Dumb arses and guns...
PTT, you once again deliberately ignore the utility of prevention of violent crime by citizens who use firearms for self defense. We have had this conversation previously.
The cops can't be everywhere. Some people prefer not to be forced to be a victim.
I note your habit of counting the hits and ignoring the misses remains. As to "developed nations" I note that you deliberately white wash the following reality: nations have differences.
It appears that nations having differences bothers you. Why is that?
What's your beef?
The cops can't be everywhere. Some people prefer not to be forced to be a victim.
I note your habit of counting the hits and ignoring the misses remains. As to "developed nations" I note that you deliberately white wash the following reality: nations have differences.
It appears that nations having differences bothers you. Why is that?
What's your beef?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 16th Jan 2013 at 22:07.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Swiss, often used as an example by the gun lobby, are insulted.?they think its totally counterproductive. And the weapons at home of swiss armed forces members have nothing to with scared US whites males and their love for guns.
Google Vertalen
Google Vertalen
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT, you once again deliberately ignore the utility of prevention of violent crime by citizens who use firearms for self defense. We have had this conversation previously.
The cops can't be everywhere. Some people prefer not to be forced to be a victim.
The cops can't be everywhere. Some people prefer not to be forced to be a victim.
After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.
You might feel safer with a gun, and you probably want to believe that you are "safer" from being killed if you own a gun, but the fact is that you are not. The study is multivariate, so it compares [you with a gun in your house] with [you without a gun in your house] and finds that [you without a gun in your house] is a lot less likely to be killed. I'm sure you find that counter-intuitive and contradictory to common sense, but then so are many other things (think Schrödinger and you're at the tip of a very big iceberg).
I note your habit of counting the hits and ignoring the misses remains.
As to "developed nations" I note that you deliberately white wash the following reality: nations have differences.
It appears that nations having differences bothers you. Why is that?
What's your beef?
That, along with people who "feel" they are better off doing one thing while all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Sounds like a clash of perspectives to me. If you live in Western Europe you're never going to be able to see the point of view of a person living in, say, Johannesburg with the constant threat of violence and the police not really having any plan or hope of ending it. I was on the scene of a cash-in-transit robbery in Cape Town 5 minutes after it happened. A gang with AK-47s pushed a truck into the island in the highway and shot the back door off to get the cash. The drivers lived, I saw bullet casings all over the road. This event didn't make the national news, of course, since it was so unremarkable and commonplace.
In this sort of scenario one might feel that everyone has to go around with AK-47s to protect themselves from the baddies who have AK-47s. Where would the escalation stop?
I wouldn't be too surprised if there was a time in Europe when everyone who could afford them had weapons of one kind or another simply for personal protection on the roads.
In this sort of scenario one might feel that everyone has to go around with AK-47s to protect themselves from the baddies who have AK-47s. Where would the escalation stop?
I wouldn't be too surprised if there was a time in Europe when everyone who could afford them had weapons of one kind or another simply for personal protection on the roads.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I wouldn't be too surprised if there was a time in Europe when everyone who could afford them had weapons of one kind or another simply for personal protection on the roads. "
That was in 1750!
Duncs
Still not Mil Aviation, though!
That was in 1750!
Duncs
Still not Mil Aviation, though!
Yes, well in the lot of the world it's still '1750' in certain respects and if you went back to 1750 on your own it would be you that had to adapt and you would be annoyed by people living in a better situation who kept telling you what to do when they didn't have your mountain of problems to overcome first.
PTT:
Your study is a fail if you are the one in the situation with a home invasion.
Be prepared.
Firearms accidents are a separate category of problem, and if you go back to my first post in this thread, are best mitigated by a good firearms safety course, which the NRA has a number of, all excellent. Local police departments often have them as well.
If you aren't competent to handle a firearm, don't keep one in the house.
If you have on in the house, get the training in proper firearms handling and safety. Go out and practice now and again at the range to keep the rust off.
That's how you influence firearms safety, not hiding in a hole and screaming "firearms, unsafe."
This thread began about firearms safety. See the video.
The rest we've wasted plenty of time on elsewhere.
Your fearmongering is noted.
Droll how you complain about abuse of statistics. Very droll.
Your study is a fail if you are the one in the situation with a home invasion.
Be prepared.
Firearms accidents are a separate category of problem, and if you go back to my first post in this thread, are best mitigated by a good firearms safety course, which the NRA has a number of, all excellent. Local police departments often have them as well.
If you aren't competent to handle a firearm, don't keep one in the house.
If you have on in the house, get the training in proper firearms handling and safety. Go out and practice now and again at the range to keep the rust off.
That's how you influence firearms safety, not hiding in a hole and screaming "firearms, unsafe."
This thread began about firearms safety. See the video.
The rest we've wasted plenty of time on elsewhere.
Your fearmongering is noted.
Droll how you complain about abuse of statistics. Very droll.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The per 100k pop stats show that europe and australia, both with decent gun laws, don't have the guns problems the US does.
Heck the US even have more knife murders than the UK per 100k and knives aren't even on the US radar.
