Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on July 21, 2006, 10:45:27 PM
-
8 stabbed at grocery store, co-worker arrested (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/21/supermarket.stabbing.ap/index.html)
ARLINGTON, Tennessee (AP) -- A knife-wielding grocery store employee attacked eight co-workers Friday, seriously injuring five before a witness pulled a gun and stopped him, police said....
....Higgins said police were pulling into the parking lot as Cope was confronting the attacker.
"We commend him," Higgins said. "But we don't encourage people to take that kind of risk. He could have been hurt."
These comments make me wonder.
Could have been hurt? Like the 8 other people this loony stabbed?
I just commend Cope. Period. The guy took the risk to prevent injury to another. Usually, we call these guys heroes and leave it at that.
-
Thats why I wish IL would let people carry concealed weapons. All the tree hugging gun control crybaby sissies keep blocking it.
-
I guess we need a massive 'knife amnesty' here like they had in England. I wrote a post about the one over there that was so darn controversial, it was actually deleted!
-
Heh, I fired 4 guys at my store this week. I only wish any of the punks had pulled a knife.;)
-
Watch them blame the heat.
Good man pulling the gun and stopping the guy. Looks like he showed amazing restraint too by not shooting him outright.
-
If they'd ban the knives, people wouldn't need guns.
-
Carry concealed anyway who's gonna know.......
-
Toad,
The guy IS a hero. A hero is just someone who does the unusual, placing themselves at risk for the sake of others. You and I both know that. He did what needed to be done and got lucky enough to not have shooting the guy haunting him as well. In short, he did good.
A fine example of a real person and not a nebbish.
-
Is there a waiting period for hand gun purchases in Tenn?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
A fine example of a real person and not a nebbish.
I'm pretty sure that this is the first time that I've ever seen that word. :aok
-
I heard some of the local MSM tried to ignore the gun fact, and reported the hero "tackled" the lunatic. It came out that he didn't tackle him, he retrieved the pistol from his vehicle to stop the lunatic who was chasing a coworker around with his knife upraised in a position to stab down,
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Is there a waiting period for hand gun purchases in Tenn?
Not any more. We have an instant background check and a "must issue" concealed carry permit clause.
You go to the gun store, and they do an instant background check on you with the TBI, takes about ten minutes and $20 or so.
Once you have your weapon, you attend and pass a manditory CCW permit training course, and you take your certificate to the driver's license station, and they issue you the permit.
There was a time though when we were quite backwards. We had a waiting period, which was however long the local sheriff decided he wanted to "look into" your background. We also had no "must issue" clause, which meant IF you had a friend in the department, IF you could show a "reason why you needed a weapon", and IF the sheriff WANTED to, you could get a permit.
-
That would be at least the second time that news said that a lunatic stopped by a citizen with a gun was "tackled". At a law school, a nut case was stopped after killing a couple of people by a guy with a gun. Not one news story reported that the nut was stopped with a firearm weilding citizen.
lazs
-
Eureka, by your logic, cars and trucks should be outlawed as well. Drive a car into a crowd of people at speed and you could kill even MORE people.
Does personal responsibility ever show up in the equation?
Finally, I'll re-assert an old saying: "An armed population is a polite one." The more prevalent responsible gun owners are, the higher the chance of being killed while attacking someone. Excepting the absolute psychos (who make up a super small proportion of crime), this would discourage other would be criminals on a massive basis.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
But then higher chance for perpetrator of crime to have gun not knife. Result of crime change from 8 wounded to 8 dead.
Eureka,
If the assailant was the type to be disuaded by a law, do you think he'd really be out there stabbing and trying to kill co workers???? I could be wrong but I believe that happens to be AGAINST THE LAW!!!!
Got news for ya, the % chance of a bad guy having a concealed weapon has absolutely no relation to the CCW permits. He's a BAD guy. They don't USE permits to carry a weapon they will use for ILLEGAL purposes.
Sheesh, I bet you think no one EVER carried a concealed weapon before there were permits. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm pretty sure that this is the first time that I've ever seen that word. :aok
ya, me too!
nebbish: "A person regarded as weak-willed or timid"
-
I used the nebbish term specifically in regards to the nanny frame of mind regarding Britain in a couple threads. In particular ones involving an insect posting on the bbs.
I rather like the term, it's appropriate in some cases. Besides that it has no issues with the language filter! ;)
-
To bad he chucked the knife ... cost of the bullet is far less than what will be paid to convict and imprison this POS ... glad to see none of the victims died ... sorry to see that the perp lived.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Chairboy I believe my society plenty polite but not possible own gun.
Maverick thank you for explain. But why criminal take knife not gun?
Eureka,
To answer that you need to go talk to the criminal.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Eureka,
If the assailant was the type to be disuaded by a law, do you think he'd really be out there stabbing and trying to kill co workers???? I could be wrong but I believe that happens to be AGAINST THE LAW!!!!
Got news for ya, the % chance of a bad guy having a concealed weapon has absolutely no relation to the CCW permits. He's a BAD guy. They don't USE permits to carry a weapon they will use for ILLEGAL purposes.
Sheesh, I bet you think no one EVER carried a concealed weapon before there were permits. :rolleyes:
You beat me to it, I was going to point out the obvious. CCW laws have never stopped a criminal or insane person from carrying a weapon, it only stops the honest law abiding citizen.
-
In Columbia, it's illegal to own handguns, yet it has the highest homicide rate per capita in the world. What was that again you were saying?
What's that? Something about correlation not equalling causation?
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Not correct! Or you speak only of USA? Other society = no gun, homicide lower than USA.
I spoke of having a Concealed Weapons permit, not gun ownership.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Not correct! Or you speak only of USA? Other society = no gun, homicide lower than USA.
Yeah we only care about the USA's gun laws since we still trust our people and believe in freedom around here.
You can keep your countries gun laws, we will take freedom. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Thank you sir. I take freedom to walk city street, no threat of gun or knife criminal. Good luck to you, but this not always possible in USA.
I have that freedom as well, I just have and want more.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Thank you sir. I take freedom to walk city street, no threat of gun or knife criminal. Good luck to you, but this not always possible in USA.
Actually it's not ALWAYS possible anywhere there are people, but don't let that shred your comfortable fantasy.
I'm beginning to think little eureka is actually beetle under a shade account. Same hangup about guns and joined the same time beetle got banned.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually it's not ALWAYS possible anywhere there are people, but don't let that shred your comfortable fantasy.
I'm beginning to think little eureka is actually beetle under a shade account. Same hangup about guns and joined the same time beetle got banned.
Yup, I think you are right. Beetle is desperate to blather here, and he can't resist making a fool of himself.
Maybe Skuzzy needs to do a little IP checking?
-
I was listening to the radio, said that he was "restrained" before local police arrived. Too bad they couldnt say "The wacko was blown away by a civilian before local police arrived."
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Not fantasy!
A fantasy would be to think that Beet1e stayed banned.
-
I'm waiting for the inevitable "toodle-pip".
-
i woulda dropped him :t
-
to the guy and others like him who don't have to get involved, but choose to.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah we only care about the USA's gun laws since we still trust our people and believe in freedom around here.
You can keep your countries gun laws, we will take freedom. Thanks.
While your gun laws are a necessary evil, I don't think it reflects in any way 'freedom'. To hang the 'freedom' lable around the barrel of your gun laws probably means you have your own doubts as well. Whats so hard about saying 'we need our guns because violant crime involving weapons is a significant problem here'?
-
Well, you know, they didn't allow any weapons in Rome, and look what happened there. Caesar marches down with 1 Legion and *poof!* goes the Republic (yes, I know, condensed version).
Maybe architecture wasn't the only lesson our Founding Fathers took from Rome?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
While your gun laws are a necessary evil, I don't think it reflects in any way 'freedom'. To hang the 'freedom' lable around the barrel of your gun laws probably means you have your own doubts as well. Whats so hard about saying 'we need our guns because violant crime involving weapons is a significant problem here'?
How about saying the right to bear arms is one of the basic rights our founding fathers protected when this country was born, and we choose to keep that among with all our other freedoms. We are not anyones colony, we dont bow to any freaking king or queen, we can defend our homes from enemies foreign or domestic, and we like it that way.
Violent crime isn't a significant problem to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and one of the reasons for that is we are able to defend ourselves.
-
He didn't shoot the guy after he threw his knife down. Gotta give him credit for that, in addition to his taking quick action and saving some people from possibly getting killed. The risk that was mentioned probably meant the hesitation factor that most people experience. He did risk his life, but he did it to stop a knife weilding madman. Hell yes he's a hero. Not a good idea to leave a pistol in the truck unattended, but he ran out there and got it. Someone had to do something about that situation fast.
Les
-
lol
Those 8 people were probably saved by a gun law.
-
You think the knife weilder couldn't get his hands on a gun because of a gun law?
Les
-
remember the criminal will ignore the gun law? hmm is not stabbing people against the law, he ignored the stabbing law, why would he obeyed the gun law.
Oh Eureka01 what is your opinion on domestic violence after a drunken binge?z.B. breaking a domestic partners arm or something?
-
Beet1e got banned? What happened?
Mac
-
The English are supposed to know how to use the article "the" to precede a noun in a sentence. After all, it's their language, isn't it.
Beet, ya gotta do better than this...not posting your location...using a pisant "foreign" dialect.
Where's Lionel Twain when we need him?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm waiting for the inevitable "toodle-pip".
Must keep cover Grasshopper.
It would be 'noodle pip". :D
-
pongo... I also got to ask... Do you think that those people were saved by a gun law that kept the guy from getting a gun?
How were they "saved" in any case? You realize that the chance of survival in a handgun attack and a knife attack are roughly equal at about 80% survival rate?
lazs
-
Knife attacks and gun attacks are very different. With a knife there may be some chance, and worth the resistence far as survival. Gun is a different matter. No chance unless very lucky.
Les
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Beet1e got banned? What happened?
Mac
I believe he went off on Skuzzy in one of the threads around the 4th. He got moderated and then shot himself in the foot with the skuzzmeister. Darn good shooting as far as I am concerned.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
lol
Those 8 people were probably saved by a gun law.
Pongo,
Please let us know which law came up and stopped the attack on those people. According to my reading it was a man with a gun that stopped it and saved them. Perhaps you can point out just where the law entered into the act. I doubt that the guy doing the hacking and slashing really cared about any laws as that behavior is against the law. Didn't seem to be stopping him in the least however.
Now if you are expounding on the right to carry law, I could agree with you partially however it still took a man (generic term here not sexist designation) with a gun to stop it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
lol
Those 8 people were probably saved by a gun law.
Yes, they were. The law allowed a citizen to own and possess a firearm. He used said firearm to stop a dangerous nut with a knife who was trying to kill those 8 people.
