knows that you cannot, by law, defend yourself or your property with a higher level of force than he intends to use, he will exploit that and make you a victim for his own gain.
Many people equate the word "victim" with a level of force that includes violence. But this is not so. You are a victim anytime another person seeks to take from you -- anything from you -- that you are rightfully entitled to and they are not. Once again, this includes not only your possessions, but your sanctity. Living in fear is NOT the American way, and the founding fathers were adamant about this, established in the Bill of Rights for all its legal citizens.
This is your God-given right, penned to paper, endowed unto you from the day you are conceived. And whether you are American or not, it is STILL your right; that your government would deny you this right should be a matter of outrage - not a matter of apathy because less violent deaths occur.
If you think about it, who do such laws cater to? You or the criminal intent on violating your God-given rights?
Once an individual acts on the decision to remove any part of your God-given rights, he or she should be afforded no protection, legal or otherwise, in defense of his violation. Would you attempt to take a man's wallet if that man was likely to be armed and shoot you? No. You would look for an easier victim. But if there WERE no easier victims, then you would be faced with only one of two possible alternatives: do not carry out the act, or murder a man in cold blood for whatever money he happens to have in his billfold.
I believe that the vast majority would pursue the former course of action and deny his desire to commit the crime in the first place. And this is especially true if he knows that when he murders you, his fellow citizens that witness the act will kill him before he ever had the opportunity to spend that money. His motive for the crime is now gone - why commit a crime where death is likely if you'll never enjoy the spoils of your violation?
Remove the motive and you'll remove the crime.
This is how you stop crime. And this is why guns are necessary. It is the attitude that is lacking. Change the attitude, arm the population and educate them, and you'll truly have a peaceful society. Only the most egregious offenders of the law will chance being met with a higher level of force and losing the benefits they hoped for. And they will be removed from society.
No other course of action -- of inaction, really -- is sufficient to end crime that makes you a victim. Only you can keep you from being a victim.
Before anyone jumps, know that I understand that gun violence is lower in areas where guns are not present - that's simple common sense. Take away guns, and gun violence goes away to a large degree. Only the criminal fringe elements will procure and use them from other, illegal sources.
But this is where the mindset changes.
Crime doesn't stop. Yes, violent crime diminishes to a degree. But crime itself still happens. People still get assaulted and mugged, homes and businesses are still invaded, thefts still occur.
There are people in this world, myself included, that still consider these otherwise nonviolent crimes... crimes. And we want an ability to stop them - to not be a victim. I realize that to some here -- probably many here -- the idea of taking a life in defense of something as tangible and replaceable as money or property is absurd. Even cruel and hateful.
Perhaps it is. To kill over property is, to a large extent, abhorrent to many. My fellow Christians likely condemn me for the willing attitude to do so. They, like many of you, view it as an unfair disparity of force: if someone mugs me on the street and they are unarmed, I am legally and morally obligated to refrain from shooting them.
Some of us do not see it this way. Once you've violated my person or anyone under my protection, I am fully within my rights to use whatever level of force I deem necessary to end the threat. That protection includes innocents I may not know - you can bet your bottom dollar that if I witnessed a man raping a woman I would end his life without a moment's hesitation, accepting my legal ramifications as stipulated by the law. I would not chance the perpetrator overcoming my actions to stop him, ending my threat to him, wherein he can continue his deviant behavior.
It is this attitude that must be prevalent if you truly want to end crime.
If a criminal knows that he has a good chance of being shot if he carries out a crime, no matter the crime itself... if he knows that he will be afforded no protection from the very system he chose to violate... then crime will cease.
For all the feel-good tactics, only the fear expressed in bold above will stop a man intent on violating you. From taking what is rightfully yours, be it money, property, or your own life, happiness or peace.
If he knows that you cannot, by law, defend yourself or your property with a higher level of force than he intends to use, he will exploit that and make you a victim for his own gain.
Many people equate the word "victim" with a level of force that includes violence. But this is not so. You are a victim anytime another person seeks to take from you -- anything from you -- that you are rightfully entitled to and they are not. Once again, this includes not only your possessions, but your sanctity. Living in fear is NOT the American way, and the founding fathers were adamant about this, established in the Bill of Rights for all its legal citizens.
