Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Skeptikosia]

*sarcasm mode activated*

If guns are allowed under the constitution for anyone and everyone to "defend" themselves, why don't we apply the same logic to nukes for a minute? We built nukes to defend ourselves from Japan. Then we built more to defend ourselves from Russia. They did the same for us. Well, we're all alive today obviously, so the Cold War must have been one peachy little happy nonviolent picnic in the history of humanity. In fact, I think that the US and the UN should just but out, and let any nation, regardless of their history or intent, own nukes and have them ready to fire at all times to "defend themselves" and we should completely stop checking in on them to make sure they're using them responsibly, 'cause it's none of our business.
Real-life

As long as there are people on this planet, they will want to kill each other. As long as we allow people to have weapons that can kill from a distance with little effort, they will do it a lot. If the United States has the right to invade the middle east in fear of weapons of mass destruction, and the UN has the right to investigate Iran over their nuclear weapons program, than a little gun control isn't just a valid idea, it's the only sane idea.

You don't see me arguing that the US has that right or that the UN has that right.

One is a reactionary over reach and the other is a bunch of socialist busybodies that are really only any good at shipping food and writing stern letters.

[Eradium]

Personally, I'm glad guns are so hard to get hold of in most of Britain (well, not in some of the inner-city badlands and for farmers). Also, anyone carrying a gun in an urban area tends to get shot quite quickly by the Police.

Gun crime is low, although we are sending police with sub-machine-guns to patrol some neighbourhoods now. I personally live in one of the safest cities in Britain, if I'm out at night, even in the worst areas all I have to worry about is a knife. Knives tend to be easier to run away from than a gun (also, bloody great stick beats knife. Guns, not so much).

[Skeptikosia]

Personally, I'm glad guns are so hard to get hold of in most of Britain (well, not in some of the inner-city badlands and for farmers). Also, anyone carrying a gun in an urban area tends to get shot quite quickly by the Police. (1)

Gun crime is low, although we are sending police with sub-machine-guns to patrol some neighbourhoods now. I personally live in one of the safest cities in Britain, if I'm out at night, even in the worst areas all I have to worry about is a knife. Knives tend to be easier to run away from than a gun (also, bloody great stick beats knife. Guns, not so much)(2).

1) Cite?

2) Until you get jacked up and sent to jail for defending yourself.

[Eradium]

Personally, I'm glad guns are so hard to get hold of in most of Britain (well, not in some of the inner-city badlands and for farmers). Also, anyone carrying a gun in an urban area tends to get shot quite quickly by the Police. (1)

Gun crime is low, although we are sending police with sub-machine-guns to patrol some neighbourhoods now. I personally live in one of the safest cities in Britain, if I'm out at night, even in the worst areas all I have to worry about is a knife. Knives tend to be easier to run away from than a gun (also, bloody great stick beats knife. Guns, not so much)(2).

1) Cite?

2) Until you get jacked up and sent to jail for defending yourself.

1) I meant open carrying, although we did shoot a man holding a chair leg since it looked a bit like a gun. But it doesn't tend to end well for the person with the gun, although the news only really report those that get caught so I'm probably bias in my views on that, I don't know how many get away after the police being called. I do know that many guns in the bad London suburbs are passed on to relatives and often never recovered. But you wouldn't go there unless you lived there, also, they're where we're sending the heavily(ish) armed police patrols.

Some figures here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm



2) True, but my first reaction would be to run, I don't go to places I don't know like the back of my hand at night, even they pretty well lit and there are plenty of students milling around, even at 3 in the morning.

(These are my first reaction opinions, I haven't had time to delve into the figures yet, so I'm not presenting anything I say as fact. It's merely opinion.)