-
Well, it was lucky that that avacado didn't pack an Uzi :D
Then you have many corpses...
-
Not many crimes committed with Uzis over here...urban legends notwithstanding.
It's easy to kill sheep, even with a revolver, when they make no move to defend themselves.
-
euraka..read some more..there are MILLIONS of crimes PREVENTED by firearms..EVERY YEAR in the USA
There are many ...many more positve uses of hanguns in the USA then negative ones..
The problem is we have a majority of really ..really crappy media here
-
Originally posted by Dago
Violent crime isn't a significant problem to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and one of the reasons for that is we are able to defend ourselves.
Uh huh and I'm Santa clause.
I agree with US gun laws, in fact I find a lot of what some the guys post here (like carry conceal laws) very interesting. But you can't apply that to every country. You may call it freedom to carry guns, in NZ I call our law freedom from guns :)
-
Vulcan,
I don't believe he was referring to any country but the US in that comment you copied.
-
Where would the USA be without gunz then?
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Many countries have unarmed citizenry - and much lower crime than USA.
If you take a gun away from a criminal, is he suddenly no longer a criminal?
-
Originally posted by texace
If you take a gun away from a criminal, is he suddenly no longer a criminal?
He's a criminal without a gun. Just the same as you don't make pedophiles teachers.
-
leslie... those 8 people did not do so well against the knife wielder did they?
In America...(for you your-0-peeans... it is a very large country of allmost 300 million people with large populations of minorities of all races and backgrounds and socioeconmic status).... in America, we stop between 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year by having the right to own firearms.
To us.... this and the fact that we feel that an armed citizenry is not only a basic human right (the right to defend yourself) but a duty to stave off tyranny from within and without... these things make us believe that defending the basic human right to be armed against your attackers is worth any price.
In America... about 5% of the population commits about 90% of the serious crime... About 15% of the population is of a race that commits 51% of the hommicides and gun crime.
It does not make sense to disarm the good people to us.
lazs
-
Things had turned ugly for Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer Rick Wallace. He had found marijuana on a speeder, but was overpowered by the man before he could cuff him. Passerby Adolph Krejsek witnessed the altercation and came to the rescue, using his own firearm to help the trooper control the suspect. After helping subdue the assailant, Krejsek used the injured trooper`s radio to call for help.
(The Review Courier, Alva, OK, 1/8/95) (AR 6/95)
"It`s more than fighting fires. If somebody is in trouble, we`re going to show up," said Sipsey Valley volunteer firefighter James "Buddy" O`Hanlon. O`Hanlon was one of about 30 armed volunteer firefighters who responded within minutes to an emergency call from their chief, L.A. Marlowe, who had just been robbed and shot at outside of his Buhl, Ala., store. One suspect was spotted before he made it 100 yds. and was cornered in the woods by the army of firefighters, who apprehended him. Sheriff`s deputies quickly arrested another robber who had been identified by the firefighters. A third suspect was later apprehended.
(The News, Tuscaloosa, AL, 1/12/95) (AR 4/95)
In the finest tradition of armed citizens who take on crime in their communities, Texan Travis Neel helped save a wounded Harris County deputy sheriff`s life. Witnessing the shooting by one of a trio of Houston gang members after a traffic stop just west of Houston, Neel--who was on his way to his pistol range--pulled his gun and fired, driving the officer`s assailants away. An off-duty sheriff`s deputy also came on the scene and joined Neel in covering the deputy, whose life was saved by his body armor. The trio was captured after a manhunt.
(The Post, Houston, TX, 1/22/94) (AR 4/94)
While the situation ended without incident, armed citizen Michael Acree stood ready to lend a hand when a police officer stopped a carload of unruly teenagers outside his Salem, Connecticut, home. Noticing the youths scuffling with the officer, Acree retrieved his pistol and went out onto his lawn. When the youths saw Acree and his handgun, they calmed down and the situation ended peaceably. Acree earned the appreciation both of town officials and the officer.
(The Bulletin, Norwich, CT, 5/22/93) (AR 9/93)
Vincent McCarthy wasn`t afraid to lend a hand when he noticed a police officer struggling with a man and woman at the side of the road. He tried to help subdue the man who was kicking the officer in the face. Despite McCarthy`s warnings, the man pressed his assault, and the tour boat captain shot him once in the leg with a pistol he is licensed to carry and stopped the attack. Neither the officer nor McCarthy were seriously injured.
(The Daily Commercial, Leesburg, FL, 4/10/92) (AR 6/92)
Citizens of Ivor, Va., turned out in force when two men robbed the local bank. After their car crashed while fleeing from police, the duo fled into a wooded area. Local residents immediately armed themselves and, along with police, surrounded the woods. The pair surrendered to a volunteer and an officer the next morning. Said one local resident, "Here, the feeling is `Hey, you`ve got my money.`"
(The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA, 10/20/91)(AR 3/92)
A North Myrtle Beach, N.C., citizen was credited by the city`s public safety director with possibly saving the life of Police Officer Richard Jernick. Jernick had pulled over a suspected bank robber`s car after a chase, when the suspect charged the cruiser and pointed a gun at the officer, who was still behind the wheel. At that point authorities said, the robbery suspect saw that James Beach, a semi-retired electrician who had joined the pursuit, had a pistol pointed at him. Startled, the robber ran for his car, and Officer Jernick was able to shoot and wound him.
(The Observer, Charlotte, NC, 7/4/91) (AR 9/91)
When Eric Stewart of Oxford, Iowa, heard that an Iowa state trooper had been killed in a plane crash while participating in the manhunt for a robbery suspect, he got his revolver, jumped in his car and joined the search. He passed a man on foot he thought might be the suspect. Stewart stopped at a local farm, and while he was talking to the owners, the man attempted to force his way into the home. Stewart captured and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
(The Press-Citizen, Iowa City, IA, 10/15/90) (AR 1/91)
During a drug arrest in Webster Parish, La., a sheriff`s deputy and a state trooper found themselves struggling with their two suspects. But four citizens observed the battle and, armed with shotguns, they came to the officers` aid, enabling them to make the arrests.
(The Press-Herald, Minden, LA, 5/23/89) (AR 11/89)
Dave Storton, a San Jose, Calif., police officer, was doing off-duty security work at an apartment complex when two burglars knocked him down and attempted to grab his revolver. During the struggle, one of the assailants bit off part of Storton`s ear, but the two attackers were run off by an apartment resident who came to the rescue, armed with a shotgun.
(The Chronicle, San Francisco, CA, 5/12/88) (AR 10/88)
Miami, Okla., motel owner Oba Edwards witnessed two policemen struggling with a man they were attempting to arrest and saw the man wrest away one officer`s revolver, shoot and kill him. Edwards armed himself and fired a shot that allowed the remaining officer to recover his partner`s revolver and fatally wound the attacker. The dead man was on probation for assault of a Texas police officer.
(The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 6/7/88) (AR 9/88)
After a string of burglaries, a group of four Beaumont, Tex., neighbors, armed with shotguns, handguns and bats, pursued a burglary suspect to an overgrown field. Police and residents then joined forces to capture the suspect, who had set some dry grass on fire to elude pursuit. A police detective later commented, "In the rush, we didn`t have time to get their names, but we really appreciated it."
(The Enterprise, Beaumont, TX, 11/12/87) (AR 3/88)
The robber made a clean getaway and had pulled into the Pelham, Ala., service station. He found the service rather rude, however, as manager Ed Milstead used a 12-ga. shotgun to hold him for police. Milstead had learned of the robbery from a police scanner.
(The News, Birmingham, AL, 2/1/86) (AR 5/86)
A teller in a bank in Indianapolis, Ind., called out to Joseph Ernst when a man claiming to have a pistol and a bomb was about to get away with a bagful of stolen money. Ernst, a uniformed sheriff`s deputy, tackled the man. As they grappled on the floor, the robber tried to get to Ernst`s sidearm. But Samuel Hatcher, who`d worked with the deputy years before, halted the struggle by drawing a licensed handgun and holding it to the robber`s head.
(The Star, Indianapolis, IN) (AR 1/83)
A sheriff`s deputy pursued an armed robbery suspect to a Salem, Oreg., supermarket and fired on the man after nearly being run down in the parking lot. From his adjacent residence, James Hicks was alerted to the disturbance and armed himself. When the fleeing suspect forced his way into the home, Hicks ordered him to drop his gun. Instead, he pointed it at the homeowner, but was shot and killed when Hicks fired first.
(The Statesman Journal, Salem, OR, 1/11/83) (AR 5/83)
Source - NRA.org (http://www.nraila.org//issues/articles/read.aspx?id=30)
-
So, there are no cases of the bad guy having a gun and the other not?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, there are no cases of the bad guy having a gun and the other not?
That`s one of the main points. Arm the citizen and it at least levels the playing field. Also a great deterent.
If granny down at the 7/11 just might possibly have a 44 under that smock, then Joe Crackhead thinks twice about going in for some easy money.
You can never unarm the criminal element. It is totaly impossible.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
But in Asia, drug not tolerated
Translation: Madonna is a virgin.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Translation: Madonna is a virgin.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
So no gun = not dangerous criminal. Right. Go ask those 8 folks if they think the guy trying to kill them and putting them in the hospital using a knife is not dangerous because he didn't have a gun.
Put down the crack pipe there and take off the rose colored glasses.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
**If you take a gun away from a criminal, is he suddenly no longer a criminal?**
-becomes less dangerous criminal.
**If granny down at the 7/11 just might possibly have a 44 under that smock, then Joe Crackhead thinks twice about going in for some easy money.
You can never unarm the criminal element. It is totaly impossible.**
-because USA allow drug abuse, which is in many places. But in Asia, drug not tolerated --> Death for drug traffic crime - drug crime very low, and no firearm = store holdup like this not known.
Take the guns away from the non criminal and you just made them all easier targets for even a criminal with a knife.
-
So, point being, arm the criminals as much as possible right :D
Jackal:
"That`s one of the main points. Arm the citizen and it at least levels the playing field."
Thereby you take it as given that the game is lost for the civilians, - the criminals are better armed. Am I wrong in my understanding?
-
Nope angus... that is not the point at all.
The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country.
The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year.
the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely..
This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does.... much happier ending.
Having a firearm to protect you and yours should be a personal decision... just like wearing seatbelts or helmets or safety glasses.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, point being, arm the criminals as much as possible right
Nope. You don`t have to arm the criminals. They arm themselves. There is no way, with laws, to disarm the criminal if he wishs to be armed. It is impossible.
Thereby you take it as given that the game is lost for the civilians, - the criminals are better armed. Am I wrong in my understanding?
