Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on February 19, 2004, 11:23:01 AM
-
The Fraser Institute 3 The Failed Experiment
Executive Summary
Widely televised firearm murders in many countries dur-
ing the 20 th Century have spurred politicians to intro-
duce restrictive gun laws.The politicians then promise
that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence
and “create a safer society.”It is time to pause and ask if
gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.
Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime
or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.What
makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief
that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns
and,more importantly,that criminal violence in general
may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.
In this study,I examine crime trends in Common-
wealth countries that have recently introduced firearm
regulations:i.e.,Great Britain,Australia,and Canada.
The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations
is to examine trends in total violent crime,not just fire-
arms crime.Since firearms are only a small fraction of
criminal violence,the public would not be safer if the
new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect
on total criminal violence.
The United States provides a valuable point of com-
parison for assessing crime rates because the criminal
justice system there differs so drastically from those in
Europe and the Commonwealth.Not only are criminal
penalties typically more severe in the United States,often
much more severe,but also conviction and incarceration
rates are usually much higher.Perhaps the most striking
difference is that qualified citizens in the United States
can carry concealed handguns for self-defence.During
the past few decades,more than 25 states in the United
States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry
concealed handguns.In 2003,there are 35 states where
citizens can get such a permit.
The upshot is that violent crime rates,and homicide
rates in particular,have been falling in the United States.
The drop in the American crime rate is even more im-
pressive when compared with the rest of the world.In 18
of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office,
violent crime increased during the 1990s.This contrast
should provoke thinking people to wonder what hap-
pened in those countries where they introduced increas-
ingly restrictive firearm laws.
Britain
In the past 20 years,both Conservative and Labour gov-
ernments have introduced restrictive firearm laws;even
banning all handguns in 1997.Unfortunately,these
Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed.The
public is not any safer and may be less safe.Police sta-
tistics show that England and Wales are enduring a seri-
ous crime wave.In contrast to handgun-dense United
States,where the homicide rate has been falling for over
20 years,the homicide rate in handgun-banning England
and Wales has been growing.In the 1990s alone,the
homicide rate jumped 50%,going from 10 per million in
1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general
has increased since the late 1980s and,in fact,since
1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
The firearm laws may even have increased criminal vio-
lence by disarming the general public.Despite Britain ’s
banning and confiscating all handguns,violent crime,
and firearm crime,continue to grow.
Australia
Following shocking killings in 1996,the Australian gov-
ernment made sweeping changes to the firearm legisla-
tion in 1997.Unfortunately,the recent firearm regula-
tions have not made the streets of Australia any safer.
The total homicide rate,after having remained basically
f lat from 1995 to 2001,has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive Unit-
ed States stands out against the trend in Australia.
The divergence between Australia and the United
States is even more apparent with violent crime.While
PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES,NUMBER 71
The Failed Experiment 4 The Fraser Institute
violent crime is decreasing in the United States,it is in-
creasing in Australia.Over the past six years,the over-
all rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to
increase.Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to
rise.Armed robbery has increased 166%nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned fire-
arms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million.
The costs of the police services bureaucracy,including
the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration
system,has increased by $200 million since 1997.And
for what?There has been no visible impact on violent
crime.It is impossible to justif y such a massive amount of
the taxpayers ’money for no decrease in crime.For that
kind of tax money,the police could have had more pa-
trol cars,shorter shifts,or maybe even better equipment.
Think of how many lives might have been saved.
Canada
In the 1990s,sweeping changes were made to the fire-
arms laws,first in 1991 and then again in 1995.Licensing
and registration are still being phased in.The contrast
between the criminal violence rates in the United States
and in Canada is dramatic.Over the past decade,the
rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in
the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.
The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is
moving to farce.The effort to register all firearms,which
was originally claimed to cost only $2 million,has now
been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 bil-
lion.The final costs are unknown but,if the costs of
enforcement are included,the total could easily reach $3
billion.Taxpayers would do well to ask for independent
cost-benefit studies on registration to see how much the
gun registry is already costing.
Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce vi-
olent crime in Australia,Canada,or Great Britain.The
policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure.
Criminal violence has not decreased.Instead,it contin-
ues to increase.Unfortunately,policy dictates that the
current directions will continue and,more importantly,
it will not be examined critically.
Only the United States has witnessed such a dramatic
drop in criminal violence over the past decade.Perhaps it
is time politicians in the Commonwealth reviewed their
traditional antipathy to lawfully owned firearms.
It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public.
No law,no matter how restrictive,can protect us from
people who decide to commit violent crimes.Maybe we
should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and
target shooters?
great website at.... http://www.sfu.ca./~mauser
lazs
-
Laz, Laz, Laz, Laz, Laaaaaaaaaaaazz.
OK, I'm staking out the prime spot for the beer and brats concession. No competition within 15 feet of the hibachi and umbrella!
-
"Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters? "
Radical.
-
If only he flew AH and posted on these boards. Then we could have two lazs'.
:)
-
also... 1-8-04... Ohio joined the ranks of right to carry states so U.S. crime will go down even more...
and... the supremes upheld New Mexicos right to carry law that was under attack by the women of gun control... This one is worth noting for me because the supporters of right to carry in New mexico were 2 senators and a gov..... All..... believe it or not.... democrats! a very pleasnat surprise to say the least....
handwriting is on the wall... even the democrats are starting to see that the big lies about guns aren't selling anymore.... people are actually doing the research and catching the liars.
can ending womens suffrage be far behind? We can only hope.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
also... 1-8-04... Ohio joined the ranks of right to carry states so U.S. crime will go down even more...lazs
The anti-gunners here are already gearing up.Toby Hoover's group has stated,"If you see someone with a gun, continue to assume their activity is suspicious. There is no way for you to determine the 'law abiding' from those with criminal intent. Call law enforcement to investigate and leave the area."
What it amounts to is they don't want people to stick around if it turns out to be a false accusation.
Link to the entire article...
http://www.ofcc.net/article1794.html
-
violent crime will happen with or without guns...what they should be doing is teaching people what do do when a criminal shows up with a gun and how to avoid the situation alltogether
-
Originally posted by vorticon
violent crime will happen with or without guns...what they should be doing is teaching people what do do when a criminal shows up with a gun and how to avoid the situation alltogether
What to do? Pull out your legally acquired and permitted Gloch and take care of it. There...lesson complete.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
What to do? Pull out your legally acquired and permitted Gloch and take care of it. There...lesson complete.
what if you aint armed...or what if hes carrying a much more powerfull gun thats already out? can you pull a gun and shoot before he does...
-
Not sure how much training you could possibly do to help in that situation Vort.
Sabre has the right idea....if you are in the US.
Here...well, very unlikely to happen...just like for you in Canada.