If you looked at the stats, the US looks like a troubled society and guns are only part of the problem
Heck the US even have more knife murders than the UK per 100k and knives aren't even on the US radar.
If you looked at the stats, the US looks like a troubled society and guns are only part of the problem
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to give a little perspective - In a recent 10 year period 544 US policemen were shot dead,in the same period in the UK - 5 policemen shot dead. In 2008 and 2009 173 children under 5 shot dead. The price for the right to bear arms - since 1969, 120000 minors shot dead.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Lonewolf 50
Well that's a comprehensive counter to an exhaustive study... 
Forgive me if I take your "oh no it isn't" response with the pinch of salt it deserves.
Stop cherrypicking. Firearms deaths are firearms deaths. And the study didn't specify "accidental deaths" either - it said homicides (which is all situations where one person kills another).
I totally agree that a sound grounding in education and knowledge, combined with regular practice, will likely reduce the accident rate enormously. I'd say that such preparation should, in fact, be a pre-requisite to owning a gun.
Oh but they are, inherently: their sole intent is to kill or injure others.
Your inability to counter a set of facts with which you disagree is noted.
And yet you have failed to show how I have abused any statistics at all. You're heckling, not arguing in any constructive manner. Let me give you an example of how to take some misused statistics apart:
@ bcgallacher
This fails to give any real perspective. It does not consider differences in population size, for starters.
Your first statistic seems to say 5 die in the UK per 544 in the US, which is misleading at best. Adjusting that for relative populations, where the US has roughly 5 times the population of the UK, and we can factor down such that it's 5 in the UK for every 109 (roughly) in the US.
Your second statistic fails not only on the population count but on the timeframe. UK, 2 years, 173 dead. US, 43 years, 120,000 dead (you say). In the absence of real 2008/09 stats for the US you can scale down, so it's US, 2 years, 5581 dead. Then factor in population at 5 to 1 again and you get UK:US over a 2 year period was 5:1116 dead. And even that that is full of holes and assumptions.
Yes, the numbers are still apparently much larger in the US per capita (two orders of magnitude, at least), but by making irrelevant comparisons and missing obvious biases you leave yourself open to easy criticism and dismissal of your argument.
Finally, you fail to cite your sources. I have no reason to believe any of the numbers you quote. I personally find the last one about 120,000 children dead from guns since 1969 very hard to believe indeed.
PTT:
Your study is a fail if you are the one in the situation with a home invasion.
Your study is a fail if you are the one in the situation with a home invasion.
Forgive me if I take your "oh no it isn't" response with the pinch of salt it deserves.
Firearms accidents are a separate category of problem
best mitigated by a good firearms safety course, which the NRA has a number of, all excellent. Local police departments often have them as well.
If you aren't competent to handle a firearm, don't keep one in the house.
If you have on in the house, get the training in proper firearms handling and safety. Go out and practice now and again at the range to keep the rust off.
If you aren't competent to handle a firearm, don't keep one in the house.
If you have on in the house, get the training in proper firearms handling and safety. Go out and practice now and again at the range to keep the rust off.
"firearms, unsafe."
Your fearmongering is noted.
Droll how you complain about abuse of statistics. Very droll.
@ bcgallacher
Just to give a little perspective - In a recent 10 year period 544 US policemen were shot dead,in the same period in the UK - 5 policemen shot dead. In 2008 and 2009 173 children under 5 shot dead. The price for the right to bear arms - since 1969, 120000 minors shot dead.
Your first statistic seems to say 5 die in the UK per 544 in the US, which is misleading at best. Adjusting that for relative populations, where the US has roughly 5 times the population of the UK, and we can factor down such that it's 5 in the UK for every 109 (roughly) in the US.
Your second statistic fails not only on the population count but on the timeframe. UK, 2 years, 173 dead. US, 43 years, 120,000 dead (you say). In the absence of real 2008/09 stats for the US you can scale down, so it's US, 2 years, 5581 dead. Then factor in population at 5 to 1 again and you get UK:US over a 2 year period was 5:1116 dead. And even that that is full of holes and assumptions.
Yes, the numbers are still apparently much larger in the US per capita (two orders of magnitude, at least), but by making irrelevant comparisons and missing obvious biases you leave yourself open to easy criticism and dismissal of your argument.
Finally, you fail to cite your sources. I have no reason to believe any of the numbers you quote. I personally find the last one about 120,000 children dead from guns since 1969 very hard to believe indeed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFFan
"and australia, both with decent gun laws, don't have the guns problems the US does."
Not in terms of total killings but what it does show up is crims just go around killing each other - we had 10 years of an underworld "war" with over 35 dead.
We also have "others" including Lebbo's driving round shooting at each other from cars and a couple of families in a tit for tat war that always involve guns.
You can bring in whatever laws you like but it isn't going to stop any of the above because 1. I doubt they read the papers re the laws and 2. Even if they do, they couldn't give a shyt.
"and australia, both with decent gun laws, don't have the guns problems the US does."
Not in terms of total killings but what it does show up is crims just go around killing each other - we had 10 years of an underworld "war" with over 35 dead.