Very wrong. The game is a long ways from lost for civilians. As a matter of fact, in some states, mine included, nanny type, useless and self defeating gun laws are being put back as they should be. More law abiding citizens are becoming armed again and less are being denied their freedom. A punk has to think twice before jumping into a situation where he is equaly matched or even out matched. Mst are cowards and will not go into a situation where they put themselves in risk.
Of course there will always be the physco types. Always have been, always will be. Best defense against it is to have the citizen armed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Nope angus... that is not the point at all.
The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country.
The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year.
the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely..
This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does.... much happier ending.
Having a firearm to protect you and yours should be a personal decision... just like wearing seatbelts or helmets or safety glasses.
lazs
Well...being sceptical about firearms, bear in mind that I am a gun-guy. I just stop at being too free about them, and I am against any fool getting their hands on conceilable arms and then automatic thingies like automatic pistols or rifles.
This for starters:
"The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country."
5%!!!! Wholly cow!!!! that is a very high number. Isn't it out of your head?
Then:
"The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year."
And the times you don't? Watch it, for the crimerate in capital is one of the highest in the USA of any 1st world nation. Same goes with "dead by gunshot" rate. So, do you assume that that it'd be worse with a less armed society?
And here:
"the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely.."
I take it then, that you support strict gunlaw?
(Yes, you can have guns, if you're OK. Just like where I live, except the pistols and automatic ones)
Here there is something not fitting:
Lazs says:
"This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does.... much happier ending."
And Jackal:
"You don`t have to arm the criminals. They arm themselves. There is no way, with laws, to disarm the criminal if he wishs to be armed. It is impossible."
So, the game is, or rather WAS, lost for normal law abiding civilians. The thugs were already armed before somebody realized that they were. So, the response is to rearm the population, thereby putting more guns into the circulation?
Won't be the judge there. Would be sceptical about conceilable arms (note how many of the events in the post were stopped by shotgun carrying persons (very obvious bad-arse weapon)).
But bear in mind that the bigger part of the 1st world has less in the arsenal as well as less gun-dead and capital crime than the USA. So, either the USA has too few guns, too many, or to many thugs...
To arm them you need...ahem..arms..in rotation.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Jackal:
So, the game is, or rather WAS, lost for normal law abiding civilians.
Not sure how you figure that. Number one is that it is far from a game . What was lost? As long as we hold onto our right to bear arms............nothing is lost, only gained. At which time we are either stupid enough to give up that right or have it taken away by force,then would come the losing and in a big way.
The thugs were already armed before somebody realized that they were. ?
Not sure what you are getting at here. If you wish to discuss the histroy of violence by mankind against mankind I think you are in the wrong thread. Maybe a new one?
So, the response is to rearm the population, thereby putting more guns into the circulation?
Rearm? What rearm? I`m talking about the U.S. here Angus. We have never foolishly gave up our right to be armed. I, for one, do not plan on giving up that right.
Into whose circulation? Armed criminals will be armed no matter what.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to obtain an illegal weapon. Do you have any idea how easy it is to create one?
Won't be the judge there. Would be sceptical about conceilable arms
I`ll take that as concealable.
Why would you have am problem with a law abiding citizen having a concealed weapon? Would you rather only the criminal to have a concealed weapon leaving the general public at their mercy and whim?
Once again........if a criminal wishs to be armed , he will be so. Nothing will change that. It is impossible to do so. What can be done and has been and continues to progress here is making it legal for for law abiding citizens to also be armed. A great deterent.
:confused:
I totaly agree. :rofl
-
Just to stick to the story at hand here eureka, Exactly what was the bad person armed with that put 8 folks in the hospital? How did not having a gun keep him from hurting 8 folks.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Mad man with knife? Very possible drug crazed(?). Drug in free supply in violent country. Very unsafe!
Did you see that in the story? I don't recall any mention of it. Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country, kind of like stabbing people is illegal.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
... **Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country,**
But law not enforced well? Many Asia countries, no drug problem - death for drug traffic crime instead of fine/jail
Excuse me, point of order here. The story in question and the subject of the thread did not mention any country but the US. As to the situatioon in your country, you have yet to even claim a country on your profile to be posted.
Secondly we'd only have your assertion that there is no drug problem in your country whatever it is.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
... **Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country,**
But law not enforced well? Many Asia countries, no drug problem - death for drug traffic crime instead of fine/jail
Bleetle Engrish style not yours becoming, pond tedious is.
-
Alan stop with the fake engrish already.
-
The "game" is maybe better put as "fight".
Anyway, my point was, to try to make it clear, - that the "fight" is lost if the lot of the civilianz needs to be armed because of armed thugs.
In this drugstore case, it was the lucky side of the coin, - thug only had a knife, civilian a gun.
Then there are all the other cases, where the thug is holding the gun.
The US is in that poddle, most western countries and a good block of the asian countries are not.
BTW, in our case here, we didn't give up our rights to have a weapon, it's just the handguns. That is rather unhandy for the thugs, for one does not go far in the streets with a long barreled weapon around the sholder....
-
eureka no chinchin wa chiisai dessio! *
Just testing, *waves at Rolex*
-
Why the fascination with American gun laws? Can't you people let us shoot everything and eat babies in peace?
:confused:
-
"the crimerate in capital is one of the highest in the USA of any 1st world nation"
Just a fyi angus:
DC, the U.S. capitol, has a total hand gun ban in effect. Here are the recent gun death numbers from DC and from 1/4 mile away ... overflowing with guns.
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
DC has, or is in the process of getting rid of the gun ban laws, for the sake of its citizens.
-
Originally posted by MrBill
"the crimerate in capital is one of the highest in the USA of any 1st world nation"
Just a fyi angus:
DC, the U.S. capitol, has a total hand gun ban in effect. Here are the recent gun death numbers from DC and from 1/4 mile away ... overflowing with guns.
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
DC has, or is in the process of getting rid of the gun ban laws, for the sake of its citizens.
That is a lost fight. The thugs are armed to their teeth and shooting each others as well as any Tom, Dick & Harry.
And it's rather pointless to have very different gun laws in different states and/or counties within the same country IMHO.
There is no border control you see....
Bringing a gun to DC from Oklahoma is no problem, even an assault weapon (buy on a gunfair)
Bringing the same gun from the US to Britain,,,,that is very difficult.
From France to Germany, - not much of a problem. (Although you may get stopped and checked out, it's unlikely).
So, in a lost situation, just get everybody armed, yes?
The Euros are lucky not to be there yet.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The "game" is maybe better put as "fight".
Anyway, my point was, to try to make it clear, - that the "fight" is lost if the lot of the civilianz needs to be armed because of armed thugs.
It is the right of the civilian to be armed. Nothing is lost. Still don`t get how you figure that. Some of us here sort of like to at least have a chance to control our own destiny, so to speak. We don`t like to be at others mercy, including government. Choice/ freedom. For those living in countries where this freedom is not enjoyed, they are at the mercy and whim of not only the criminal, but also the government. We don`t look at the law enforcement agencies as our baby sitter, nanny or personal security guard. They are not. (It`s a good thing in my fair county that it`s not that way also. We`d be in BIG trouble if it was. :) )
The US is in that poddle, most western countries and a good block of the asian countries are not.
LOL Asisan countries. You can`t tell me you are seriously buying the Confucious beetle bit. :)
I`ll take the U.S. any day, thanks. Not into socialism, communism, nannyism or living in tyranny. For some strange reason those countries seem to be the ones we always have to pull fat out of the fire for. :)
BTW, in our case here, we didn't give up our rights to have a weapon, it's just the handguns.
Hear that chipping sound? It`s not the polar bears digging for food. :)
That is rather unhandy for the thugs, for one does not go far in the streets with a long barreled weapon around the sholder
The main thing you are missing here is the simple fact that you cannot limit or keep the criminal from having the weapon of choice if he desires to be armed. Handgunds, long arms, fully auto, grenades, slingshots ore explosives. If he wants em, he will have them. You can only limit and stop the citizen from the tools he needs to protect himself and others. Why make it easier for the armed criminal or criminal in general?
But.......................... ....................
Auto pulls into a parking lot of a 7/11, liquor store....or up next to the sidewalk where John Q. Citizen is walking . Out steps one, two , three, etc. punks with shotguns or whatever. If the citizens are not armed it`s a given from that point forward. Taking a big biscuit and sopping gravy. Easy money. No deterent of any kind what so ever.
On the other hand if there is a possibility that at least someone is armed, first of all, it gives S.H. Punk something to think about. Has a tendency to deter quite a few.
The only thing accomplished by taking the right of the citizen away to carry a handgun is to make things easier for the criminal. A cakewalk.
I recently witnessed a great example of what the armed citizen can accomplish when armed. A 72 year old man on a golf cart, a friend of mine, never had to fire a shot to totaly do a melt down on four mid 20`s, Clyde Barrow wannabees, two of which were armed and brandishing their weapons........Gangsta Style. When he pulled up on the golf cart and it became known that he was armed, it was potty time for Bonzo. It gave a whole new meaning to hip hop. :)
-
yep... angus.. It is a good idea to allow people the freedom to arm themselves... it is also a good idea to punish those who use guns in a crime.
it is working... we are having a drop in homicide and we are seeing less and less criminals using firearms in their crimes due to the severe penalties on them....
Would the homicide rate go up if only criminals had guns and the 1.5-3 million times a year they were stopped by firearms did not exist? certainly.
This is not japan where a "criminal" commits suicide from the shame if he gets caught jaywalking and the only person he may see who doesn't look and talk and act just like him is a tourist or leech who is only their to be fleeced and made fun of.
DC is the perfect example... no guns allowed... murder rate highest in the nation... right next door they have concealled carry.... everyone is polite.
You aren't gonna stop the 5% (justice figures) from being sociopaths.... you aren't going to stop em from killing. Not unless you kill them first. A cell phone won't work.
A good example was a "city confidential" story on A&E two kids who wanted to be "criminals" planned to rob people in their home of their credit cards and pin numbers and then kill em to not have witnesses... they went to one home out in the sticks but the owner got suspicious... they left when he confronted them with a gun.. they went down the road to a home of couple of peacful liberals and killed both the man and wife with knives.
If you want a vibrant an diverse land of opportunity you have to accept that some crime will happen form those who are either sociopaths or disenfranchised... rather than destroy your whole society to cater to them... We simply realized that it is our duty to defend ourselves.
lazs
-
Hehe, Jackal:
"It is the right of the civilian to be armed. Nothing is lost. Still don`t get how you figure that. Some of us here sort of like to at least have a chance to control our own destiny, so to speak"
It's lost when the punk who nicked a .45 from the granny next door puts a bullet into your wife at the supermarket.
And tell me again that there is no chance to protect your home with a non-conceilable weapon.
