Gun Ownership Saves Lives!

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Godzilla
You have higher crime rates in Europe than we do in the US. You have higher murder rates too. Some of the most dangerous places to live are in Europe.

Godzilla/NUKE - you're full of toejam.

OK, I took Lazs up on his kind offer to go shooting with his guns. Here is my assessment!

I arived at Lazs's hovel (at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Dixon) and rang the doorbell. The door was open but the screen was closed. "Come on in", boomed a big voice from the back. I was wary about entering, lest I was shot. But I shouted out "Don't shoot!", and Lazs complied. He was in the back playing Aces High - on Euro Prime Time - LOL!

You can read all about Monday's shoot out in this thread.

Just in case you were wondering, Lazs is a very good instructor in firearms, very knowledgeable about same, and very safety conscious. He could run his own gun range! Certainly, Tomato and I felt like we were in good hands for our shooting lesson. I don't see Lazs's gun ownership as anything more than a hobby - he is certainly very keen! He has a gun safe in his hovel, and keeps only the .45 semi auto on his night stand for protection.

In light of my enhanced knowledge of guns, I present a Beet1e FAQ...

• Would I join a UK gun club on the strength of Monday's shoot out with Lazs?  No, but I did enjoy our day out, and would visit Lazs again if the invitation were to be extended.
• Would I buy a gun for personal protection in America in light of Monday's shoot out? No, I don't think so. I don't feel afraid in America. After leaving Lazs's hovel, we went south to Monterey, and stayed there, then stayed at Santa Barbara, Oxnard, and San Diego in a variety of motels. At no time did I feel disadvantaged by not having a gun. At no time did I feel that our motel room was in danger of being invaded by an armed assailant. OK, we stayed in respectable places, and I always asked for 2nd floor rooms (one above ground level) and always checked the windows (including bathroom window) to make sure they were locked.
• Does personal firearm ownership protect one from outside attack? No, I don't think so. I am representative of many of those gun toting wannabes. It's one thing to buy a gun, but quite another to become proficient in its use. A burglar is going to be an expert in guns if he plans to use one at his next hit. Can the same be said for American gun owners? Probably not. Take the number of gun owners that live in your state. Divide that by the number of gun ranges in that state. That quotient is the number of people in your state who should be practising at a range, as I did with Lazs on Monday. My guess is that most privately owned handguns never leave the box they were in at the time of purchase. I don't agree that possession of a gun makes one safe. If that were true, then we would not have ~70 US policemen dying each year in the line of duty (versus none in the UK.)

[NUKE]

Beetle, trying to get that guy to even tell someone what country he's from, while he lists claims about his country and argues a point he thinks he's making, is hilarious.

He says he is "from Europe" and that's all we need to know. Europe can be a lot of things depending on which part of Europe you are in.

Basically we have a debate coward on our hands

Beetle, are you sure Laz wants you posting his address on the BBS?

[Gixer]

Cripes, even for the US I wouldn't of thought that the figures would be that high.

So what are the FBI figures were crimes are commited with guns? And also the FBI figures for people killed and wounded?

By the way, why are liberal's tagged as "sissy"? If you have a gun and support gun laws does that make you macho and more of a man?


....-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

Originally posted by lazs2
The FBI stats are that at lbetween 600,000 and 1.5 millon times a year guns are used in preventing crimes in America.   So far as I know those are the best stats.

So far as the NRA goes...   Their record so far as accuracy in reporting is far better than any other source I have ever seen.   They tend to get their facts right.   Considering the volumn of facts and quotes that they put out there they have an amazing record...  the anti gun crowd has a dismal record... mostly they can't print one solid paragraph that isn't rife with easily checked up on errors.    The NRA prints a full size magazine (2 actually) every month.

Belive me... there are sissy liberal groups that pore over every word in those magazines looking for factual errors.

Have you ever read an NRA magazine?  I will be glad to send you one if you email me with the information... I would let you decide for yourself.    Wouldn't hurt you a bit to know what you are talking about eh?
lazs

[drone]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
drone I bet you don't even know what you're talking about. Have you ever left the soil of US?

Hmmm lived 3 years in Saudi Arabia--then 2 years in Iran--left Iran in 77.....Oh that was real fun dodging the holy Rollers trying to kill anything that wasnt Muslim...

You ever fly in the 70's? America still isnt deluged with the crap that you had to go through to fly at that time-- Nothing like watching your family get strip searched......

 I've been all over the middle east --went to africa a few times --been all over Europe also ---

I have been privileged with being able to see and live, the intelligent and the stupid of a lot of different cultures....
And I'm not talking military either--

Unlike a majority of people who give opinions about certain things I actually lived what I talk about, didnt see it on TV or read about it in a newspaper......