This is your God-given right, penned to paper, endowed unto you from the day you are conceived. And whether you are American or not, it is STILL your right; that your government would deny you this right should be a matter of outrage - not a matter of apathy because less violent deaths occur.
If you think about it, who do such laws cater to? You or the criminal intent on violating your God-given rights?
Once an individual acts on the decision to remove any part of your God-given rights, he or she should be afforded no protection, legal or otherwise, in defense of his violation. Would you attempt to take a man's wallet if that man was likely to be armed and shoot you? No. You would look for an easier victim. But if there WERE no easier victims, then you would be faced with only one of two possible alternatives: do not carry out the act, or murder a man in cold blood for whatever money he happens to have in his billfold.
I believe that the vast majority would pursue the former course of action and deny his desire to commit the crime in the first place. And this is especially true if he knows that when he murders you, his fellow citizens that witness the act will kill him before he ever had the opportunity to spend that money. His motive for the crime is now gone - why commit a crime where death is likely if you'll never enjoy the spoils of your violation?
Remove the motive and you'll remove the crime.
This is how you stop crime. And this is why guns are necessary. It is the attitude that is lacking. Change the attitude, arm the population and educate them, and you'll truly have a peaceful society. Only the most egregious offenders of the law will chance being met with a higher level of force and losing the benefits they hoped for. And they will be removed from society.
No other course of action -- of inaction, really -- is sufficient to end crime that makes you a victim. Only you can keep you from being a victim.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I am still prepared to bet that the Swiss don't just hand out an assault rifle to every Johann Schmitt that happens to pass by a military base, on top of that the Swiss do place a lot of their restrictions on ammunition sales instead of the weapon itself.
Incidentally I am still waiting for someone to show me this armed utopia where everyone can own any weapon they like and gun crime is non-existent, it is constantly mentioned here by the pro-gun crew yet I still haven't seen any confirmation of its location.
As far as owning firearms being a "god given right" goes which commandment is "thou shall all own a Glock" again?
Incidentally I am still waiting for someone to show me this armed utopia where everyone can own any weapon they like and gun crime is non-existent, it is constantly mentioned here by the pro-gun crew yet I still haven't seen any confirmation of its location.
As far as owning firearms being a "god given right" goes which commandment is "thou shall all own a Glock" again?
Last edited:
AZ_Infantry
Active member
Please see the last post on page 3. We were typing at the same time.
Gun CRIME will never be non-existent. China, with the most strict gun laws in the world, has gun crime. No one here, myself included, contends that we can put an end to crimes committed with firearms.
Rather, the right attitude, coupled with situational awareness, and backed up with a firearm, is the key to lessening your chance of becoming a victim. If you are mentally and physically prepared to cease any deviant action against your person or those entrusted to your protection, you will not be a victim. Those you love will not be victims. The frail old lady walking next to you that you've never met will not be a victim. And when you kill the man that wishes to make you or them a victim, he too will not be a victim.
As I said in my last post (bottom of page three), you must remove the motive. The way to remove the motive is to ensure the violator that he will not live to enjoy the spoils of his deed. Even criminals watch the news. If they suddenly see a society where they are likely to die in the course of their actions, they will lose the motivation and, to borrow the cliche', be scared straight.
No other method of preventing crime in the history of the world -- not justice, religion, or apathy -- has proven effective. You must remove the motivation by applying a higher level of force, strengthening your own position with the assistance of your fellow citizens that seek the same crime-free society as you do. Anything short of outright fear only encourages crime. And there is no greater fear than committing a crime in which you receive zero benefit because you'll be dead before you can enjoy the "reward" of the crime itself and what it gives you.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
If you wish I will email the evidence of what so called gun control has done to South Africa and the effect it has had on innocent victims.
Swiss Males of Military age are issued an assault rifle which is taken home. The Swiss actually encourage shooting as a sport and issue ammunition free of charge.
As for a gun owning Eutopia I have posted the following information previously.
Kennesaw is one of, if not the safest town in the US.
http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=GA&area=Kennesaw
and again
http://www.publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html
Here is a tale of two cities: one that banned handguns and one that required guns. Guess which town enjoyed a plunge in crime.