In my case, as in most euro countries, GUNS ARE NOT BANNED. However they are stiffly controlled, and it works well enough to make it quite difficult for any nuthead to get some iron.
That is the fight you lost. And I am not saying that disarming civilians is the way to go in YOUR case, because the point about it is not valid any more. With all them gangsta wannebees being armed, it's maybe just as good that everyone is?
Then to your off-thread troll. Polar bears are digging, and heat records are being broken both in the USA and the UK. Beetle may be a jap as well.
Counter troll: The first armed bank robbery in our little country was performed by an American. He had troubles with the getaway, for he didn't have a handgun, and his shotgun was difficult to hise. So, he forced a taxi driver to drive him into a narrow and uncrowded area, where he could disappear without being chased by car or with too many people looking at the funny guy with a stick stuffed inside his coat.
It was his undoing. He was hunted down with dogs. No injuries.
-
"I bet more Brits die of drinking than Americans do of guns every year."
Also, more americans die of drinking then guns.....Also more Americans than Brits die from drinking.
Silly statistics.
Here's a teaser. What is the difference between somebody dying of drinking and somebody dying of gun(s) ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, for starters, the drinker usually drinks him or herself to death, while the gundead is normally (in the US) the victim of another. Perhaps the other is also drunk. And then, both sober and drunk people sometimes shoot themselves, - but suicides are another field, and can utilize various methods and tools....
-
Ya gotta admit that pretending to be a jap is pretty funny tho.
lazs
-
Hai, Lazs-san :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
It's lost when the punk who nicked a .45 from the granny next door puts a bullet into your wife at the supermarket.
When granny makes pudding pop out of said punk`s head the world is a better place.
The career crimal is not interested in a registered, legal weapon. It`s a neon sign they do not wish to carry around over their heads. There are some total morons. That is also unstopable and uncontrollable.............bu t you can have a deterent and a chance of self defense and defense of others if you are allowed to be armed. Without it, you are at their mercy and whim. For me.......I`ll take my chances.
And tell me again that there is no chance to protect your home with a non-conceilable weapon.
You won`t hear me saying that. An alley sweeper is a great way to evict unwanted guests................IF you can get to it and manuever with it in a tight space under extreme circumstances.
Main point being is not all crime against individuals or groups are commited in the home. People actual do venture out of their dwelings here, believe it or not. :)
In my case, as in most euro countries, GUNS ARE NOT BANNED. However they are stiffly controlled, and it works well enough to make it quite difficult for any nuthead to get some iron.
Chip..chip.......chip. Time.
The U.S. is not Britian. It`s not ice bear country. It`s not Japan, Botswania, China or Russia.
If someone has been numbed to the point of giving up all hope of personal freedom and they are happy with that or at least trying to convince themselves they are..........so be it. Think I`ll just stick with the U.S. I sort of like to have a say in my life and wouldn`t feel at all comfortable depending on government or anyone else to control or protect me and my family , friends and those around me in general.
If your happy, more power to you.
The first armed bank robbery in our little country
I think you could have stopped there. It pretty much sums it up.
Flat line pulse rates cannot be compared to the U.S.
Like I said before....if you are happy in ice bear country, more power to you, but ..............it has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.
was performed by an American
:rofl
The Evil U.S. Empire ENVADES!
Ride on the peace train..OoH eeeeeee.....oooooohhh ahhh ahhh..ride on the peace train. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ya gotta admit that pretending to be a jap is pretty funny tho.
lazs
Yea.................in a twisted, pitiful, sad kind of way.
-
Hey, Jacker:
"When granny makes pudding pop out of said punk`s head the world is a better place."
With the thousands of gundead in the USA every year, that is not the normal case.
"Like I said before....if you are happy in ice bear country, more power to you, but ..............it has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S."
Firstly, we haven't spotted a polar bear in years, secondly (for the climate) we do not live on frozen ground (I grow potatoes, Barley, Raygrass, sell sods and keep beef and dairy cattle), then finally, this has correctly little to do with the USA, for we haven't lost our fight yet.
(Last robbery was a knife, while I have artillery in my cabinet :D)
P.S. was "ice bear" statement ment to be a troll, or was it just ignorance?
-
Interesting isn't it how some get on here and with some righteous indignation blabber about how they don't have guns, but guess who history shows they need to turn to when threatened with war?
Why its the well armed USA.
Without the USA, Austrailia and New Zealand would have suffered conquest by Japan.
Without the USA, England would have been invaded by Germany.
Without the USA, France would still be a German colony.
etc, etc, etc.
-
Angus........I`ll say it again...if you are happy with a low pulse rate, then more power to you. I`ll stick with the U.S. That`s what we are discussing here.
Iceland is a beautiful country. Wouldn`t mind visiting there.......but I certainly wouldn`t want to make it my home. I bore easily.
So.......there are no ice bears in Iceland?
You are so sensitive. Lighten up , will ya? :)
-
Low pulse rate gives you more sense to delicate things.
And yet, - anything but boring. Not a country full of grannies :D
(and yet, with the virile females here, there are quite many young grannies :D)
Ice bears = Polar Bears...nope. Cows, horses, sheep, birds, foxes, fish, fish and fish, seals, whales, but no bears. The driftice is too far off for them to make contact (shrinking)
(BTW, lots of fishing, and hunting too, - wild geeze, ducks, Ptarmigans and Reindeers :aok )
BTW, to get back to the topic, here's a cookie for you:
If I lived in DC, I'd certainly want to have a handgun!
Different setups you see.
And finally, - if you (and Lazs) would happen to get near here, I have B&B, and know the path for hunting & shooting :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, to get back to the topic, here's a cookie for you:
If I lived in DC, I'd certainly want to have a handgun!
If I lived in D.C. I would either be suicidal or want a rocket launcher. :D
Thanks for the invitation.
-
Originally posted by Angus
If I lived in DC
Hey, easy there.. Lets be careful where we bring up living in D.C. You know, women and children read this board and I don't think they should have to read that kind of vile remark.. D.C. should never be discussed in a polite family environment. :D
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Point of story not location of crime, but blanket statement “armed citizens reduce crime”. - Not true in all countries as many countries unarmed with low crime. Maybe USA need guns to citizens in this way (many dangerous criminals, many also with gun), but these extreme measures not necessary in other countries, and crime still lower than USA.
Again, point of story is a man with a gun saved 8 other people who were in the process of being murdered by another person with a knife in the US.
Read the article.
If you want to talk comparative situations start your own thread beetle. I am firmly convinced your total obsession with guns is in full swing no matter how you try to hide your identity.
-
There is a complete ban on cocaine in all 50 United States and every bordering country. Fortunately, this ban fully prevents cocaine from entering the country. There are not mountains of it moved in every metropolitan area daily, no, not at all. I have absolutely no doubt that a full ban on handguns, especially with the confiscation of all legal handguns, would totally prevent criminals from gaining access to these weapons in the same way the cocaine ban prevents criminals from gaining access to tons of cocaine daily.
Similarly, without any guns in the picture I would be fully comfortable defending my home from thugs intent on robbery and rape if we all had were just our bare hands or perhaps blunt or pointy objects. My soft (once somewhat hard though... ugh) 41 year old body would allow me to easily master a half-dozen hardened, pumped, muscleheaded career criminals (or even one, for that matter).
However, if we were all armed, the fact that I am an experienced weapons user with some military training would obviously put me at a severe disadvantage against these TV show and Playstation educated, gangsta side pistol holding criminals. The same folk who can fire off 18 rounds without hitting their intended target on more than a few occasions. People who are so ideologically driven, that they would risk their lives to continue their aggression once they knew I had a gun, foregoing the opportunity to walk down the street in search of easier meat. Yeah, can’t ban common self defense weapons fast enough for me.
Charon
[edit: FWIW, regardless of TV and paper statistics and perhaps the musings on this board, very few Americans live lives of daily fear outside of the poorest, crime ridden neighborhoods. 95 percent of the crime occurs in just 5 counties. I know more people who have been killed by alcohol (3)than in any type of violent crime (0). We have over 200 million people living in the US. It's a big place and even impressive paper crime statistics, or for that matter even an event like 9/11 or Katrina, get diluted pretty quickly to the point where you might not even know a friend of a friend of a friend who was involved in such an incident. Particularly if your demographics are even remotely favorable. And if you want to stop violent crime you need to address the source of the crime and not waste time on the tools. A lot more bang for the buck (pun intended).
I have guns to enjoy shooting (when I can make the 1.5 hr trek to the range) but I keep one in a quick open finger touch electronic safe in the bedroom just in case. I also buy the occasional lottery ticket. It would just suck to need one and have it locked up and inaccessible elsewhere. Really, a life and death suck even if the odds of such an encounter are very slim. I do like the option to have that final determination of life or death should it ever arise.]
-
"I have absolutely no doubt that a full ban on handguns, especially with the confiscation of all legal handguns, would totally prevent criminals from gaining access to these weapons in the same way the cocaine ban prevents criminals from gaining access to tons of cocaine daily."
Belive it or not, - there can be such a reality, - well at least outside the USA.
In my little country, there hardly is an incident at all with handguns.
Cocaine? Yes. Smuggling.
Only once saw a handgun in the country, - an artifact that belonged to a collector WITH license (yes there are exceptions)
Never saw cocaine.
Wouldn't have a clue how to acquire either of those.
Isn't that nice ?
-
People wear seat belts... does that mean that they are wracked with paranoid and unfounded fear about being injured in a car accident? Are their lives dominated by thinking about seat belts? Does the act of putting on the seatbelt mean that they have given in to their fear and live a life of fear?
Having a gun in the house or even carrying one can be much less trouble than using a seatbelt. Both offer a measure of comfort rather than fear.
The good part for us firearms rights guys it that there are 200 million or so firearms floating around in the U.S. and not even the most zealous anti gun nut would say that we could put that genie back in the bottle.
Nope... all that would happen... and most Americans know this... is that the good guys would give up theirs and the predators would still be able to get all the guns they wanted.
Tougher laws on gun crimes is the only way to reduce gun crime. Nothing will ever eliminate it here in the U.S.
lazs
-
Only once saw a handgun in the country, - an artifact that belonged to a collector WITH license (yes there are exceptions)
Never saw cocaine.
Wouldn't have a clue how to acquire either of those.
That's great. Of course, Iceland is somewhat more remote than the US, and has no bordering countries. Also, the populaiton of Iceland is 1/10th (roughly) the population of just Chicago (300k vs 3 mil). I imagine the Icelandic market is too small and too much trouble to be worth servicing to any great degree by organized crime.
FWIW, There are many people in Chicago who have never seen a handgun, or cocaine or would know how to acquire either. Perhaps as many as the entire population of Iceland. And, the suburban town of Naperville, which has half the population of Iceland, has a 0 percent murder rate compared to Iceland's .5. Hard to compare apples and oranges on these issues.