-
vort... in the U.S. we have harsh penalties that need to be better enforced for using a gun in a crime. Having the citizens have guns makes criminals less likely to commit crimes that involve victims that are present... having harsher penalties while increasing the number of citizens that are armed puts things as they should be... the criminals are afraid to carry/use a gun because of the extra penalties and they are afraid to attack people because they might get shot..
win/win.
lazs
-
Laz... this study is flawed from the outset, you can see it in this statement:
Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce vi-
olent crime in Australia,Canada,or Great Britain.
Then followed by this statement:
The upshot is that violent crime rates,and homicide
rates in particular,have been falling in the United States.
This fails to mention the levels at which each countries violent crimes are at. Its just massaging the statistics to say what you want them to say. Its all releative to the crime levels - and you'd have to admit the levels of violent crimes, particularly gun related, are far higher in the USA than these countries.
There are also other factors, Australia for example, has been suffering gangs forming from growing migrant communities (Asian, Middle Eastern in particular) which has seen a substantial leap in violent crimes. Nothing to do with gun laws.
The facts are simple, communities outside the USA do not need to be armed to teeth. The USA is a different case, you're a bunch of nutcases, you've got so many armed 'citizens' now you'd be a fool to step onto the street not packing personal-body-armour, a couple of pistols, and some sort of fully automatic weapon.
Please do not try and arm our 'citizens' to bring our gun crime rate statistics up to make yours look better :)
-
vulcan.... I think you miss the point. each country has it's own socio economic system and they all differ wildly. What the study/studies all point out is that....
No matter what the country or what the circustances....THAT COUNTRY does not benifiet and allmost allways get's worse from harsh gun control. Removing guns from ANY country that is studied seems to make things worse not better... In countries like the U.S. where more people are armed... the more that are armed the less crime there is.
like baldness remedies say.... lets say that some hair growth happened with every case, a variable amount... because one person had a lot of hair to begin with would that mean the remedy was worthless?
What is it that you don't understand?
lazs
-
Anyone know what the gun laws in South Africa are like?
I ask only because I got an e-mail from a client yesterday. His nephew, whom he adopted after the kid's father was killed a few years ago, was shot the night before last in a robbery.
At best the boy will be paralysed for life...but the doctors do not think he will survive.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The facts are simple, communities outside the USA do not need to be armed to teeth. The USA is a different case, you're a bunch of nutcases, you've got so many armed 'citizens' now you'd be a fool to step onto the street not packing personal-body-armour, a couple of pistols, and some sort of fully automatic weapon.
Vulcan...I work for a fairly small city in the Southern U.S. as a firefighter. There are places in this city that we do not respond to without a police escort. The reason behind this is because we have been shot at on numerous occassions. Now I don't mean they are just shooting for the fun of it. We have taken fire while in the engine coming into and going out of the communities (if you care to call them that). The engine I ride has 4 patches over bullet holes. When we get out at the scene we are required to wear ballistic vests. Ever tried to wear one of these under the gear we have on? Yes we even have to wear it for fire calls to these communities.
The reason I am posting this is to tell you this. The U.S. is not a bunch of "nutcases". 95% of the people here are quiet and law abiding citizens. The other 5% I have no idea what they are thinking but I have to deal with them everyday I go to work and there are some real winners out there. But I can promise you the people thast put those wholes in our truck are not law abiding nor are they citizens. I can also promise you they did not buy thier weapons legally or for any useful purpose other than to impose thier will onto either a innocent victim or a person of thier same caliber.
I will say this though. in the past 2 years that the P.D. have been responding with us to these places not 1 shot has been fired at us. Why? Maybe because they now know that it is not just an unarmed firefighter trying to help someone but it is a force that will return fire if neccesary and/or give them a blue light taxi ride to the county motel and possibly shut thier business down for a while.
Sorry so long and thanks for your time.
Robert
-
I live in a city of a million and a half, don't own a gun, don't lock my doors or my car and have never had a problem. Vort, your idea of the US is pretty far out there, dude.
-
I would like the damn gun registration abolished ASAP.
But the legal system is a bigger problem.
A guy that was the leader of a teen prostitution network got sent to jail for less then 5 years.
How any judge can justify that is beyond me.
I was was one of the victim's parent I would probably have called a farce to the media and asked for support to get a better legal system. Or shot the stupid JUDGE and pleaded guilty to justifiable homicide. :D
We also are starting to get gang problems.
I wouldn't mind people being able to carry concealed handguns.
I would get a license to carry a weapon if that was the case.
Then I would buy a PRECIOUS! little Glock. :cool:
OH MY GOD! I am getting laszy! :eek: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES :D
-
Maybe the anti-gun experts can explain this statistic
Gun crimes California 2000-2002 166,284
Gun crimes Maine 2000-2002 1,100
I can add up the gun crimes in over 20 states before I equal the number in California?????
-
No matter what the country or what the circustances....THAT COUNTRY does not benifiet and allmost allways get's worse from harsh gun control. Removing guns from ANY country that is studied seems to make things worse not better... In countries like the U.S. where more people are armed... the more that are armed the less crime there is.
I don't completely agree with that statement. I think gun crime has increased in many countries NOT because of gun control, which you imply but in SPITE of gun control.
As you often say gun control only restricts law abiding citizens who want to own guns. Criminals always find a way.
I would say that harsh gun control does not work to reduce criminal gun crime although harsher gun controls were brought in these countries more or less in response to much publicised massacres by previously law abiding gun owners, like Dunblane. It was always a fantasy that this would also reduce criminal gun crime.
Here in Ireland,we have very hard gun laws and have had them for many years. No hand guns for example. This was in response to the terrorist threat Of course it didn't work. The IRA at first got Armalite rifles from sympathisers in the US (ironically) and later from Colonel Gadaffi. Again harsh laws didn't work, just restricted law abiding citizens. But it's not a big issue as most people are effectively anti gun.
But the laws didn't cause terrorism any more than they caused an increase in gun crime these days. There is a shooting in this city almost every couple of weeks. All gangster and drug related.
This hasn't caused a demand for increased gun ownership but demands for increased policing, who ironically don't carry guns.
So I agree that gun control does not reduce gun crime it just restricts people's rights to own guns.
Basically gun control does not work. That is now my view. I have been swayed on that subject by comments from Lazs and others. But I'm not ready to join the NRA just yet. :D
However I just don't believe it causes an increase either. Other factors are at work there. At the same time I don't believe unrestricted availability of guns automatically reduces crime. Other factors are at work there too. I would give more credit to the American people as the law abiding citizens they mostly are, more effective policing and yes gun owners who are most often very conservative and law abiding of citizens.
I was never anti gun but of late I'm drifting towards to nearly pro gun lobby but ever so cautiously.