In June 1981, Morton Grove, Ill., a northern suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In reaction, Kennesaw, Ga., a northern suburb of Atlanta, passed an ordinance requiring heads of households "to maintain a firearm" and ammunition "to provide for the civil defense" and "protect the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."
"Some people seem to think our residents are not armed," Morton Grove Police Chief George Incledon, told United Press International on Tuesday. The chief pointed out that the law did not prohibit ownership of shotguns or rifles, and that gun collectors were exempt.
Many citizens prefer shotguns to handguns for home defense. Incledon did not define "gun collector." Morton Grove residents could store their handguns outside the village limits or at a licensed gun club.
Moreover, Incledon recalled, out of a population of 25,000, only "a few people, maybe 10," surrendered handguns to police in the months after the law went into effect.
Similarly, Kennesaw's law provides so many loopholes that, in effect, no one is compelled to obey it. Convicted felons are, of course, excluded. Also exempt are those "who suffer a physical disability [undefined] which would prohibit them from using such a firearm" and those who "conscientiously oppose firearms as a result of religious doctrine or belief [also undefined]." Inhabitants may claim exemptions for moral or financial reasons, said Detective Cpl. Craig Graydon, a Kennesaw Police Department spokesman, in a phone interview Tuesday.
According to a National Rifle Association document, the law was not expected to increase gun ownership. "It was expected that publicity surrounding the ordinance would warn criminals that residents were capable of protecting themselves and their community and would do so with the government's blessing," the document said.
The results?
Not much of anything in Morton Grove. "We were fortunate to have a low rate of violent crime before the ordinance was passed, and we are fortunate now that the rate is still low," Incledon told UPI.
But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported.
The rate of violent crime is approximately four times lower than the state and national rates, Kennesaw's Crime Statistics Report said. "Violent crime is almost nonexistent in residential neighborhoods," Graydon told UPI. The detective, who has been with the police department since 1986, said the isolated exceptions take place in motels or in commercial areas.
Graydon said he has lived in the area since 1979 and has heard no open opposition to the gun law. This remains the case even though most of Kennesaw's newcomers are from northern states.
Asked whether the ordinance has attracted new people to Kennesaw, Graydon said: "Not specifically the law itself, but quite a few people cite the low crime rate, which a lot of people do attribute, at least in part, to the gun law."
The detective said Kennesaw used state criteria for carrying a concealed handgun. "It's not that difficult" to get the license, he said. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Georgia does not require permit holders to submit the serial numbers of their handguns to the police. "We don't register firearms down here," Graydon said.
On Tuesday afternoon, Handgun Control's Washington office was invited to comment on Kennesaw's crime statistics. A spokeswoman there replied that no one from the organization could address the issue until after a press conference.
and again
http://www.breakthematrix.com/Secon...atory-In-Kennesaw-Georgia-Crime-Rate-Plummets
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
Here is another one for Canadian states compared with a few countries (Presumably HH=Households)
The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries.
Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home:
The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries.
Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home:
- Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home.
- The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, where the guns are kept loaded and unlocked.
Yes MM, you make a good strong case, but nevertheless, the point I made should be considered as part of the equation. With a few exceptions, only criminals now hold guns here; and they hold as many as they wish, easily obtainable.
Anyway, that is the only contribution I wil make, this being such an important US issue.
Suffice it to say that I used to hold a shot gun on my premises, under licence, for protection only. It was declared illegal and now lives in Wisconsin.
When some unknown hooligan tried to kick my front door in, I was obliged to wait inside with a mallet, a couple of years ago, in the middle of the night.
Anyway, that is the only contribution I wil make, this being such an important US issue.
Suffice it to say that I used to hold a shot gun on my premises, under licence, for protection only. It was declared illegal and now lives in Wisconsin.
When some unknown hooligan tried to kick my front door in, I was obliged to wait inside with a mallet, a couple of years ago, in the middle of the night.
Last edited:
Rob Henderson
Banned
Just because I haven't had any experience in the matter doesn't change the facts of it. If 100,00 people died in a war, and someone fought in and survived that war, it doesn't change the fact that 100,000 people died in the war. I still know that just as well as the person who served in it. I'm not disrespecting anyone who has put themselves in harms way, I'm just saying that facts don't change because you were there. I'm sure he DOES see the problems, but like I said, he's one LEO in one area... Just because he sees things doesn't mean that it is the case for the entire country.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Once again, Perseus has the graph of the day. It shows a DIRECT correlation between firearm ownership and firearm-related fatalities. Want to limit firearm fatalities? Limit firearms.