[edit: I imagine it also helps that: Iceland is the 5th richest country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked number two on the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index. Hard to see a motivator for most economic-based criminal activity there.]
Charon
-
Where I live in Dixon there is a very high incidence of gun ownership but the homicide rate with firearms is lower that iceland. There are many incidents of citizens stopping crime with a legal firearm too.
As charon says... you can't do any comparissons like that.
lazs
-
iceland...hahaha
-
hahaha yerself.
Charon:That's great. Of course, Iceland is somewhat more remote than the US, and has no bordering countries."
Who is remote to whom? Does the USA have weapon problem with it's biggest bordering country...Canada?
Australia is an "Island". So is NZ. So is jolly old Britain.
Then:
" I imagine the Icelandic market is too small and too much trouble to be worth servicing to any great degree by organized crime."
Are most of the gundead from organized killings? What is the background of most of the shooters? Answer: It's a mess.Not very organized. Mostly a spur-of-the-moment thing, or people unbalanced, - things that get out of hand. But yes, servicing the crimeworld with artillery and ammo is a small marked. But...what about the UK then?
And the Lazs, -
"Where I live in Dixon there is a very high incidence of gun ownership but the homicide rate with firearms is lower that iceland. There are many incidents of citizens stopping crime with a legal firearm too."
Please support this, or at least explain better. Last time I checked, our homicide rate with firearms is 0%. I have to go several years back to find a kill with a gun, but out of my head I remember some 3. (2 of which cases where the shooter commited suicide thereafter, - crime of passion).
Where I live, there's also guns on many homes. I've only got 3 though, and no proper handgun. The homicide rate for our country as whole (Skipping the capital and area around) cannot be bettered downwards easily, for it's been at nil for the last years.
What does that tell?
-
Who is remote to whom? Does the USA have weapon problem with it's biggest bordering country...Canada?
Australia is an "Island". So is NZ. So is jolly old Britain.
Well, all of those countries combined have a population slightly over 1/3 of that of the United States. Today we have more guns on the street with easier access to weapons in general, but the challenges to importing those weapons are much decreased in the US regardless. And again, there is no problem moving mountains of illegal drugs, imigrants, etc across the border as needed. The square miles of land border and port entry points pales by comparison to the US in those examples listed.
You also have to look at the range of economic conditions present in these countries, and compare and contrast to the US. You have to look at social decisions made in the 1960s that created bastions of crime in the US that are hard to reengineer today. You have to look at thug culture where the easy way out (huge short term financial rewards) lets the hopeless have a shot of the American Deam (as seen on TV). The fact that the end is a life in prison or in the ground doesn't seem all that important to most young thugs. However, Britain and much of Europe seems to be catching up to our legacy in recent years in these areas, in my general opinion.
Are most of the gundead from organized killings? What is the background of most of the shooters? Answer: It's a mess.Not very organized. Mostly a spur-of-the-moment thing, or people unbalanced, - things that get out of hand. But yes, servicing the crimeworld with artillery and ammo is a small marked. But...what about the UK then?
Organized crime (not just the Italian Mob anymore) moves the product into the markets from overseas that creates the environment for "messy" street crime during distribution. The street gangs, which are growing sophisticated to the point of committing Web and mortgage fraud distribute it for a tremendous profit. The killings are fairly loose (think 1920s prohabition) ranging from solid territority issues to layered revenge killings that initially over some girl or someone flashing the wrong sign in the wrong neighborhood, etc.
Moving guns is no harder than moving Cocaine, if not easier for a variety of detection reasons. If needed: "Just add "x" number of weapons and "X" amount of ammon to the next 100kg shipment Raoul, and deduct the cost please..."
For the UK comparison you have to look at all the differences between the two countries, from socioeconomic factors to how the justice systems works against the victim to the point that "take what you want and get out" seems to be a SOP. http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.html
The same disparity can be seen in the UK. While the country as a whole has a low rate of murder, there are areas where the murder rate is high. In Glasgow, Scotland, the murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (cite). In London, by contrast, it's 2.1 per 100,000 (cite). In the Manchester metro area, it's 10 per 100,000. And in the Manchester neighborhoods of Moss Side and Longsight, and in the Manchester suburb of Hulme, the murder rate is a monstrous 140 per 100,000 (cite)-- which is considerably worse than Washington, DC, America's most murderous city.
Perhaps the US just has way more Manchesters per square mile? Perhaps the drug distribution infrastructure is more "results driven" in the US high crime areas?
Like in the US, the majority of the murders in the UK are being committed by gang members, mostly against other gang members. This is true whether one speaks of murders with or without guns. The murders are not distributed evenly across either country; they are localized in rather compact "hot spots" which bring up the murder rate for the whole country. And even though the UK has a total handgun ban, its hot spots of murder are just as bad as those in the US, and they are getting worse.
And gun crime hasn't decreased in the UK since the 1997 ban.
If gun bans prevented murder, we would expect the murder rate in the UK to have been trending downward since 1997, if not before then (in the decade preceding the 1997 total ban on handguns, the UK government passed a series of laws and regulations making it harder and harder to get guns). We don't... we see a country where the rate of murder is increasing, where there are some areas that are more dangerous than America's most dangerous city, and where criminals have all the guns they need. When we look at the UK, we see a country where the violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than that of the US.
You also see plenty of daylight/resident home invasions (which you don't see in the US all that much) because, as best I can gather from this board and on the net, not only is the homeowner barred from firearms for defense but discouraged legally from providing any defense. http://www.wmsa.net/pubs/reason/reason_nov02_crime_in_uk.htm
• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
I suppose that's one way to reduce deadly confrontations of any kind -- just give the criminals what amounts to a free shot at your goods. Doesn't sit all that right with me, especially if they decide to have some fun with my wife or threaten my kid.
Charon
-
Beet, you're acting the bellybutton here. I thought better of you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, you're acting the bellybutton here.
Now there`s a news flash.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Where I live in Dixon
lol
-
Man who type fake engrish have small noodle.
-
Raaaaar!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5212530.stm)
Britain bought supplies from america, therefor america won the battle of britain? Does that mean america lost the battle of france too?
Dago i do believe the LW came off worse in the BoB, the RAF were much stronger in '41 than in '40.
-
Originally posted by thrila
Raaaaar!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5212530.stm)
Britain bought supplies from america, therefor america won the battle of britain? Does that mean america lost the battle of france too?
Dago i do believe the LW came off worse in the BoB, the RAF were much stronger in '41 than in '40.
Why twist it around? I didn't say America won the Battle of Britain. The RAF did a fantastic job fighting the BOB. But, long term reality is Germany would have been back eventually and they would have invaded without America coming into the war. The BOB didn't prevent the invasion, only delayed it. American involvement prevented that invasion long term.
And whether it is commonly discussed in England, Churchill was constantly begging FDR for assistance, supplies, etc before America entering the war, and FDR supplied all that could be sent.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Man who type fake engrish have small noodle.
You guys really think its beat1e? I mean really? As pathetic as beat1e was, he isn't that pathetic is he?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You guys really think its beat1e? I mean really? As pathetic as beat1e was, he isn't that pathetic is he?
yes I believe it's beetle. Same crap with a new logon that appeared about the same time he was banned (thanks for trying skuzzy).
-
GTO, yup. Same obsession, same BS and he came about a day after beet1e was banned. Just poor attempt at hiding his ID with poor english.
-
Read one of the NewBeet's first posts where he talks about Laz and women voting.
The English isn't FakeJapanese and for someone's 4th post, it's amazing how he knows all about Laz' views on women's suffrage.
It's Beet. I'd bet the ranch on it.
I never thought he'd be this much of an bellybutton about it. I'm certain he could have kissed and made up with Skuzzy and been allowed back. Look how many incarnations of Nuke and others we've all seen. Skuzzy is fair and he's forgiving almost to a fault.
-
I think beet ran his welcome into the ground by going off on Skuzzy when he got banned. Skuzzy had been cutting him lots of slack and even posted openly about it. He pushed and got axed, pretty stupid to do that but he did it all by himself. Frankly IMO it was a definite improvement and a significant reduction in trolls.
-
Wow, those Engrish lessons are really helping.
-
Caught him. There was a post between mine above and Mav's, it got deleted. Average or better English, from Eureka. Seems he deleted it. Should have quoted him.
-
saint... you didn't like Dixon when you were there?
charon is putting it pretty well but I got to ask angus... do you think I could not get a handgun in iceland if I wanted one for a crime? Do you think I could not get one in england?
I will bet anyone here that I could get a handgun in england in less than a week... less than the waiting period in most states here.
And if it is possible to get a handgun then why not more handgun crime? Several reasons... the penalties are the biggest but... take england.. at the turn of the century there were no laws against carrying handguns and there were no murders... even in America... white on white gun homicide is rare. Often... what is termed a homicide is a weak person defending against a strong.
And...toad... what thread did beet bring up my views on womens sufferage in?
lazs
-
Sad little person, gets banned and can't stay away.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sad little person, gets banned and can't stay away.
Yeah if it wasn't so lame it would be laughable, but then again, look who it is.
-
The AH BBS soap opera gets better and better, Snipers, Strippers,PETA, P-51s,multiple personalitys, and evil coworkers. Now finally someone comes back with talking fake engrish and deletes all his posts after he starts talking normal again!:rofl
Come on Beetle the only way to win back our respect now is to come in tomarrow and Claim some Evil-Coworker kept you trussed up in his basement like a missing co-ed for the last 3 years, and claim the Evil Coworker posted all that to slander your good name.
er a Fat,Balding Middle-aged,beady-eyed coed, well you get the idea.
-
Hehe, maybe ein Deutscher vill schow up zeh next time :rofl
Anyway, Charon:
"However, Britain and much of Europe seems to be catching up to our legacy in recent years in these areas, in my general opinion."
Are you sure about that?
Speaking of the main block of N-Europe (Germany, France BeNeLux, even Italy, Spain and Austria) you can refer to them as one block because of Schengen.
That's a wooping number of heads (Close to the population of the USA), and surrounded with streams of thugs from the old eastern block as well as Arabic lots as well. And yet they haven't caught up the legacy yet.
And while the new gunlaw in the UK hasn't reduced gun crime, they haven't ecactly been increasing, as you imply here above.
And Lazs:
"charon is putting it pretty well but I got to ask angus... do you think I could not get a handgun in iceland if I wanted one for a crime? Do you think I could not get one in england?"
That's a tough one. In Iceland, probably not, or at least it would take you very long.
In the UK? Much more likely, but it could be a little twisty.
And in the USA, piece of pie, for me also :D
-
angus... I will bet that I could get a handgun in england without knowing a soul within a week. Career criminals can probly get em in an hour or less.