:aok
-
You forgot a lot of context Weazelsan like :
Maine : 1,270,180
Metropolitan 38 %
Non-Metropolitan 62 %
Kalifornia : 34,142,840
Metropolitan 99 %
Non-Metropolitan 1 %
-
Originally posted by straffo
You forgot a lot of context Weazelsan like :
Maine : 1,270,180
Metropolitan 38 %
Non-Metropolitan 62 %
Kalifornia : 34,142,840
Metropolitan 99 %
Non-Metropolitan 1 %
That's 34 times the population
Gun crimes are 166 times more
-
Lazs, while I am no fan of our current gun registry and some of the laws but hey thats beside the point. I do question the study done by the Frazier Institute, boy the do get some different ideas. Anyway there is no evidence that there has been a hugh increase in crimes in Canada related to any of the gun laws. In fact other then an increase in some property crimes the crime rate in Canada has been declining at a similar rate as the US. I won't cut and paste a whole lot of numbers but if you want to check the following link it explains it better. But remember numbers are numbers and you can get them to say just about anything....right...
The report is a couple years old, but in this field the data is usually dated... I notice that the homicide rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000, while in the US it is 5.5 per 100,000. That may be due to your more, how should I put this, liberal gun laws. More guns may mean more practice and better shots...who knows
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
-
I live in a city of a million and a half, don't own a gun, don't lock my doors or my car and have never had a problem. Vort, your idea of the US is pretty far out there, dude.
Err, lizking, you can thank your other gun toting friends. Every other Texan carries (or something like that).
Crime rate dropped overnight when someone said that.
-
I remember talking to a Cuban worker at Guantanamo Cuba in the late 60's,and the thing that struck me the most is him telling me that he fought with Castro in the Mountains against Batista. After the revolution was won, Castro sent special people around to confiscate the weapons. When he ask why he was told, the revolution is over, we won, there is no longer a need to have a weapon. But he said "I know the real reason". Unfortunately there was nothing they could do...they had no weapons.
-
In the 1990s alone,the
homicide rate jumped 50%,going from 10 per million in
1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
Why is he using deliberately distorted figures?
For a start, the current figure for 1990 is 10.9, not 10. I wouldn't trust the maths of anyone who rounds 10.9 to 10, rather than 11. It suggests he might have an agenda, doesn't it?
The bigest problem is that he's used two incomparable figures.
The homicide rate in England and Wales is published every year. It is based on the number of homicides recorded by the police in that year, regardless of when they happened.
That figureis reduced to some extent by court cases and futher investigations, for example a death that is ruled accidental rather than homicide is removed from the figures.
That has almost no effect on the published homicide figures, because most cases, especially the difficult ones, don't come to court in the year they were committed. Typically about 30 cases are reclassified as no longer homicide in the year they are committed. The figures are then published, showing the homicide rate.
However, as cases come to court, the figure for previous years will be revised downwards. This gets included in statistical tables, but not published as a proper homicide statistic. Who's interested in crime figures for 5 years ago?
What that means is, this "professor" has usd figures from ten years ago which have been through the legal process and had non-homicides weeded out, and comparing them to homicides as recorded by the police.
His site also has a nice little graph. It's the first thing you see when you enter
(http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/pix/Homicide.jpg)
At first glance, it shows the Canadian homicide rate to be slightly higher than the US rate. When you look at the scales, though, you see the US scale goes from 0 to 12 and the Canadian scale from 0 to 3 :rolleyes:
Something else strikes me about it though, the way the Canadian figures have fallen in parallel with the US figures. Is that because of all the CCW permits that were issued in Canada throughout the 90s?
-
cpxx and avro etc... I have always said that in the U.S. more guns mean less crime... in your countries it is maybe not so clear cut but.... the evidence seems to point to the fact that you indeed do have more crime when you crack down on guns... at the very least.... you do not decrease crime with womanly and draconian deprivation of your rights..
As I have allways said... and continue to say... you gave up your rights for nothing. worse... you gave up other fellow citizens rights... and that is what I find criminal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cpxx and avro etc... I have always said that in the U.S. more guns mean less crime... in your countries it is maybe not so clear cut but.... the evidence seems to point to the fact that you indeed do have more crime when you crack down on guns...
lazs
*shrug* that may be true but what most people are trying to say is that people get more cocky (and therefore more likely to commit a crime) when they carry a more powerfull gun...so by limiting certain more powerfull guns not only are criminals less cocky but there also armed closer to what a citizen would have...as in if the average citizen carries a bowie knife a criminal with a long sword is more likely to commit a crime because hes better armed...but if you make it harder to get a long sword then the average citizen will still carry a bowie knife but the criminal will be stuck with a short sword or a bowie knife himself...and the same holds true with guns
-
Originally posted by vorticon
*shrug* that may be true but what most people are trying to say is that people get more cocky (and therefore more likely to commit a crime) when they carry a more powerfull gun...so by limiting certain more powerfull guns not only are criminals less cocky but there also armed closer to what a citizen would have...
And how do you propose to limit "more powerful guns"?And if you you did,what would stop criminals from illegally obtaining them,while law abiding citizens would be restricted to lesser calibers?
I'm about to buy a carry gun,and it will be at least a.40 cal...I really don't care what the criminal has.Trust me,if I hit him,he'll go down.
-
Yeah, lazer, everybody in Texas a gun, some steers and a bigass caddie with longhorns on the hood.
-
Oh lazs you're so full ****. Gun laws in countries outside the US of Cowboys do NOT increase occurances of violent crimes. Violent crimes have been increasing due to other factors, socio-economic, ethnic, immigration based stuff. If anything gun laws in these countries have kept the guns out of the hands of angry people, potentially saving lives.
The US is screwed, you've gone past the point of no return with guns. I live in a country where I have no need to arm myself, don't mind the gun laws being strict, and don't want to declare indepence in my back yard.
Heres a question for you: How do you feel when you are unarmed?
-
The US is screwed, you've gone past the point of no return with guns.
When did this happen?
-
Originally posted by Sox62
And how do you propose to limit "more powerful guns"?And if you you did,what would stop criminals from illegally obtaining them,while law abiding citizens would be restricted to lesser calibers?
I'm about to buy a carry gun,and it will be at least a.40 cal...I really don't care what the criminal has.Trust me,if I hit him,he'll go down.
nothing would stop them from obtaining it illegally but it would be more expensive harder to get at and if a cop saw the gun on him he'd be arrested in the blink of an eye.
yeah sure thats if you hit him...remember a criminal ALWAYS has the advantage of having his gun already pulled and will be watching for someone to go for there gun...
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Oh lazs you're so full ****. Gun laws in countries outside the US of Cowboys do NOT increase occurances of violent crimes. Violent crimes have been increasing due to other factors, socio-economic, ethnic, immigration based stuff. If anything gun laws in these countries have kept the guns out of the hands of angry people, potentially saving lives.
The US is screwed, you've gone past the point of no return with guns. I live in a country where I have no need to arm myself, don't mind the gun laws being strict, and don't want to declare indepence in my back yard.
Heres a question for you: How do you feel when you are unarmed?
I'll bet Laz is unarmed about 99% of the time and feels perfectly safe being so.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
yeah sure thats if you hit him...
I would.I wonder how many criminals actually have any range time.