Now, I'm not saying get rid of them completely. But an AK-74 is not necessary, nor is it particularly useful. Fun? Yes. But the best self defense weapon is a revolver loaded with hollow points.
As for Kenneshaw, the mandatory gun ownership is a violation of my constitutional rights. It does not say, "Thou Shalt Bear Arms," but it gives me the right to do so if I so please. Don't force my rights on me, if you do then it's not a right anymore.
********
On a side note, there are no specification as to what kind of arms you can keep and bear. And there are no regulations on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for private ownership.
I'll take a Titan II please.
Now, I'm not saying get rid of them completely. But an AK-74 is not necessary, nor is it particularly useful. Fun? Yes. But the best self defense weapon is a revolver loaded with hollow points.
As for Kenneshaw, the mandatory gun ownership is a violation of my constitutional rights. It does not say, "Thou Shalt Bear Arms," but it gives me the right to do so if I so please. Don't force my rights on me, if you do then it's not a right anymore.
********
On a side note, there are no specification as to what kind of arms you can keep and bear. And there are no regulations on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for private ownership.
I'll take a Titan II please.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I hate to break it to you but your argument does not stack up, I have no doubt that criminals watch TV but your correlation clearly does not hold true given all the evidence.
You just have to look at the UK, most of Europe, New Zealand etc. to see that less guns equals less gun deaths, it isn't rocket science it is a reality and I will go as far as to say that the same applies to almost everything, ban cars and I will bet good money the road toll will go down.
Now I would agree that a ban on guns does encourage criminal activity but no one here or in fact anywhere that I know of is encouraging banning firearm ownership just implementing enough checks and balances to ensure that lunatics have an extremely hard time getting hold of them.
I also find your "everybody should live in fear to be safe" argument incredibly bizarre and a little detached from how most "normal" people want to live their lives, it strikes me that in world where everyone is armed including the criminals the only winner is the guy that shoots first and I would suggest that this is almost always the guy who has a plan namely the criminal.
When go out I rely on situational awareness and intelligence to avoid trouble and I know that if I was to run into trouble there is a very good chance (I would estimate 95%+ conservatively) that the person or people I run into are not armed which gives a better than average chance of getting out alive and in many cases unharmed in your world I don't have that chance my options are to start shooting and hope like hell I am a better shot than the guy with the initiative (I am fighting at the time and place of his choosing which any strategist will tell you is a bad idea) so I am sure you will forgive me if I prefer my system to yours.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Rob, the point I was making and that you seem to have missed again is that in your debate with 03USMC you both only have one opinion, BUT because of 03s experience in the subject at hand on an almost daily basis, his opinion is most likely far better founded than yours, regardless of what you feel.
I will say no more on the matter, as it is well and truly "Off Topic"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When there is good chance that the victims might shoot back, there is only only one real option available to the perpetrator. He must be prepared to shoot first.
There is a good chance that this would get more people killed than ever.
On this subject, I feel too many impressionable people live in a fantasy world created by Hollywood where the good guy always wins. It was found back in the 1800s that it is not always so.
The "Wild West" model of law enforcement was dumped over a hundred years ago for this very reason among others, but it appears that some people have just never learned, or I think, more to the point, they are immature "w@nkers who feel that it is "macho" to be walking around in public with a firearm, or known to be carrying..
My son remarked upon this phenomenon in Iraq where when the Aussies ate with the American PMCs in a secure area, The Aussies would always take their weapon and a few mags stuck in their pockets, but many of the others would roll up kitted out weapon wise, as if they were going on an unsupported 14 day patrol into tiger country... in a word,... Wankers.
Last edited:
Rob Henderson
Banned
I'll send you a PM...
Agreed. (Gasp!!!) I think one of the things that really helps out the gun-toters is the idea that this is the internet... Can anyone really say whether or not they would shoot someone without actually being face with the situation? We will never know. Besides, how can you carry a machine gun efficiently?