[Skeptikosia]

Personally, I'm glad guns are so hard to get hold of in most of Britain (well, not in some of the inner-city badlands and for farmers). Also, anyone carrying a gun in an urban area tends to get shot quite quickly by the Police. (1)

Gun crime is low, although we are sending police with sub-machine-guns to patrol some neighbourhoods now. I personally live in one of the safest cities in Britain, if I'm out at night, even in the worst areas all I have to worry about is a knife. Knives tend to be easier to run away from than a gun (also, bloody great stick beats knife. Guns, not so much)(2).

1) Cite?

2) Until you get jacked up and sent to jail for defending yourself.

1) I meant open carrying, although we did shoot a man holding a chair leg since it looked a bit like a gun. But it doesn't tend to end well for the person with the gun, although the news only really report those that get caught so I'm probably bias in my views on that, I don't know how many get away after the police being called.

2) True, but my first reaction would be to run, I don't go to places I don't know like the back of my hand at night, even they pretty well lit and there are plenty of students milling around, even at 3 in the morning.

Ah, I carry concealed, but I'd open carry if the situation called for it and it was legal, but open carry isn't legal where I live. In New Hampshire, people go heeled to city and county council meetings, and have from the beginning.

And running only triggers a predator's reflexes more quickly...

Seriously, though, I'm a tax payer and a veteran. I don't run unless a larger goal is gained by it or others are at risk. I fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen much more thoroughly than many people here do. I belong here and carry my share of the load.

[Eradium]

And running only triggers a predator's reflexes more quickly...

You're probably right, I'd probably hand over what the criminal wants first, but I carry an old phone, cheap watch and no money, I know people who've been beat up after fessing up items that are not to the muggers satisfaction. Fight then flight perhaps.

[Skeptikosia]

Personally, I'm glad guns are so hard to get hold of in most of Britain (well, not in some of the inner-city badlands and for farmers). Also, anyone carrying a gun in an urban area tends to get shot quite quickly by the Police. (1)

Gun crime is low, although we are sending police with sub-machine-guns to patrol some neighbourhoods now. I personally live in one of the safest cities in Britain, if I'm out at night, even in the worst areas all I have to worry about is a knife. Knives tend to be easier to run away from than a gun (also, bloody great stick beats knife. Guns, not so much)(2).

1) Cite?

2) Until you get jacked up and sent to jail for defending yourself.

How are these working out?

First 'anti-stab' knife to go on sale in Britain



The knives are expected to sell for £40-50
Kaya Burgess The first “anti-stab” knife is to go on sale in Britain, designed to work as normal in the kitchen but to be ineffective as a weapon.

The knife has a rounded edge instead of a point and will snag on clothing and skin to make it more difficult to stab someone.

It was invented by industrial designer John Cornock, who was inspired by a documentary in which doctors advocated banning traditional knives.

Mr Cornock, 42, from Swindon, said that the knife will cut vegetables, but will make it almost impossible to stab someone to death and will reduce the risk of accidental injuries.

He said: “It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.”

The knife is expected to sell for around £40-50 and has been tested with “very favourable” results by the Home Office’s Design and Technology Alliance - set up to research products that can deter crime.

[Skeptikosia]

And running only triggers a predator's reflexes more quickly...

You're probably right, I'd probably hand over what the criminal wants first, but I carry an old phone, cheap watch and no money, I know people who've been beat up after fessing up items that are not to the muggers satisfaction. Fight then flight perhaps.

Not me, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to be forced to behave that way either.

I'm comfortable with it being the choice of people on their own if they want to be a victim or not.

[Eradium]

And running only triggers a predator's reflexes more quickly...

You're probably right, I'd probably hand over what the criminal wants first, but I carry an old phone, cheap watch and no money, I know people who've been beat up after fessing up items that are not to the muggers satisfaction. Fight then flight perhaps.

Not me, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to be forced to behave that way either.

I'm comfortable with it being the choice of people on their own if they want to be a victim or not.

I guess it really does depend on the situation, but I never have more than £10-£20 (Most of which been cash) worth of stuff on me, often not worth risking a fight. But yes, I can definitely see where you're coming from, besides, handing over your stuff is official Government advice, it cant possibly be wrong, right? ;p

[Skeptikosia]

And running only triggers a predator's reflexes more quickly...