Your scenario is the guy already has a gun pointed at you point blank.Having a weapon under that scenario would do NO ONE any good,citizen,policeman,etc.
-
Originally posted by ra
When did this happen?
When you booted the english out.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
I would.I wonder how many criminals actually have any range time.
Your scenario is the guy already has a gun pointed at you point blank.Having a weapon under that scenario would do NO ONE any good,citizen,policeman,etc.
never said anything about point blank...im talking a guy walks into a store pulls a gun at the till...if theres anyone in the store and they make a move to pull there gun the criminal will shoot him...by limiting more powerfull guns hes not going to feel so sure that hes gonna do enough damage if someone does pull there gun...
there lack of range time makes it even more important that they DONT get a more powerfull gun...if he does a poor shot with a powerfull gun he'll do more damage than a less powerfull one...and if his gun is a semi/auto then hes gonna be able to shoot again real quick...
oh and if they ban any handgun more powerfull than the powerfullest most common then fewer people will be affected...and those who do have a more powerfull gun provided they have a clean record can apply for an exception provided they have a reasonably good cause (as in reasonably high violent crime rate in area etc.)
im not bothered by shotgun/rifles for obvious reasons
-
If I'm in that store and he's paying attention to the storeowner,his day is ruined.
Not sarcasm or insult intended,but do you own a gun?Or actually spend time at a range?
Or let me ask this,what what you define as "too powerful a gun"?Please educate me.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
If I'm in that store and he's paying attention to the storeowner,his day is ruined.
Or let me ask this,what what you define as "too powerful a gun"?Please educate me.
he'd be a pretty crappy robber if he wasnt paying attention to everyone around him...then again if you go into a store when theres other people in there your crappy in the first place...most people dont want to be on either end of a hostage situation...of course if you do get a chance to shoot him do it...
to powerfull a gun...well since im not very well versed in guns i'll make a analogy...
hunting knife = powerfullest common gun
long sword = ak47/m16
too powerfull = everything from a long sword to a well made bowieknife...
stuff between hunting knife and bowie knife would be available provided just cause
what the anaolgy leaves us with is a very common weapon that can still be used if someone comes in with a bowie knife provided they do it right...and if anyone shows up with something better than bowie knife they they really mean business and your best bet is to get the hell outta there as soon as you spot the danger...or if its spotted to late merely keep quite and do what they say (of course if they give you a opening take it...)
-
The Cranberries come from a town where guns are illegal.
People use knives instead.
It as a nickname because knives are used in crimes a lot.
If someone is violent with guns, he will also be without.
But I agree with Vort, man I would love carrying a longsword.
No one with a knife would even consider attacking me. :D
I don't want the Canadian gov to legalize owning of military weapons that is for sure.
Handguns are fine and so are hunting rifles and shotguns.
If you need full auto to defend yourself, you got some serious issues (Gangs). :D
Carrying a concealed handgun might be going to far though.
In some places in the US it probably is a good idea, but here in Canada I am not sure it would be.
But the gun registration as got to go fast.
-
vulcan... paint it any way you want but in the countrys that had some citizen firearms rights... when the rights are strengthened the crime goes down... when the rights are trampled on the crime goes up. crooks love an unarmed populace... I am not able to have access to a firearm about half waking time. I am fortunate in that I am large enough and scarred up enough and still young enough that the scum won't take a chance in most places... In places that I will be in high risk and outnumbered I figure... better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. to answer your question tho.. I feel somewhat vulnerable in bad areas when I am unarmed. I try to avoid these situations.
vort... not singling you out but you voice a lot of the misconceptions that I hear and that are being propogated by the women in the media so I answer you... Maybe "most" people are saying that powerful guns cause crooks to get "cocky" and commit crimes... they say what they want but the numbers don't bear them out.. When more ciizens are armed the crooks are decidely less "cocky". That old man or woman looks a lot less vulnerable to a crook if he is wondering if that hip bulge might be one of John Brownings excellent designs eh?
At the same time... no type of specific caliber or type weapon ban has ever done any good. More powerful, less powerful.. 10- round or 14 round magazines... no difference
What does make a difference (besides aloowing more concealed carry) is when you enforce stiffer penalties for crimes where guns are used. This makes the average lowlife less likely to be armed and at the same time get's the real psycos off the street longer when they do use a firearm.
lazs
-
firearms are not evil and they don't make people do things. In impolite societies or societies that have an impolite element that is large... they reduce crime dramaticly... in polite societies they have little effect one way or the other.
No reason anyone should be deprived of his right to defend himself.
I would not be a part of a society that felt they had the right to decide if I could defend myself or not.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vort... not singling you out but you voice a lot of the misconceptions that I hear and that are being propogated by the women in the media so I answer you... Maybe "most" people are saying that powerful guns cause crooks to get "cocky" and commit crimes... they say what they want but the numbers don't bear them out.. When more ciizens are armed the crooks are decidely less "cocky". That old man or woman looks a lot less vulnerable to a crook if he is wondering if that hip bulge might be one of John Brownings excellent designs eh?
More powerful, less powerful.. 10- round or 14 round magazines... no difference
What does make a difference (besides aloowing more concealed carry) is when you enforce stiffer penalties for crimes where guns are used. This makes the average lowlife less likely to be armed and at the same time get's the real psycos off the street longer when they do use a firearm.
lazs
1. yes when citizens are armed crooks are less cocky...but if the crooks are much better armed than the citizens then the citizens being armed wont make much difference...to use a aces high analogy the gun laws make sure that the guy spray and praying at d600+ is using .50s not 20mm hizookas...and your armed also with .50s...
2. exactly my point...in a citizens case size doesnt matter...but by making it harder for the average lowlife to get armed with a semi or full automatic weapon the average citizen has a much greater chance of being able to adequatly defend himself without carrying a big semi or full automatic weapon themselves...
3. agreed...as i have said before i merely want it so that thewhen they do use a gun its not a full or semi auto.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Maybe the anti-gun experts can explain this statistic
Gun crimes California 2000-2002 166,284
Gun crimes Maine 2000-2002 1,100
I can add up the gun crimes in over 20 states before I equal the number in California?????
LOL...I'm flattered you chose my state to use your example...but its a flawed example.
We have a strong, sportsman history and lifestyle. 99% of what we are shooting at is deer, birds, etc...we do have a huge percentage of guns per square mile (cant find the link/stat..its impressive).
We also dont have the urbania of California..nor the gangs, minorities and many other variables.
-
The Fraser Institute is crackpot right wing think tank...Sorta like Canada's answer to The John Birch Society...They even wrote "The Common Sense Revolution" which was the Ontario Conservative government's platform the last 8 years..It didn't work,ended Premeir resigning in the middle of scandels and resulted in thier conservative party getting booted outta power with the largest LIBERAL majority government in our province's history...Seems like common sense (privatising health care/Hydro Power,tax breaks to wealthy and corporations,voting huge pay increases for politicians while sticking it to welfare moms) isn't very popular up here.