We also have "others" including Lebbo's driving round shooting at each other from cars and a couple of families in a tit for tat war that always involve guns.
You can bring in whatever laws you like but it isn't going to stop any of the above because 1. I doubt they read the papers re the laws and 2. Even if they do, they couldn't give a shyt.
Quote:
"firearms, unsafe."
Oh but they are, inherently: their sole intent is to kill or injure others.
"firearms, unsafe."
Oh but they are, inherently: their sole intent is to kill or injure others.
1. Act as a visual deterrent and sign of authoriity.
2. Put food on the table.
3. Give an advantage to a smaller force threatened by a larger but lesser armed force (a bit like point number 1).
Why were guns used in the recent US attrocity in Newtown? Because you can buy them in WalMart. However, before getting all high and mighty about it, think whether the nut-job would have used other means to kill/main these innocent individuals - the answer is probably "yes" using arson, petrol bombs, nail bombs, chemical attack, mowing them down in a large vehicle, etc, etc...
So it's not really about guns, more like why do people get so f^cked up in civilised society to do such evil things? This is not an East/West thing either, there are evil b@st@rds around the globe from all societies.
Anyway, back to the intent of the thread - watch the video and when you do military CCS or climb in a jet/helo with pistol strapped to you, don't be a dumb arse!
LJ
Apologise, a bit late in from were I wanted to intro so may not follow the current line.
Once upon a time if you stole a loaf of bread you were hung or deported for life. Once upon a time if you stole a horse/rustled you were hung.
A different time but some justification. You didn't steal the bread off the rich coves table 5 miles away you stole it of some one in a similar predicament as you and therefore they starved instead of you.
When the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was a far more fundamental right and far more justified.
If as stated the right to bear arms is to prevent the Government from becoming a dictatorship than I find this highly questionable Mr Jones.
Musket to musket with the cannon thrown in was a reasonably fair playing field. "Hunting rifle" to tanks, missiles, machine guns, aircraft does not add up. Am I missing something here or is it delusional to think the right to bear arms will prevent a dictatorship, or is Alex Jones the delusional one.
Sorry cannot help it, slight thread drift. Freedom of speech. With any right comes responsibility. Does freedom of speech give a person the right to walk down the street and f&&8 and C^$% to everyone. I would hope not. It was a right to voice your opinion and beliefs and hold fast to them without fear of persecution. Not a right be an arsehole. A different time and place were if you did voice your opinion/belief you would have been persecuted. Have we not evolved, become civilised enough, through gaining these rights to state that we will not fall back into this state. Have we not become more educated than the average man 200 plus years ago. Do we not have far, exceedingly so, more access to information to known what is going on (no matter how eschewed by the media). Do the citizens of the USA really fear a take over. In a democracy there is every chance that this will occur but not through arms but simple voting.
I do not have a gun. There will be no accidental death in my house from a gun. If I did not have a pool there would be no accidental drowning. I do but it is fenced etc to minimise the risk. A have a right to have a pool, I have a responsibility to make it as safe as possible.
Keesje states that in the Netherlands that it is not the law to wear a bike helmet. Therefore its the individuals right to either wear one or not. Is it the tax payers responsibility to keep the brain damaged rider alive on life support.
Once upon a time if you stole a loaf of bread you were hung or deported for life. Once upon a time if you stole a horse/rustled you were hung.
A different time but some justification. You didn't steal the bread off the rich coves table 5 miles away you stole it of some one in a similar predicament as you and therefore they starved instead of you.
When the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was a far more fundamental right and far more justified.
If as stated the right to bear arms is to prevent the Government from becoming a dictatorship than I find this highly questionable Mr Jones.
Musket to musket with the cannon thrown in was a reasonably fair playing field. "Hunting rifle" to tanks, missiles, machine guns, aircraft does not add up. Am I missing something here or is it delusional to think the right to bear arms will prevent a dictatorship, or is Alex Jones the delusional one.
Sorry cannot help it, slight thread drift. Freedom of speech. With any right comes responsibility. Does freedom of speech give a person the right to walk down the street and f&&8 and C^$% to everyone. I would hope not. It was a right to voice your opinion and beliefs and hold fast to them without fear of persecution. Not a right be an arsehole. A different time and place were if you did voice your opinion/belief you would have been persecuted. Have we not evolved, become civilised enough, through gaining these rights to state that we will not fall back into this state. Have we not become more educated than the average man 200 plus years ago. Do we not have far, exceedingly so, more access to information to known what is going on (no matter how eschewed by the media). Do the citizens of the USA really fear a take over. In a democracy there is every chance that this will occur but not through arms but simple voting.
I do not have a gun. There will be no accidental death in my house from a gun. If I did not have a pool there would be no accidental drowning. I do but it is fenced etc to minimise the risk. A have a right to have a pool, I have a responsibility to make it as safe as possible.
Keesje states that in the Netherlands that it is not the law to wear a bike helmet. Therefore its the individuals right to either wear one or not. Is it the tax payers responsibility to keep the brain damaged rider alive on life support.