Have you ever left your tiny piece of soil and seen other worlds and cultures..I'm almost willing to put up money that you have ...but I dont see where you have learned a damn thing about any of it --

try living it instead of just driving by it...Then maybe YOUR opinions might mean more than words on the wind...........

Oh and Beetle, most people who own weapons in the US have lived and learned them from fathers, grandfathers,uncles,aunts and even mothers ---a majority know their weapons and use and practice them regularly....but true there are a few out there how should not only NOT own a firearm, they make you wonder how they keep breathing on their own......

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Unless you have lived in a ghetto, you have absolutely no basis to say that gun ownership is a bad thing or that it costs lives.

If you don't know what a ghetto is, then you don't know what crime truly is.
-SW

[beet1e]

Originally posted by drone
Oh and Beetle, most people who own weapons in the US have lived and learned them from fathers, grandfathers,uncles,aunts and even mothers ---a majority know their weapons and use and practice them regularly

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
the funny part is... the socialists have less reason to trust theirs than we do... you all have such shocked looks on your faces when it all goes to ****e.... YU liked your french government in WWII?  that wasn't all that long ago?  short memory?

What French governement ?

The illegal one Roosevelt was supporting/endorsing ?

Cut'n paste from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/allies_at_war_03.shtml

Churchill also flirted briefly with Vichy but by the spring of 1941 he realised that Petain and the Vichy leaders in the French empire had no intention of resuming the fight. He and de Gaulle decided on a joint British and Free French invasion of the Vichy controlled countries of Syria and Lebanon.

However, after local Vichy forces surrendered and an armistice was concluded, de Gaulle believed that he had been double-crossed by the British commanders on the spot who rode roughshod over commitments made to the Free French. He thought that Britain had secret designs on French territories in the Middle East and his suspicions led to his first row with Churchill.

By the end of 1941, the two men had resolved their differences and seemed once again united. Then, on 7 December 1941, Pearl Harbour finally forced the United States into the war. Churchill's prayers were answered. At last Roosevelt was a fighting ally. Amidst the Anglo-American harmony between the two leaders, there was only one immediate note of discord - the problem of France.

'Roosevelt began to see de Gaulle as an untrustworthy nuisance.'
 

While Churchill had stayed loyal to de Gaulle and the Free French, Roosevelt had continued to cultivate Vichy and ignore de Gaulle. A fortnight after Pearl Harbour de Gaulle launched a Free French coup against the tiny, Vichy controlled islands of St Pierre and Miquelon, just off the coast of Newfoundland. His unauthorised action infuriated the American government and Roosevelt began to see de Gaulle as an untrustworthy nuisance. The dispute deepened during the British and French invasion of French North and West Africa in late 1942, Operation 'Torch', from which Roosevelt insisted that de Gaulle be excluded. Roosevelt hoped that as soon as allied forces arrived on French African soil, the local Vichy commanders would switch from collaboration with the Nazis to collaboration with the British and French.

Roosevelt alighted on another French General, Henri Giraud, whom he intended to promote as a rival leader to de Gaulle. Giraud had been captured by the Nazis in May 1940. In early 1942 he dramatically escaped from the German fortress in which he was held prisoner of war. He was brave, high ranking, untainted by Vichy collaborationism, and, most important of all from Roosevelt's point of view, had no connection with de Gaulle. He seemed the ideal figurehead. Roosevelt received assurances from American emissaries in Algeria that, as soon as Giraud appeared on the scene, the local Vichy leaders, both civilian and military, would instantly accept his command.

[Siaf__csf]

AKsW: Well I kinda agree that in a ghetto you need a cannon, a bulletproof vest and a tank for a vehicle.

However I'd never choose to live in one. Why would you?

I mean there must be alternatives other than responding to the threat of violence with more violence. That's anarchy, not a functional society.

NUKE: "He says he is "from Europe" and that's all we need to know. Europe can be a lot of things depending on which part of Europe you are in.

Basically we have a debate coward on our hands "

Well it's just about as accurate as you are if you say you come from the United States of America. In some states you can get executed and others don't. In some states you're not allowed to have certain sex positions in the privacy of your own home and others you are.. So what uniformity is that then?

Basically the very same thing.