-
sirloin... perhaps the institute is a crackpot one as you say.. I don't know anything about it but... the paper is accurate.
vort... There is no escalation of firepower as you claim. what really happens is that crooks use whatever if easily concealed or whatever they can get their hands on. ... I would much rater he have a 9mm auto and hold it sideways than a .357 mag revolver or a single action cowboy gun ruger vaquero in 44 magnum.
With revolvers... back when they were standard... the average gunfite lasted 2.7 rounds. Now it is about 7 or 8 depending on what study you read. In police shootings or non gang related shootings the chance of someone being hit by stray rounds is small. Gang shootings and drivebys which are a copy of much older gang shootings, often cause people to be injured by stray bullets.. the gangbangers fire a lot of bullets from a lot of guns into very densly populated ghetto environments... people all over the place and cardboard houses. best to not hang out in ghettos.
lazs
-
<-- joins Mr. Toad in the beer tent for a few beers, and a discussion about crosswind landings in L1011s.
-
Lazs say what you like, but I live in one of those countries where gun control has been strengthened, and crime has not increased because of it.
You are grasping at straws, you don't have too. I'm not anti-gun, I love guns, but I don't NEED a gun. I do own an air-rifle for target practise (its legal to own an air-gun if your over 18 without a license here). When I was a kid I used to go hunting rabits on my own from about 10 with a beautiful Browning .22 Pump Action. In Air Cadets I used to love practising on the range with Fn SLR's (M16s were so pitiful compared to them). But at the end of the day there is no valid reason for me to wander around with a pistol.
Its impossible to gauge the effectiveness of the gunlaws because the only way to see if the laws were working is to put guns in hands of the general populace and see what happens. At the end of the day, MORE people per/population in USA die to gun related crimes than do in New Zealand by a freaking HUGE margin (IIRC it was 100x). I know we're lucky here, you guys make me appreciate where I live all the time.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
what if you aint armed...or what if hes carrying a much more powerfull gun thats already out? can you pull a gun and shoot before he does...
Wyat Erp gunned down two men who had the drop on him. They were bluffing, he was not. He pulled his pistol and shot them both.
-
vort... There is no escalation of firepower as you claim. what really happens is that crooks use whatever if easily concealed or whatever they can get their hands on. ... I would much rater he have a 9mm auto and hold it sideways than a .357 mag revolver or a single action cowboy gun ruger vaquero in 44 magnum.
of course they use whats easily available...the entire point of gun control is to make sure whats easily available isnt better than what the common person has and if he knows that what he has isnt better than what anyone else has and he knows someones gonna have it then he's gonna exersize more caution...if a crooks a good shot it really doesnt matter what he has...but if he's a crappy shot then hes gonna want at least a semi auto (so he can shoot off a lot of rounds and therefore do a lot of damage) and failing that something big enough to do plenty of damage with 1 or 2 shots...
that is of course a fine theory...wether or not it actually works is pretty hard to tell...maybe canada has a lower violent crime ratebecause our criminals are smarter so they dont end up in a situation where they actually have to fire...
-
canada has smarter criminals? you could be right.
on the subject:
some years ago in florida, rental cars had a tag that was different from a regular car tag, also rental cars had bumper stickers for the rental company.
The criminals knowing a florida resident MIGHT be armed and a tourist would NOT BE ARMED were attacking rental cars. Many tourists were car jacked,robbed , raped, killed. Of course this hurt our tourist industry.
The state passed laws making rental cars use regular tags and no rental company bumper stickers, so now a rental car looks like a normal car.
The attacks on tourists have dropped to nothing because the criminals have lost a easy target, the criminals don't know who has a gun.
Not everyone has to be armed, the criminals only have to know that SOME are armed to be detered.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
LOL...I'm flattered you chose my state to use your example...but its a flawed example.
We have a strong, sportsman history and lifestyle. 99% of what we are shooting at is deer, birds, etc...we do have a huge percentage of guns per square mile (cant find the link/stat..its impressive).
We also dont have the urbania of California..nor the gangs, minorities and many other variables.
That is my point , There are an enormous amount of guns in Maine because of it's sportsman history, but only a tiny fraction of the gun crimes of California. In other words access to firearms is not the reason for gun violence. Other factors are at the heart of the problem. I knew when I posted that some would say "your reasoning is flawed because"
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The Fraser Institute is crackpot right wing think tank...Sorta like Canada's answer to The John Birch Society...They even wrote "The Common Sense Revolution" which was the Ontario Conservative government's platform the last 8 years..It didn't work,ended Premeir resigning in the middle of scandels and resulted in thier conservative party getting booted outta power with the largest LIBERAL majority government in our province's history...Seems like common sense (privatising health care/Hydro Power,tax breaks to wealthy and corporations,voting huge pay increases for politicians while sticking it to welfare moms) isn't very popular up here.
Authors,
"Gary Mauser: I was born and raised in California, but purchased my first firearm in Canada after becoming a citizen. I left California in 1971 for France, where I spent three years teaching at the University of Grenoble. After a year in New Orleans, I immigrated to Canada in 1974 to accept a job at Simon Fraser University. Except for a year as a Visiting Professor at Laval University in Quebec City, I've lived in B.C. ever since."
"Taylor Buckner: I was born in Kentucky, was on the high-school rifle team briefly, hunted once with my father, did my compulsory military service, joined the Oakland, California Police Department (where I became interested in gun control), which became the source of my Doctoral dissertation. I moved to Canada in 1967 to take a job at Sir George Williams (now Concordia) University. During the twenty years I lived in downtown Montreal I was not involved with guns at all, though I had a shotgun my grandmother gave me as a high school graduation present sitting in the closet."
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
When you booted the english out.
With our guns.
-
Originally posted by john9001
on the subject:
some years ago in florida, rental cars had a tag that was different from a regular car tag, also rental cars had bumper stickers for the rental company.
The criminals knowing a florida resident MIGHT be armed and a tourist would NOT BE ARMED were attacking rental cars. Many tourists were car jacked,robbed , raped, killed. Of course this hurt our tourist industry.
The state passed laws making rental cars use regular tags and no rental company bumper stickers, so now a rental car looks like a normal car.
The attacks on tourists have dropped to nothing because the criminals have lost a easy target, the criminals don't know who has a gun.
Not everyone has to be armed, the criminals only have to know that SOME are armed to be detered.
I remember one such incident involving an elderly British couple who had just arrived in Miami. They'd had a long flight, were probably tired, and ended up driving into a bad neighbourhood, where they fell prey to an armed gang that drove up behind them. At least one and possibly both Britons were shot. Their assailant was a 17 year old girl.
So yes, now the rental cars have that bar code sticker on the door jamb, or somewhere else where it can't normally be seen. I remember being asked to open my door at the exit barrier for the guy to scan it when I rented a car in the US, shortly after that incident.