I have heard that you can rent handguns in england for crime.
My point is that the criminals can still get handguns...it is only the law abiding who can't.
And... as I have stated... in any country.. a shotgun is easily sawn off to portable and concealable length and it is far more deadly than a handgun at close range.
If you are saying that having a powerful government that can cow the citizens into blind and total obedience can lower firearms homicide rates then you may have a point. Or... that having a society with little diversity and volatility or opportunity works.... you may have a point.
I will take our diverse and volatile society and it's firearms any day tho than ant like socialism and sameness of asian society or.... being voted "the most boring people on the planet" like the brits recently were.
I will take the minimal risks required in our society and enjoy the benifiets. I will gladly defend myself when need be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
The AH BBS soap opera gets better and better, Snipers, Strippers,PETA, P-51s,multiple personalitys, and evil coworkers. Now finally someone comes back with talking fake engrish and deletes all his posts after he starts talking normal again!:rofl
Come on Beetle the only way to win back our respect now is to come in tomarrow and Claim some Evil-Coworker kept you trussed up in his basement like a missing co-ed for the last 3 years, and claim the Evil Coworker posted all that to slander your good name.
er a Fat,Balding Middle-aged,beady-eyed coed, well you get the idea.
Nah, beatle is just proving England has trailer trash as well.
-
Are you sure about that?
Speaking of the main block of N-Europe (Germany, France BeNeLux, even Italy, Spain and Austria) you can refer to them as one block because of Schengen.
That's a wooping number of heads (Close to the population of the USA), and surrounded with streams of thugs from the old eastern block as well as Arabic lots as well. And yet they haven't caught up the legacy yet.
And while the new gunlaw in the UK hasn't reduced gun crime, they haven't ecactly been increasing, as you imply here above.?
I said catching up. Let's look at the "old eastern block."
Fallout: the criminal nexus
Porous Eastern European borders have exacerbated a number of social problems, including crime and prostitution. Poland has been especially hard-hit; 63% of Polish crimes are committed by ex-Soviets, including 100 Ukraine-based gangs (Gazeta Wyborcza, 18 Jan. and 16 June 1993).
Post-Soviet criminal gangs specialize in highway robbery—literally. Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Georgians who had immigrated illegally began by robbing ex-Soviet service men returning home from Germany. The thieves had obtained computer printouts listing the types and license plates of cars owned by the soldiers, and dates when their owners would end their tour of duty. Clearly, the mafia had good sources of information in the Russian military establishment in Germany (Spiegel, no. 25, 1993). In 1992/93 the scope of highway robberies widened to include TIR-trucks, especially vehicles transporting alcohol and cigarettes. In 1992 several hundred attacks were recorded. By 1993, Polish criminals realized how profitable this line of activity was and now commit 50% of the robberies themselves (Polityka, 29 May 1993).
Germany is a key target of gangs from the former USSR as well as Polish groups. According to Anatoli Olenikov, a high-ranking Russian official involved in fighting the mafia, about 300 Russian, Ukrainian and Caucasian gangs conduct drug trafficking, car theft, extortion, prostitution and robbery, and these groups have divided Germany into their own "zones of influence".(Spiegel, no. 25, 1993).
http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com38.asp
Now, as to gun crime, does a unified Russian Mafia have the same kind of street wars you have with the multiple factions involved with gangland crime in the US? This material indicates a controlled, centralized criminal market. For casual crime, do you need to kill an unarmed man to rob him -- no. In the time between the "War on Alcohol" and the "War on Drugs" organized crime in the US posted fairly low body counts. Now, while sources of supply are somewhat unified distribution is very competitive.
Lets consider the Muslim refugee angle. I seem to recall quite a bit of unpleasantness in France recently.
The attacks were triggered when two Muslim teenagers were electrocuted last week after they leapt into a power substation in an attempt to evade a police who had set up an identity checkpoint. Several dozen policemen and assailants have since been injured in street fighting, but no further deaths have been reported.
Still, some of the violence has been devastating. On Wednesday night, youths firebombed a bus here with the passengers inside. As the last passenger, a 56-year-old woman, descended the steps on crutches, an assailant splashed her with gasoline and another threw a flaming rag at her, according to residents and police reports.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110400183.html
Now this unrest likely lacks a lot of funding that is used to buy weapons in the US drug wars. No Job, no money, no weapon when you riot. Let's hope sympathetic parties in the refugees' home countries don't decide to make up for that shortcoming.
Back to the UK.
THE number of offences involving firearms in England and Wales has been increasing each year since 1997, according to the Home Office.
Firearms incidents recorded by the police have nearly trebled in eight years.
Provisional figures released last month showed that firearms offences had increased by 5 per cent on last year, to a total of 11,160. There were 4,903 such offences in 1997.
The possession of handguns was banned in Britain that year after the Dunblane massacre. Yet the illegal ownership of handguns is believed to be higher than it has ever been, with nearly 300,000 illegal guns estimated to be in circulation.
The increase in gun crime is linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade.
But Chris Fox, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: “This year has seen a fall in the number of fatalities from 70 to 60, with the use of shotguns down by 13 per cent and the use of handguns down by 8 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1878913,00.html
As noted, gun crime up though fatalities have dropped somewhat. Of course, it's hard to tell what the statistics really reflect. Has the ban simply translated into the ability for armed criminals to otherwise victimize a wider range of easier targets (as reflected by a notable increase on general violent crime and robberies) opposed to getting involved in riskier situations? Not a trade off I would be all that proud about. And, as noted, there are apparently urban areas of Britain that give any US city a run for their money but perhaps just fewer of them per square mile and total population distribution. We have a lot of big cities, and very big suburbs around those cities (100,000 population sized) that expand the problem (but only in certain poverty stricken neighborhoods). In the UK, you seem to get pretty quickly into the quaint towns and villages shortly after you leave London and other big cities. US crime statistics reflect that trend as well:
The five least violent states–North Dakota, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Dakota–all have “weak gun laws” according to Brady criteria.[9] [Edit: and more rural vs urban demographics as well]. In 2004, RTC states had an average violent crime rate of 388.6, while Brady’s “strong gun law” (non-RTC) states rate of 491.2 was 26.4% higher. Brady’s favorite states had a 39.1% higher murder rate, a 74.8% higher robbery rate, and 15.1% higher aggravated assault rate. RTC states had a 18.9% higher rate of rape, but it is interesting to note that the rate is dropping faster in RTC states than non-RTC states: Between 1995 and 1996, 10 states enacted right-to-carry. By 2004, they experienced a 19.2% greater annual decrease in the rate of rape than the 12 non-RTC states and D.C. This occurred despite the fact that the overall violent crime rate fell faster in the non-RTC states.
http://newsbusters.org/node/6568
And the statistics are apples and oranges to begin with, at least somewhat.
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
FWIW, violent crime specifically and firearm crime in general (with some minor blips) has been decreasing in the US during the UK gun ban period. They were decreasing in the years leading up to some fairly minor US gun regulation around the same time, and have continued to decrease.
Total violent crime in the U.S. has dropped 25 percent since 1994, the FBI statistics show. The report does not explain the reasons for the trend, but criminologists and law enforcement officials attribute the decline to a variety of factors including stricter law enforcement, longer prison terms for repeat offenders, community policing and an aging population…
But the figures provide a window into the killings: 90 percent of victims were adults; 77 percent were males; 48.7 percent of murder victims were white; 48.5 percent were black; 92 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; 84.7 percent of white victims were killed by whites.
In about 55 percent of murder cases last year, authorities found a previous relationship between victim and assailant. In 45 percent of the cases, no known relationship was established between the victim and the assailant.
Firearms were used in 71 percent of the reported homicides, compared with 13 percent in which knives were used. In 7 percent, "personal" weapons -- hands, fists and feet -- were used to commit the murders.
The FBI figures show that in murder cases where victim and offender knew one another, 32 percent of females were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.5 percent of males were killed by their wives or girlfriends.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/fbi.violent.crime/
Now the one interesting thing not noted, is that while 71 percent of the homicides involved firearms what are the specific percentages relative to gangland crime and domestic crime. My bet would be that the figures are heavily skewed since it’s fairly rare to hear of a gangland killing not involving a firearm (though stabbings are not that uncommon) and fairly common to hear of domestic disputes involving knives and blunt objects.
Charon
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Nah, beatle is just proving England has trailer trash as well.
HEY HEY HEY!!!! Watch that trailer trash stuff there buddy! :mad:
<----------------<<<<
-
Originally posted by Maverick
HEY HEY HEY!!!! Watch that trailer trash stuff there buddy! :mad:
<----------------<<<<
You have an RV thats not a trailer! ;)
I was talking singlewide mobile home with trash in the yard etc. You know the type. The kinda guy who beats his wife who may be his cousin, really bad teeth, think they know it all, etc.
:D
-
Well I do on occasion beat my wife. I beat her to the bathroom, beat her to the TV remote, beat her to the ice cream, beat her to the door when we're going somewhere................ :p :D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Well I do on occasion beat my wife. I beat her to the bathroom, beat her to the TV remote, beat her to the ice cream, beat her to the door when we're going somewhere................ :p :D
Don't women thing being beaten to the bathroom is a crime agaist humanity? :rofl
-
Moving guns is no harder than moving Cocaine, if not easier for a variety of detection reasons. If needed: "Just add "x" number of weapons and "X" amount of ammon to the next 100kg shipment Raoul, and deduct the cost please..."
The difference between smuggling drugs and cocaine is that cocaine sells for far more.
If you import a kilo of hard drugs into the UK, it's final street price is upwards of $80,000 a kilo. A handgun and some ammo weighs about a kilo.
One of the major ways of importing cocaine into the UK is by using drug mules from the Caribbean, who smuggle in a kilo or 2 at a time, and get paid a couple of grand (plus airfares etc). Do the same with guns, and they would be far too expensive for most criminals.
Major drug dealers no doubt do smuggle guns, as they need them to protect themselves from other drug gangs. But smuggling guns to sell to common criminals just isn't worth while.
Perhaps the US just has way more Manchesters per square mile?
The problem with that is the FBI breaks down murder rates by community type. At its best, the US murder rate approaches the British average. Even small towns in the US, 10,000 or less population, have a higher murder rate than the UK including the big cities.
Perhaps the drug distribution infrastructure is more "results driven" in the US high crime areas?
Even if you exclude all drug related murders in the US (although including those carried out by addicts to fund habits), the US still has a much higher murder rate than the UK including drug murders.
And gun crime hasn't decreased in the UK since the 1997 ban.
Depends what you measure. If you measure something absolutely quantifiable, like murders committed with firearms, it has. If you take nebulous figures, like police recording of incidents where "firearms" were reported, it has increased, but that's far more to do with police recording of incidents that didn't use to be worth a mention.