You're probably right, I'd probably hand over what the criminal wants first, but I carry an old phone, cheap watch and no money, I know people who've been beat up after fessing up items that are not to the muggers satisfaction. Fight then flight perhaps.

Not me, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to be forced to behave that way either.

I'm comfortable with it being the choice of people on their own if they want to be a victim or not.

I guess it really does depend on the situation, but I never have more than £10-£20 (Most of which been cash) worth of stuff on me, often not worth risking a fight. But yes, I can definitely see where you're coming from, besides, handing over your stuff is official Government advice, it cant possibly be wrong, right? ;p

There's hope yet.

[CanuckHeaven]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

Unfortunately NSG doesn't have a very good table format.

Despite the format, you can look at DC and Chicago all you want, but when you look at Florida, especially the huge increase in firearm murders in 2006 & 2007, my point will hit home.

[The Adrian Empire]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Not necessarily. There are many household items he could have killed her with. He could have picked up a pencil and stabbed her to death... or taken a chair and hit he-... I'm gonna stop...

You misunderstood my wording, I agree with you if he was determined to kill them both he would have, he was police officer as well, so he had a gun likely this women was hot by her husband's gun not her own and thus the argument "that she lived by the gun die by the gun" is moot

[The Adrian Empire]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

Unfortunately NSG doesn't have a very good table format.

Despite the format, you can look at DC and Chicago all you want, but when you look at Florida, especially the huge increase in firearm murders in 2006 & 2007, my point will hit home.

You're right that violent crime rates in D.C. and Illinois are no higher then Florida, however you cannot deny the fact that all three states are in the top fifteen most violent, that doesn't support your argument

[CanuckHeaven]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Not necessarily. There are many household items he could have killed her with. He could have picked up a pencil and stabbed her to death... or taken a chair and hit he-... I'm gonna stop...

You misunderstood my wording, I agree with you if he was determined to kill them both he would have, he was police officer as well, so he had a gun likely this women was hot by her husband's gun not her own and thus the argument "that she lived by the gun die by the gun" is moot

No moot point at all. She carried a gun to prevent her from being a victim and it was a gun that made her a victim.

[Erich Dahmer]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Not necessarily. There are many household items he could have killed her with. He could have picked up a pencil and stabbed her to death... or taken a chair and hit he-... I'm gonna stop...

You misunderstood my wording, I agree with you if he was determined to kill them both he would have, he was police officer as well, so he had a gun likely this women was hot by her husband's gun not her own and thus the argument "that she lived by the gun die by the gun" is moot

No moot point at all. She carried a gun to prevent her from being a victim and it was a gun that made her a victim.

I know it's a very old and tired line but "Guns don't kill people". And statistically neither do women, only about 4% of violent crime is committed by the fairer sex. It's simple. Guns don't kill people and people don't kill people, men kill people. And if you proposed that we bar men from owning guns that would be sexist discrimination. So, are you a sexist bigot?

[CanuckHeaven]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

Unfortunately NSG doesn't have a very good table format.

Despite the format, you can look at DC and Chicago all you want, but when you look at Florida, especially the huge increase in firearm murders in 2006 & 2007, my point will hit home.

You're right that violent crime rates in D.C. and Illinois are no higher then Florida, however you cannot deny the fact that all three states are in the top fifteen most violent, that doesn't support your argument

The VCR in Florida in 2008 was 31% higher than Illinois. In 2007, Florida was 35% higher, in 2008 Florida was 31 % higher, in 2006, Florida was 28% higher. You are missing the bigger picture.

[Erich Dahmer]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

Unfortunately NSG doesn't have a very good table format.

Despite the format, you can look at DC and Chicago all you want, but when you look at Florida, especially the huge increase in firearm murders in 2006 & 2007, my point will hit home.