OK, so now the criminals can't identify the tourists. It was much easier to apply this quickfix than to face up to the real problem, which is the violent gangs, and the fact that a 17 year old girl belonging to one such gang was able to get hold of a handgun. :rolleyes: Originally posted by lazs2
With revolvers... back when they were standard... the average gunfite lasted 2.7 rounds. Now it is about 7 or 8 depending on what study you read. In police shootings or non gang related shootings the chance of someone being hit by stray rounds is small. Gang shootings and drivebys which are a copy of much older gang shootings, often cause people to be injured by stray bullets..
I'm glad I don't live in a society like that. When Britain becomes like that, I shall be on the phone to CyranoAH/Daniel to enlist his help in finding me a nice quiet villa in Spain that I can retire to.
By the way, John9001, I've driven round cities like Madrid in a rental car that was emblazoned with big orange signs on the back and sides that said "EasyCar.Com", advertising the company and clearly identifying the vehicle as a rental car. See the photo to see how much these signs stand out. Fumbling my way around Madrid in a car which had the steering wheel on the wrong side, and where people drive on the right, and with the road signs in kilometres and Spanish, I might as well have had a big flashing neon sign which said "TOURIST". Shortly after the photo of this car was taken near the Spanish city of Réus, I drove it right into the heart of Barcelona to return it. At no time was I shot at, and at no time was I approached by armed criminals trying to rob me. At no time did I feel I was taking a risk by driving this car. Why do you think that was? Daniel already knows the answer. ;):aok
Oh yeah, and before anyone says I was "just lucky", EasyCar has literally thousands of these cars driving around in various European countries with those orange signs on them. Indeed, there's a clause in the rental contract forbidding the hirer from removing the signs. There hasn't been a single incident of an armed gang targeting these cars. Why's that then?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/easycar.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ra
With our guns.
You mean the French's guns.
-
Originally posted by ra
With our guns.
You guys shoulda just payed the tea-tax. The place turned to crap ever since the English left.
-
<-- taps shoe, waiting for an answer to earlier question. But there is no answer. Perhaps that is the answer itself.
:aok
-
beetle... sorry... I skimmed your wall-o-words and didn't see a question.. I believe your question was why are tourists not targeted in england? I believe that having your pocket picked or burglarized is being targeted.
If you are claiming that your lower homicide rate is because of you giving up your rights to defend yourselves then you are wrong... If you are claiming that living on a little island with no borders is safer than living in a vibrant country with a lot of freedom and porus borders with 3rd and 4th world countries and a large minority population of sociopaths... then I would agree... still.... the freedom and vibrant culture and economy is worth it to me.... being protected from oneselves and ones neighbors is over rated.
or... perhaps you are rightly claiming that in a nation of sheep.... what difference does it make which one you sheer? I can see your point... In the U.S. you go for the ones you know are vulnerable... in your country everyone is vulnerable... why target rental cars? all the people are equally vulnerable... not my idea of a good solution.
lazs
-
nor the gangs, minorities ....
yup
-
Come on, Lazs. Not even your attention span can be that short.
The question actually related to Spain, which is where the above picture was taken. But it applies to England and other European countries too.
John9001 mentioned the scenario in which people (often foreigners) driving rental cars were being targeted by armed criminals. The perceived problem was that the rental car tags identified these vehicles as easy targets, and so the tagging system was changed to disguise rental cars.
But I'm saying that overt rental car tagging is not the real problem, because in Europe there are thousands of cars with big orange signs on the back and sides, identifying them as rental cars. And there has never been an incident of these cars being targeted by armed villains.
So why's that then?
Take your time answering, and give it a good spin...
:cool:
-
Actually, I liked Lazs answer just fine. Over there, you all have about the same potential for being a victim.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Actually, I liked Lazs answer just fine. Over there, you all have about the same potential for being a victim.
I'm the one asking the questions, matey. And I haven't had an answer to my question yet! :p And you're wrong anyway. There were MANY victims of armed villains driving rental cars in Florida, according to John9001. There have been NONE in Europe. Hardly what I call "the same potential".
Of course, in typical Lazs style, there have been answers to multiple different questions, but not the one I asked. :rolleyes:;)
-
There have been NONE in Europe. Hardly what I call "the same potential".
You misunderstand, my friend. In Florida since there is a chance a person of the general populace is armed and tourists are almost never armed, the tourists would be considered targets of opportunity.
Over there, you are all targets of opportunity.
Hope that clears things up,
Toodles.
-
From what I read in the papers, there are increasing incidents of people driving posh cars being 'car jacked' with people carrying guns. (sorry beetle)
Havn't heard of a single incident of someone in a rental car being car jacked robbed though.
This whole question about gun ownership and crime revolves around the relative number of crimes committed by criminals who use guns. I would guess in the US it's much higher than in the UK, but at some stage, when that many criminals have guns then we will need to think about having ordinary people owning guns here to make criminals think twice.
As Storch says, there is crime in Europe and crime in the States, the only difference is that the weapons may vary. But what chance would Storch have had if he and his mates had exited the nightclub and been confronted by people with handguns rather than knives?
We can use lots of implements to kill each other, but guns are just so much more efficient at it - it's what they're designed for.
Ravs
-
Nope. We still do not have an answer to my question. It's very simple - no need to digress. Overt tagging of rental cars in Florida = BIG problem. Overt (very overt!) tagging of rental cars in Europe = NO problem.
So why's that then? Storch: i have never even come close to having a problem.
Neither have I.
-
The other possibility is that being a tourist there is a less likely chance that the victim will return to testify against the person(s) that committed the crime(s). In the early 80's there were a number of tourists robbed and assaulted in Hawaii, at that time it was prohibitive (cost) for the victims to return to the Islands to testify and as a result many tourists were targeted. The State, along with hotels and other businesses, realized the potential loss of tourist dollars and implemented a program in which they would assume some, if not all, of the cost of bringing the victim back to testify. As a result of this initiative the number of crimes committed against tourists declined. Currently Honolulu PD is working with Japanese Police on an exchange program to understand each others cultures better, in addition to this they are trying to develop a video link system in which victims are able to testify from Japan in stead of returning to the Islands.
-
We still do not have an answer to my question. It's very simple - no need to digress. Overt tagging of rental cars in Florida = BIG problem. Overt (very overt!) tagging of rental cars in Europe = NO problem.
In Florida since there is a chance a person of the general populace is armed and tourists are almost never armed, the tourists would be considered targets of opportunity.
Over there, you are all targets of opportunity.
-
Target of what ?
You pre-suppose our criminals are comparable to the US one.
And it's wrong , we don't have the same crime rate (especially concerning weapon assault.)
-
Study this
(http://www.edmarms.com/images/products/338full2.jpg)
-
This country started down the toilet when we forget WHY we kicked the English out.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
This country started down the toilet when we forget WHY we kicked the English out.
-SW
Something to do with crappy tea right?