Of course, the "ban" in 1997 was in fact a further tightening of already tight laws, so its effect on gun crime was marginal.
You also see plenty of daylight/resident home invasions (which you don't see in the US all that much)
Actually you do see them in the US, but the FBI classifies many of them as robberies rather than burglaries.
About 15% of robberies in the US occur in private residences, in the UK, where robberies in the home tend to be classified as burglaries, the figure is about 6%
because, as best I can gather from this board and on the net, not only is the homeowner barred from firearms for defense but discouraged legally from providing any defense. http://www.wmsa.net/pubs/reason/rea...crime_in_uk.htm
No, the government issued guidelines to homeowners on the legal basis of self defence a couple of years ago. To quote the director of public prosecutions:
"If you are confronted by a burglar in your own home and you fear yourself and members of your family are about to be attacked, you are entitled to take action to incapacitate that burglar"
"The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor."
As to Joyce Lee Malcolm, see is either lying or very, very mistaken. From the article you linked to:
That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."
What Glanville Williams says is that there is some doubt if "reasonablesness" is still part of the law:
"The requirement of reasonableness is unhappy. Enough has been said in criticism of it, and the CLRC has recommended that it should be expunged from the law. In practice, as we have seen, the requirement may be construed indulgently to the defendant, for, as Holmes J memorably said in the United States Supreme Court, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” As we shall see in the next section, the requirement is now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."
So, it's not the case that there is doubt that self defence is part of the law, there's doubt about whether your actions in self defence have to be reasonable (ie self defence is being interpreted more leniently than it was)
Another "fact" from Malcolm:
and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S.
The USDOJ's National Criminal Victimization Survey says that in 17.5 of domestic burglaries, the householder was asleep at the start of the burglary, in another 11% the householder was carrying out "other activities at home". There's another 20%+ covered by "don't knows" and "other" that would also have a percentage at home.
Why twist it around? I didn't say America won the Battle of Britain. The RAF did a fantastic job fighting the BOB. But, long term reality is Germany would have been back eventually and they would have invaded without America coming into the war. The BOB didn't prevent the invasion, only delayed it. American involvement prevented that invasion long term.
When exactly would the invasion have been?
In 1940 the RAF defeated German invasion plans.
In 1941 Germany invaded Russia at about the time the weather became practical for an invasion, and spent the rest of the year focusing on Russia.
In 1942 the Germans were fully embroiled in Russia, and losing.
American involvement in Europe (inc Russia) didn't become large scale until after the German failure at Stalingrad, and there was no way the Germans were coming back from that.
I will bet anyone here that I could get a handgun in england in less than a week.
I'd take you up on it. I don't think you've got any conception of how difficult it is to get a real gun in the UK, and what connections you need.
If guns are easily available, the police will seize a lot of them, right? Yet every time you go looking for the numbers of guns seized by police, you find they add in toy guns, replicas, and anything that looks like a gun, to bump up the numbers.
And if it is possible to get a handgun then why not more handgun crime?
Faulty premise.
Several reasons... the penalties are the biggest but.
Don't you have a death penalty? Sentences in the US are much longer than in the UK.
ake england.. at the turn of the century there were no laws against carrying handguns
Handguns were also rather expensive and rare, but becoming less so.
and there were no murders.
There were 2 policemen shot dead in 1909, 3 in 1910, 1 in 1912, 3 in 1913. 9 in 5 years.
That's with a population about half the current population.
There was 1 policeman shot dead in 1995, 1 in 2003, 1 in 2005. 3 in 11 years.
white on white gun homicide is rare.
Still far more common than all homicide, by all racial groups, in the UK.
Firearms incidents recorded by the police have nearly trebled in eight years.
That's the key phrase "recorded by the police". Years ago the police used to try to catch real criminals, because the government has made that too difficult, they focus on other things now.
"The chief constable of South Wales has issued a warning about giving toy guns to children as Christmas gifts.
Barbara Wilding said the force deployed armed officers to 263 incidents - many involving youngsters with imitation firearms. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4536138.stm
nd, as noted, there are apparently urban areas of Britain that give any US city a run for their money
No, there are one or two areas of Britain with gun crime comparable to America's average, (ie our worst is equal to your average), there is nowhere in Britain equal to America's worst, and our average is considerably lower than the US average.
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
The US figures reflect homicides as initially recorded by police. However, they exclude negligent manslaughter.
The UK figures are for homicides as recorded by police, including negligent manslaughter. Records are of course kept as to the outcomes of trials, inquests etc, (as they are in the US) but the published figures are for homicides as initially recorded.
So the only substantial difference in recording between the UK and US is that the US does not count negligent manslaughter, the UK does (and it can be a fair number, too, eg 20 Chinese immigrants who died in Morecombe Bay, 58 Chinese immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry being smuggled into the UK, etc.
-
What are we arguing about again?
-
Originally by Nashwan
The difference between smuggling drugs and cocaine is that cocaine sells for far more.
Really..... perhaps you can explain how cocaine isn't a drug :huh ......
:p
-
The difference between smuggling drugs and cocaine is that cocaine sells for far more.
Really..... perhaps you can explain how cocaine isn't a drug
Sorry, supposed to be guns and cocaine.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If you import a kilo of hard drugs into the UK, it's final street price is upwards of $80,000 a kilo. A handgun and some ammo weighs about a kilo.
Bad math.
Take a kilo and sell it to cover cost of manufacturing it, smuggling it and so forth and you're looking at a profit probably around $2k-$6K depending on how many people there are between the manufacturing and it's arrival at the docks. You then distribute it to people who have to buy it, then cut it, then resell it, making even less profit. They then distribute it to people who actually have to buy it from them to sell it either to another dealer or to customers. There could be several middle men in the transaction.
A gun does not need to be processed, reprocessed and then divied up again. It's a one time sale for the smuggler. Depending on the guns purchased, the profit margin could be huge (AKs).
-
The big news last night on Japanese television was the story of a guy who ran up to a woman stopped at a red light. He opened her car door, pointed a pistol at her face and pulled the trigger.
He grabbed her bag and ran away with 3.5 million yen (~ US$30,000).
It was his 10th time to do it and he's still at large.
BTW, it was a water pistol that looked something like this:
(http://tech-rep.org/water.jpg)
True story. I couldn't make up anything that good. The news here is better value than the TV shows.
-
Have they pulled all of the water pistols off of the shelf yet?
-
Uhh, - This:
"My point is that the criminals can still get handguns...it is only the law abiding who can't."
Hanguns are not really necessary for the law abiding citizent for home protection. You can do that just as well, if not better, with something...BIGGER. And for hunting, - they're not so necessary either.
(Although boar hunters prefer one, - been there ;))
If you're saying that they're necessary because of the people needing to carry them in the open, - well, then most of us "Euros" do not consider us to live in such an environment. And most shudder at the thought of that kind of setup.
And Charon, - I see you have put quite some work into speculating, reflecting and data mining. Well, all good. But what sticks to my head in this ever-going debate(s) US-EURO is still that you have more gundead, rapes, armed robbery, murders, and people in prison than for instance in the whole Schengen area. And by quite a bit.
EDIT, addition. Note joking, could have sworn that I saw a Japanese referring post on the list when I pressed "reply". I went back and it was gone. :confused:
-
Oh, was Rolex post I guess.
-
nashwan... are you saying that I could not get a handgun within a couple of hours or days in your country or get a shotgun and saw it off?
Same question for angus.
If the answer is that, of course I could (and I could) then you have to ask.... What has the ban accomplished? If there never were many homicides and now that you have banned conceallable or home defense ones and there are just as many or more homicides... what have you accomplished.
If law abiding citizens obey the law... that is easy to understand. It criminals obey it.. that is different... why do they? Because they agree with you that it is a good thing? hardly... the ban has to carry heavy penalties in order to cow the criminal into obeying. You could just have well as just put in the penalties and left out the ban.... Heavy penalties for gun crime but no ban on guns..
instead...you have burglars ransacking a persons house while they hide in a locked room shaking like a leaf under their bed hoping that someone will save them.
We still say... no thanks to that situation and the flawed thinking that caused it.
Sooo... If I wanted to knock off my rival gang leader in ice bear country of limeyland... are you guys saying I couldn't get a handgun or saw off a shotgun and do it any time I liked?
lazs
-
Processing increases profit, because you take a kilo of something expensive, cut it with something very, very cheap, and you have two kilos of "drugs". That's why they do it.
There could be several middle men in the transaction.
There will be middle men in the transaction for guns, too, in exactly the same way as for drugs. The importer cannot know and deal with the street level criminals all over the country who would want guns, anymore than he can know and deal with the drug addicts who want his drugs.
If a robber in Glasgow wants a gun, how can he deal direct with the importer? The importer can't exactly advertise, he might be based hundreds of miles away, the two have never met, and don't know each other.
If the importer is so well known that street level criminals all over the country know how to contact him, then the police will know him too.
This is exactly the same situation as the drug trade, where the importer sells to a few high level middle men, they sell on to lower level dealer, all the way down to the street dealer.
According to the Economist in 2004, wholesale price for multi-kilo loads of cocaine (ie direct from the importers) was £15 - £30,000 ($30 - $60,000) a kilo. Heroin importers sell a kilo for £15 - £20,000.
Guns moved on this basis would simply be too expensive for 99% of criminals, and only usefull for a very few in very high profit crimes (eg drug dealing, major robberies)
-
nashwan... the difference is that there is not an inexhaustable supply of cocaine hidden away in closets in every city in england... coke is perishable also and used up.
There is more than an adequate supply of firearms in england to supply your normal crime and homicide with guns needs for the next few centuries.
Again... are you saying that I could not get a firearm with little or no trouble in your country if I wanted one to commit a murder or gun crime?
If I can still get one with little trouble then the ban didn't work.... If I can get one but don't.... the ban didn't work but the penalties did.
lazs
-
nashwan... are you saying that I could not get a handgun within a couple of hours or days in your country
Yes.
or get a shotgun and saw it off?
A shotgun would be somewhat easier, but shotguns have never been that popular, probably because they are too bulky (even sawn off) and have very poor range (especially sawn off)
If the answer is that, of course I could (and I could) then you have to ask.... What has the ban accomplished?
Well, the answer is no you couldn't. But what do you mean by the "ban"?
Handguns have needed a licence for a very long time, they still need a licence. They've just been moved from class 1 to class 5 (same as machine guns)
As to what that achieved, it was a PR move in the wake of Dunblane, the supporters of that would point to the fact there hasn't been another Dunblane, the opponenets would say there wouldn't have been anyway.
If there never were many homicides and now that you have banned conceallable or home defense ones and there are just as many or more homicides... what have you accomplished.