You're right that violent crime rates in D.C. and Illinois are no higher then Florida, however you cannot deny the fact that all three states are in the top fifteen most violent, that doesn't support your argument

The VCR in Florida in 2008 was 31% higher than Illinois. In 2007, Florida was 35% higher, in 2008 Florida was 31 % higher, in 2006, Florida was 28% higher. You are missing the bigger picture.

The Videocassette recorder in Florida in 2008 was 31% higher than Illinois? From sea level? Was this measured in Imperial or SI Metric? It's hard to tell what you're talking about because you seem to have lost some formatting when you copypasta'd.

[Skeptikosia]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Which is a flawed argument, owning a gun didn't kill this women, her husband killed her, had he not a gun what is to say this would have ended better, this is a tragedy that shouldn't be exploited for this purpose, (but hypocritically requires my defence)

Not necessarily. There are many household items he could have killed her with. He could have picked up a pencil and stabbed her to death... or taken a chair and hit he-... I'm gonna stop...

You misunderstood my wording, I agree with you if he was determined to kill them both he would have, he was police officer as well, so he had a gun likely this women was hot by her husband's gun not her own and thus the argument "that she lived by the gun die by the gun" is moot

No moot point at all. She carried a gun to prevent her from being a victim and it was a gun that made her a victim.

I know it's a very old and tired line but "Guns don't kill people". And statistically neither do women, only about 4% of violent crime is committed by the fairer sex. It's simple. Guns don't kill people and people don't kill people, men kill people. And if you proposed that we bar men from owning guns that would be sexist discrimination. So, are you a sexist bigot?

Women are more likely to cut you than shoot you.

[Thethunderdome]

Look at Chicago and DC.

Giant nanny government with de facto gun bans and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault
Florida 2008 4 3 6 4 13 23 5 7
Florida 2007 4 6 6 6 13 20 4 7
Florida 2006 4 7 5 11 16 18 6 6
Florida 2005 4 10 4 16 24 18 7 4

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary
Illinois2, 3 2008 5 26 12 28 16 25 7 18 27
Illinois 2007 5 29 12 32 20 27 8 16 30
Illinois 2006 5 30 14 33 18 25 7 15 32
Illinois 2005 5 30 12 33 20 24 4 15 32
It would appear that Illinois is much safer than the gun toting State of Florida, where they have had the right to carry since 1987, and a Castle Doctrine Law passed in 2005.

Formatting is your friend.

Unfortunately NSG doesn't have a very good table format.

Despite the format, you can look at DC and Chicago all you want, but when you look at Florida, especially the huge increase in firearm murders in 2006 & 2007, my point will hit home.

You're right that violent crime rates in D.C. and Illinois are no higher then Florida, however you cannot deny the fact that all three states are in the top fifteen most violent, that doesn't support your argument

The VCR in Florida in 2008 was 31% higher than Illinois. In 2007, Florida was 35% higher, in 2008 Florida was 31 % higher, in 2006, Florida was 28% higher. You are missing the bigger picture.

And the VCR in Wyoming is lower. Therefore guns reduce crime. This makes sense, because if 2 variables have a correlation, then obviously the first variable directly caused the second and there is nothing else affecting the second.

Also, when the above person was referencing the Chicago Ban, Chicago != Illinois. Chicago is higher than the rest of the state, obviously. Can this be attributed to the gun ban? I can't say, and neither can you. Now that the DC ban has been lifted we can watch the long term crime rates there and that may give us a better idea (at the moment crime is on the rise mostly everywhere so if in one year there is more crime in DC it cannot be attributed to repealing the ban.)

ETA: Of course once the SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd Amendment, none of will even matter. And it doesn't matter for me because I live in a state which won't be banning guns any time soon.

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Are yah done yet?

How about now?

What about now?

Now?

Nothing yet?

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Are yah done yet?

How about now?

What about now?

Now?

Nothing yet?

Anything?