-
Originally posted by Steve
In Florida since there is a chance a person of the general populace is armed and tourists are almost never armed, the tourists would be considered targets of opportunity.
Over there, you are all targets of opportunity.
Not good enough. If we were all targets of opportunity, why are there NO cases of clearly identifiable rental cars being attacked by armed villains? Can you think of anything that's different in Europe versus America? ... erm...., erm..., um...
... help me out, guys!
-
Originally posted by storch
In response to beetle, mate, how do you know that not to be a factor? in countries where the press is some what less then free. do you think that the french media (as an example) would cover stories about tourists being assaulted?
Certainly it's covered ,and it's handled by the police quite fast in general for your information in france we don't have oil and one of our best source of money is tourism.
And your insinuation about our *cough* free press confirm what I thing of your *cough* intelligence.
As I side note I already worked in a almost "black" area it's was a good experience of friendship and cultural exchange.
But you should not confuse an african black with an ghetoized american black.
-
Beet, I'm not going to have a discussion w/ you when you aren't making any sense. I'll catch you on another thread.
You said there are no clear cases of bad guys going for rental cars . Says who? How the heck do you know that n o one in a rental car was assaulted?
For the third time: There's no need for them to as any car will do because the likelihood of facing an armed victim is the same across the boards. If you can't get this, I can'y help you..... out.
-
Originally posted by straffo
And your insinuation about our *cough* free press confirm what I thing of your *cough* intelligence.
ROFL Frédéric! That will have cut deep! :lol
Steve, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You say I'm not making any sense. You're the one not making sense. Your best answer to my question, which was why it's OK in Europe to have big signs on cars which identify them as rental cars was "because we're all targets of opportunity". Huh? :confused:
It's like Straffo says. France depends heavily on tourism, and so does Spain - perhaps even more so than France. And we do get to hear about problems. Things like timeshare touts selling half completed properties, pickpockets in some areas perhaps.
In Florida as John9001 tells us in his own words: "Many tourists were car jacked,robbed , raped, killed. Of course this hurt our tourist industry." The situation was so bad that the state had to pass laws governing the appearance/placement of tags identifying rental cars as rentals.
But no such legislation has been deemed necessary in Europe. If the European tourist trade were to have been targeted in the manner you suggest, action would have been taken. But it hasn't, so there wasn't. :)
Oh wait, am I as easy a target as a rental car with big orange signs? Been driving since 1972, and never got attacked by an armed gang. Guess I was just lucky. But oh! No-one I have ever known got shot either by one of those Florida-style opportunist gangs.
-
I once got bitten by a hamster.
It was a nasty bite.
I wish I had been armed then.
Take precautions. It could happen to you as well.
Daniel
-
beetle... you are getting the answers... you just don't like em. If we coulds suddenly send about 10% of our hand picked population to spain or england and then magicly turn into a tiny island isolated from everyone then.... you would understand. you would have the carjackings and robberies and... all the sheep would be treated the same... except... you would be robbed according to how helpless you appeared (easy) and/or how much potential reward there was for the new imigrants.
We would have little or no crime and still have our firearms. Now... if, to solve your problem, you allowed concealed carry... the new imigrants would no longer target citizens cars unless they were desperate or felt sure there was no firearms about... the rental cars you show pictures of would then become laughably targeted... the signs would come off in a week.
remember... what happens here happens there in a couple of decades... you are just behind. that should be obvious to anyone.
even so... I wouldn't give up what we have to be like europe.. no matter how safe you guys feel between wars.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
remember... what happens here happens there in a couple of decades... you are just behind. that should be obvious to anyone.
Smells bait. Rotten. Swims away.
Daniel
-
cyrano... spain may be more than a "few" decades behind... be patient. Seems your populace has been armed from time to time tho.
lazs
-
Wiggling the bait ain't gonna make it any more appealing. Give up.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... you are getting the answers... you just don't like em.
The problem is that they're not answers to the question I asked.
The gun card is being way overplayed in the case regarding the armed villains' targeting of folks driving rental cars in Florida. Guns are like a god to you guys, and are worshipped in the same way that some people worship their god. Something bad happens? It's not the fault of the gun/the god - guns don't kill people, only people do that - God's will and all that. Something good happens - like retagging of rental cars? All glory to God and the hallowed gun! Guns be praised! They're saving tourists' lives in Florida because the villains no longer know who is who, who has a gun and who does not. :):aok
Of course, it's bollocks. What those villains were after was tourists. Why? Because if they've just arrived from overseas they're likely to be carrying large sums of cash, credit cards and other monetary instruments. US Rental cars are not used solely by tourists. They're also used by Americans - businessmen doing business more than 1000 miles from home for example. And an American businessman, having heard about the way occupants of rental cars were being targeted, would have armed himself against that threat, wouldn't he? Or are you about to tell me that you're not allowed to carry guns on an airliner on a flight within the US, even if it's in your checked luggage along with your nail scissors and other sharp objects? If it's so vitally important to be armed, why's that then?
Of course, a rental car being driven away from an airport location is a good place for a villain to look for rich and easy pickings in the form of a confused foreign tourist. But such a car is no less likely to be driven (if you guys are to be believed) by an armed American.
Which brings us back to European rental cars, many of which can be seen driving around with those bright orange rental car signs. Steve claims that everyone is an equal target. I say that's bollocks for the reasons given above: Those cars are driven almost exclusively by tourists, many of whom will be carrying wallets, cash, credit cards. A far better prospect for a criminal than a beat up old Peugeot or Seat driven by a local resident of modest means.
...and yet, despite the orange signs, those cars are not being targeted by armed criminals.
So why's that then? remember... what happens here happens there in a couple of decades... you are just behind. that should be obvious to anyone.
I agree entirely. Which is why, when you described the typical American police shootout, I said I would leave Britain when that happens here. Note - WHEN, not IF. When Britain's problem with guns gets as bad as the situation in America, it will be time to leave.
-
beetle... not only did we answer your question but.... yu did yourself.. people with very little and very little stake in the society they are in will resort to violent crime in large numbers. We happen to be bordered (porous no passport borders) with many of them in a vibrant free country with a lot of wealth floating around.
I say it is worth it. But.. reserve the right to defend myself in such a society. You say that when things get too violent you will simply run. I am a furballer... I love the game/country. I won't run... no real reason to. It's not tha tbad if you take a few precautions. the rewards are great.
conversely... I would have run from your countryu long ago.. the reasons would have been a stagnant society and economy with very restrictive taxation and personal freedom laws. we run from different things.
now... your point.. if all the people are sheep they will all be treated pretty much equally. florida had carjackings of every type... not just tourists. when more sensible right to carry laws were passed the carjackers were afraid to do their work on florida citizens so they targeted those who have no rights. those in rental cars.
but to make it even more simple for you.... carjacking on a little island or tiny country is not your criminals favorite thing is all... they prefer to channel their energy towards burglaries of homes while the owner is cowering in a locked room or pickpocketing or strongarm or stealing everything that isn't bolted down... not sure , no.... positive... that is not an improvement.... me not being able to defend against such thugs is the real ballbuster tho. time to exit your country after the double decker tour with all my valubles tied to my body.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
now... your point.. if all the people are sheep they will all be treated pretty much equally. florida had carjackings of every type... not just tourists. when more sensible right to carry laws were passed the carjackers were afraid to do their work on florida citizens so they targeted those who have no rights. those in rental cars.