[lazs2]

hmm...sci admits that when his country has immigration then it is a dangerous place... a place that needs bars on the windows... What is more fearful?  putting yourself in jail or.... all the criminals knowing homeowners are armed and not breaking in in the first place?   So long as everyone is equally poor you have no problem?  so long as everyone looks the same and was born there you have no propblem?   NO thanks.

beetle did not give my address..   also... beetle wouldn't need to have a gun in Americal in a middle or upper class neighborhood... probly... the reason is that all the other gun owners are doing the heavy lifting for him allready... burglars don't break into homes when the people are howm cause they THINK beetle is armed.

look socialists.... this is how it is.... America is a land of opportunity... a rich country where there ar tiers of econmic prosperity... poverty stricken and rich and a huge middle class that both of those (and the government) feed on.   We are bordered by a 4th world nation with a porus border.   If everyone were just as poor as his neighbor and our borders were with richer or equally poor countries like you socialists and we didn't care what the government did to us... then we probly could do without guns too... fact... like you... we wouldn't have any choice in the matter.

but... that is not the case... we have what we have and we like it.   There is nothing you have that is worth changing our system... nothing you have that I want or envy.  Sorry that it bothers you that we have freedcoms.   get over it or embrace it.
lazs

[lazs2]

I will go a step further than iron... I see no need to regester any firearm.   I see no reason that any man or woman who is mentally competent should not have any firearm they desire... I think that if a man kills 20 children with an M16 at a school and lives to serve time....  When they let him out he should get his gun back and take his place in the voting booth.  

If he is too dangerous to have a LEGAL gun then he is too dangerous to be out.

socialist sissies?  well yes... whenever you vote like women... to take away someone elses rights... you are a sissy.
lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
burglars don't break into homes when the people are howm cause they THINK beetle is armed.

Huh, and I always thought it was because they knew I had nothing worth nicking...

You're right. I didn't give your address. But I wondered if anyone recognises who lives at the address I did give?

[lazs2]

You have actually hit on it beetle...

In America people commit crime because it is so wealthy with such opportunity and freedom..  some use the opportunity to better themselves and others use it to become criminals... we have the biggest drug culture in the world..  We have porus borders with a 4th world nation whose main exports is drugs,crime, poverty, corruption and babies.  

in a socialist country there is no point in robbing someone who has no more than you do.   You don't generaly have bigotry with people who look exactly like you and speak the same language.
lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Curval
Of course then, convieniently, the argument switches to "we have guns because they are fun".  
 

It isn't the least bit convenient. It's simply the truth.

In Kansas in 2002, there were 121,522 resident hunting licenses sold; 52,560 non-resident hunting licenses sold. Of course, that doesn't count guys like me that bought a lifetime license ten years ago.

We've got a population of about 2,500.000, about 1.5 million between the ages of 19 and 64. About half of that male,  so figure maybe 750,000 males of routine "hunting age". Roughly one out of seven of us buys a license then; got to figure if they buy the license they're going hunting.

Most folks go hunting because they enjoy it.

Opening day is November 8; the outdoors stores are doing big business. Hotels and motels in "small town Kansas" are booked solid. You can't get a room in any of the decent areas for pheasant hunting. Churches are planning big hunter's pancake breakfasts. Families are planning reunions around opening day; old friends are linking up. I have friends from as far away as North Carolina, Texas and Wyoming coming in to hunt and socialize. Some of those guys I haven't seen for literally 10+ years.

We do all this because we live in fear.

It's a great sport, it's excellent recreation. And for all of you wondering about the untrained gun handlers... there will be a TON of guys out there that haven't picked up a gun since last opening day.

Guess what?

There were four hunting-related fatalities in 2002. Though the number of fatalities was unusually high, the overall number of accidents, 16, was a record low. Kansas averages between one and two hunting fatalities a year. There was one in 2001 and none in 2000.

Average of two a year. Lots of "untrained" gun handlers, handling "unregistered guns"; rifles, pistols, shotguns, bolts, semi-autos.

In Kansas, in 2002, 512 fatalities were directly attributed to automobiles. These autos were registered and driven by trained and tested drivers who were (supposed to be) licensed.

[Curval]

Toad..I don't doubt it is fun...in fact I KNOW it is fun.

What I was getting at is that the arguments from the very pro-gun side against any form of "control" is that under such a system only crimminals have the guns..therefore by extension those who live under such a government must live in fear of those crimminals as we cannot adequately protect ourselves.

This logic suggests that the pro-gun types only feel safe because they are armed.

It is an argument that tries to quell any debate on gun control.  Lazs mentions that he can even protect himself from his own government, should they get out of hand...and that those of us who are not so armed are at the complete mercy of our respective governments.

It all then gets tied into the inalienable right of Americans, as laid out in your constitution, that your people can arm themselves.

Suddenly, when counter-arguments are made...such as "Well you obviously live in fear of your own government" the pro-gun types then turn to the "we fire guns because they are fun".

Now..did the founding fathers, or framers of the constitution have "fun" in mind when they proclaimed that every American has the right to carry a weapon?...possibly, but I think you'd agree that the actual reason is more to do with self protection.  I very much doubt they looked upon guns as a means of gaining the "viagra" effect, for example.

Also..I'm not so sure black people or Mexicans were much of a threat when the constitution was drafted.

[Swoop]

Originally posted by Curval
Also..I'm not so sure black people or Mexicans were much of a threat when the constitution was drafted.

No, it was the British who were the threat when the constitution was drafted.