LOL Lazs! What a load of bollocks. :lol Are you saying that an armed American businessman has no rights if he's driving a rental car? Are you saying that if a criminal shoots and kills a man on the street that the criminal will be exonerated if it turns out the victim was a non-US citizen? :lol
It's posts like the above that make me wonder if you're suffering the long term effects of substance abuse! But maybe you were just having one of your tongue-in-cheek moments.
Not running from England - just considering one of the choices that is available to me. The taxes in Spain are a lot lower, by the way. And the weather is nicer. :cool: And tourists can feel safe in rental cars with big orange signs. :D
-
beetle... not sure what your point is. thought I was clear enough... when the locals in florida betgan to carry concealed the carjackers went with the best odds... they went to the rental cars because they knew the chance of finding one with armed occupants was slight compared to other cars.
the fear of incarceration is the same for U.S. or non U.S. citizens but.... maybe somewhat less if the victim can't even speak english or.... is dead.
Your country is oppressive in many ways. You feel it in the taxation. I feel it in the lack personal freedom and lack of competition for my dollar. the taxation is also a factor for me. Also... I don't like the weather or being on an island.
Here... there is some danger but I don't mind... I mind the nannying I will most likely leave Ca. when I retire but only to go to another less populated and less restrictive state. Having the mexican border so close and so porous is both a blessing and a curse... love the change of pace... don't mind the danger but hate the exported crime, poverty and socialism.
lazs
-
Lazs - meanwhile in Europe there are no armed attacks on rental cars with big orange signs, and few armed attacks anywhere. There are a few carjackings. The gun control laws work well but are not perfect, and there are a few loonies with guns. You'll know all about that, living in the US...
-
Uhm just how the right to bear arms could have stopped ETA bombings in Spain?
Oh, and about 9/11... they wouldn't have box cutters, they just have to steal one from a passenger and ask politely for the rest of them while aiming at the head of the pilot.
No use arguing over this... but don't stop just because of me. I'll step aside and watch.
Daniel
-
The authors of the study attribute the decrease in crime in the us to the increased availablility of guns. But its really attributed to the increased availability of abortions.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The authors of the study attribute the decrease in crime in the us to the increased availablility of guns. But its really attributed to the increased availability of abortions.
Really? I think that every abortion other than for saving the life of the mother is a crime, therefore the increase in abortions means to me that there is more crime.
-
Originally posted by storch
beetle, europe has plenty of armed attacks just maybe not quite as many with firearms. when the IRA or basque separatist (ETA)freedom fighters decide to set off a bomb somewhere what would you call that? can anyone say aldo moro? what would have occurred on the ill fated 9/11/01 flights when those pieces of shiite pulled their box cutters if let's say, laz was in a seat with a perfectly legal weapon in his possession. that's why i haven't flown commercially in over a decade, that's why I will not return to europe. I will die one day from some cause, but it won't be from lack of something to shoot back with.
Storch, we've had problems with the IRA for years, Spain has had problems with ETA. I wasn't talking about bombs etc., as these are not usually deployed against rental cars, which is what I was talking about. Lazs would make a very good sky marshall. :)
I'm sorry to know that the world's troubles have put you off commercial flying, thereby ruling out a visit to Europe. I have a different philosophy in life. I'm not going to stop flying because of various isolated air crashes. Life is not without risk, whether that involves crossing a road, going to the bank, or commercial flying. I just get on with it because I refuse to cancel the rest of my life.
Since you mention Lazs and weapon in the same sentence, I should point out that even Lazs feels safe, unarmed, in a seedy part of London. Safer, possibly, than in his own home, where he feels the need to be armed.
"A fellow flight sim guy took me to a bar in a seedy part of london that was supposedly risky.. I felt about in as much danger as I would at a church bingo nite..." - Lazs, 26th September, 2002.
-
my point on feeling safe in london was that I am able bodied and street smart and that your clubbers were not of the same desperate criminal type as ours.. in london I allways felt that someone was looking for a way to steal from me tho... different countries with different crime. If I dropped you off in some of the black or mex areas I think you would see my point.... all of my points actually.
.
It will catch up to you. as for being armed working or not.... It isn't about absolutes it is about improvement and options... it is also about personal freedom and rights. There is no precaution that I can take that will make me 100% safe.. There are things I can do to make things safer for me.. None of the things that I feel are effective in making me safe have anything to do with cell phones or banning things.
I would rather have our vibrant and free but somewhat dangerous country than yours anyday. The thought of not being able to shoot a burglar is unacceptable to me. The thought of my country telling me that I can't be trusted with a firearm is unaceptable to me. I do not want to live on a tiny little island like england or japan surrounded by sheep to feel safe... not worth it... Would rathe take the chance of maybe dodging a bullet once or twice ina lifetime rather than live in constant fear I will be pickpocketed or strongarmed or have to hide in my room while the burglar union has a couple of it's members ransack my home
lazs
-
I can agree with that. You keep the guns and the vibrancy and we keep the safety and our boring and enslaved lives without guns. See? We do agree!
Oh, and I have yet to be pickpocketed, strongarmed, or assaulted in any way. But that must be because low-lifes detect my well hidden superpowers, the cowards.
Daniel
EDIT: I was actually pickpocketed once, and it was at the Minnesota Twins stadium, go figure.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
At the same time... no type of specific caliber or type weapon ban has ever done any good. More powerful, less powerful.. 10- round or 14 round magazines... no difference
I have enjoyed following this thread, but I would have to disagree with that statement. The restriction of magazines to 10 rounds has promoted the sales of larger caliber pistols (e.g., .40's and .45's) which hold 10 or less rounds anyway, and little pistols which can hold 8 or 10 9mm rounds and still fit nicely in a pocket. So this law has promoted sales of more powerful pistols and concealable pistols ... so it did accomplish something. And some people think that gun control advocates are stupid. :aok
-
cyrano... is there anything worth stealing in spain?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cyrano... is there anything worth stealing in spain?
lazs
Oh there's plenty worth stealing... but you come and try, I'll let our "Guardia Civil" deal with you. They just love dealing with foreigners.
Daniel
-
In the past.... they have "loved to deal" with their citizens too.
lazs
-
Nah, it was an in-joke. Never mind.
-
Haha Argentinian version of the joke no doubt. They tend to call us spaniards "gallegos", because when the spanish civil war there were plenty of people from galicia who emigrated there.
Here in Spain we tend to use people from a town called "Lepe" :)
Daniel
-
Hehe it's a classic here. Thanks :aok
Daniel