The reason Britian didn't have a huge increase in homicides the way the US did is that action was taken to restrict the supply of guns in the early days, as they were starting to become a problem.
The thing is, if handguns had to be hand made, and cost about £10,000 each, there wouldn't be a problem, and likely no laws to address that problem. It's only because guns are cheap to make, and thus likely to become common (as they have in the US) that there is a problem. They are too likely to fall into the wrong hands (read crack addict) when there are so many available.
If law abiding citizens obey the law... that is easy to understand. It criminals obey it.. that is different... why do they?
Because they have no choice. Because the law on the supply of guns is well enforced, and there's little money to be made breaking it, so guns are hard to come by. Criminals do not chose to obey the law about carrying guns, they are made to by the fact guns are hard to come by, which means they are too expensive for most criminals.
You could just have well as just put in the penalties and left out the ban.... Heavy penalties for gun crime but no ban on guns..
So a heavy penalty on murder will stop murder? Doesn't seem to work, does it?
The thing is, criminals wouldn't be criminals if they were overly worried about getting caught. In the US system, guns are freely available, but criminals are not allowed to have them. They ignore that law, as is to be expected from criminals.
In the UK system, guns are highly regulated, so criminals find it very difficult to get guns. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of availability.
instead...you have burglars ransacking a persons house while they hide in a locked room shaking like a leaf under their bed hoping that someone will save them.
As you do in America, where people fear the burgular is carrying a gun.
We still say... no thanks to that situation and the flawed thinking that caused it.
We still say your situation is flawed, and the figures more than back that up. We still say that the thinking that having both sides in a crime armed is better than having neither side armed is a bit silly, to say the least.
-
Major drug dealers no doubt do smuggle guns, as they need them to protect themselves from other drug gangs. But smuggling guns to sell to common criminals just isn't worth while.
Most likely so. And the guns would be smuggled, IMO, not as a major product but as a value added service.
The problem with that is the FBI breaks down murder rates by community type. At its best, the US murder rate approaches the British average. Even small towns in the US, 10,000 or less population, have a higher murder rate than the UK including the big cities.
And some communities with a population of 150,000 have a lower/or equal murder rate to Iceland. I have been in the UK on several occasions, both in London and the countryside, and there is no comparison to how the population is distributed. You can drive 30 miles from many big cities in the US and not see a farm or anything that approaches open space. Just fairly dense communities ranging in population from 10,000 to 150,000 or better -- that whole urban sprawl, megalopolis thing. In the UK the transition from urban to rural seems to happen almost immediately. In the US there will be suburban communities linked to these urban areas that have poor neighborhoods (or are generally poor overall) comprable to those neighborhoods in the inner city, including links to the same gangs that sell the same drugs and fight the same street wars.
Take Joliet ILL, about 30 miles out of Chicago. Half of that town is upscale, $400K plus suburban homes, the other half is a high crime make sure you don't take the wrong turn low income housing area. You have some communities a similar distance like Elgin that have a high percentage of poverty with high crime, while 5 miles away is a community like East Dundee with virtully no crime. Just like in chicago where on one side of the street by the United Center (where the Bulls play) you have projects and on the other side you have million dollar homes. Drive 10 miles or so out of the urban megalopolis sprawl and you find communities that haven't had a murder (except for DUI) in decades.
You can't just "average out" crime in the US or use generic figures. I have yet to hear a criminal gunshot, including the five years I spent living in Chicago itself not all that far from some iffy areas. There are some neighborhoods where I would be sleeping in a bathtub if forced to live there.
Even if you exclude all drug related murders in the US (although including those carried out by addicts to fund habits), the US still has a much higher murder rate than the UK including drug murders.
First, are we taliking firearm murders here or murders in general? Second, I would like to see your statistics on that. It is not uncommon for gang members (or urban wanna be gangsters) to kill others for non drug related reasons (a girlfriend, a revenge killing, someone flashed the wrong sign, a pair of tennis shoes or an iPod, disrespect at a party, etc.) -- are these counted as "drug" murders? Are we really doing an apples to apples comparison? Similarly, as noted earlier, what percentage of the US population lives in what would be considered a major urban area (megalopolis) compared to the UK? I would think population density plays a role in crime. I mean, look how far the UK is lagging behind Iceland, and Iceland seems to have far more liberal firearm laws.
The USDOJ's National Criminal Victimization Survey says that in 17.5 of domestic burglaries, the householder was asleep at the start of the burglary, in another 11% the householder was carrying out "other activities at home". There's another 20%+ covered by "don't knows" and "other" that would also have a percentage at home.
I wonder if this includes the growing trend (even seeing some media coverage) of drug dealers breaking in to opposing drug dealers to rob them. Or, rapes that also include a robbery. The other type of home invasion that occurs with any regularity is against the elderly, who can't defend themselves and are seen as easy targets. I actually had that happen in my very hi-rise in Chicago against an elderly copuple. Of course, in Chicago you can't really own any handguns for self defense. So the elderly couple couldn't have done what this guy did:
Man, 83, discusses shooting at home
By PATRICIA MEADE
VINDICATOR CRIME REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN — Walter Swita used a German Luger 9 mm pistol he brought home from World War II to shoot an intruder he suspects robbed him a few weeks ago.
The intruder, Benjamin Brooks, 44, of East Philadelphia Avenue, died Sunday at St. Elizabeth Health Center. Swita shot him in the head and chest around 10:30 p.m. Friday.
Brooks, whose record included robbery and breaking and entering, lived around the corner from Swita.
"Watch out for the blood on the rug," Swita, 83, said as he welcomed a reporter into the living room of his South Avenue home Monday. "That's his blood. I hit my head on the TV stand when we fell."
The elderly man's 80-year-old two-story house is in the middle of a commercial district that features bars, eateries and other businesses. As a safety precaution, he's considering cutting back or removing a large bush that obscures his front porch.
"I think he's the one who attacked me about six weeks ago in the back yard," Swita said of Brooks. "He smashed me hard in the face and when I fell down he looked through my wallet and took $60."
Changed a few habits
Swita said he started carrying his German Luger after the attack, not sure whether the vintage pistol would even fire. He said he served in General George Patton's 3rd Army but didn't shoot at anyone. He repaired tanks and Jeeps.
After the first robbery, Swita, who lives alone, began parking across the street when he returned home, not in his rear yard driveway. He'd hide the pistol against his leg until he was safe inside.
Swita said that on Friday night, a man he'd seen hurrying up East Philadelphia grabbed him around the neck as he reached the porch and unlocked the door. The elderly man said he fired two shots at the intruder and they fell to the floor.
His account
Swita, "shaking like a leaf," said he sat down to call 911 to report the shooting. The call taker asked if the man who'd been shot was breathing. Swita said he told her he didn't care.
He assumed the intruder would die because of the shot to the head. He doesn't expect to be charged with any crime, reasoning that he just defended himself in his own home.
"Was I scared? You bet, both times, whoof!" Swita said, exhaling as he recalled the frightening encounters. "You don't know what they'll do to you. A witness said there were two [other] guys waiting on the sidewalk and they ran when they heard the shots."
Swita figures Brooks would have let the two men in to ransack the house.
Swita said he never married and retired in 1984 from the William Pollock Company as a lay-out man for steel ladles. He dotes on a sister who lives in Poland, takes her to play bingo every evening.
The night Brooks was shot, Swita was returning from his sister's.
A lot of people have told Swita that he should move but he says he's got 80 years of junk in the house and will likely stay. He wants his Luger back from the police, though, for protection.
"Plus, it's probably worth $1,500."
Charon
-
There is more than an adequate supply of firearms in england to supply your normal crime and homicide with guns needs for the next few centuries.
No, there isn't. If there were, criminals wouldn't have such difficulty getting real guns. Most of the handguns seized by the police wouldn't be air pistols converted to fire 22 LR. And the police would actually seize more guns.
Again... are you saying that I could not get a firearm with little or no trouble in your country if I wanted one to commit a murder or gun crime?
Yes.
Don't believe what alarmist press might tell you. Remember these are the same people who have claimed Russian suitcase nukes can be purchased on the black market. It simply isn't true.
-
nashwan... the problem with not ever being around guns is that you don't know anything about em.
I could make a firearm in the garage for about 10 bucks. Your own country made submachine guns in WWII for what would be about $30 in todays dollars
I could saw off a shotgun in 10 minutes and it would be extremely conceallable and very deadly at the ranges that most shootings take place.
A homemade shotgun takes about an hour to make with no firearms parts. Two pieces of pipe, a pipe cap and a soldered nail or sharpened cap screw.
You are simply lucky that your population is so much less diverse and so much less of a vibrant society. It won't last. Most other peoples know how to get and/or manufacture weapons...
I would guess that... even tho guns are freely available here... that maybe 5% of the kids in the U.S. have actually made a home made firearm at one time or another.
lazs
-
We still say that the thinking that having both sides in a crime armed is better than having neither side armed is a bit silly, to say the least.
Except that the criminal usually is "armed" -- a 200lb, 20-year-old hard muscled thug who has been involved with violence since he was old enough to fight over lunch money, including a stay or two in jail or prison can easily take my property, beat me to death, rape my wife... whatever he decides to do (I'm just a soft, middleaged guy). Probably without much more trouble than the 80-year-old guy noted above. Now, if Comic Book Guy tries to assault me I'll kick his ass.
The reality is that criminals look for the easy meat, handgun or no handgun. If you are armed, they tend to go somewhere else since they are not ideological in their violence. They have no intention of dying over a DVD player, but they might not bat an eye over killing you for one if the risk is low enough. Hard target vs easy meat. If neither has a firearm then a whole bunch more of us just fell into the easy meat catagory.
Charon
-
I could also run out of the house NOW, and saw of my shotgun, in 5 MINUTES.
It's still bulky and only 1 shot. At anything beyond 20 yards it's becoming a nuicance rather than a lethal weapon.
You guys miss something. The thing that sticks is here:
Where it is hard to aquire hanguns gun crime rate is lower.
And Charon:
"And some communities with a population of 150,000 have a lower/or equal murder rate to Iceland."
Firstly, how do they do with gun crime.
Then, oh, really, - source?
Thirdly, how do communities with that number do in AVERAGE?
Fourthly, try comparing it with Iceland ex-Reykjavik area. (The whole country aside for the SW corner). It'd be a bit tough beating the 0% in several categories.
But that's just an odd island, definately benifiting from arming up a bit better yes?
A much better comparison, is agin US vs Schengen area.
The population is roughly the same. Schengen has more immigrants, a bigger link to both muslim states and the former eastern block which partially also has joined the EU, the unemployment is probably more, as well as GNP may be a tad lower. I presume that level of education is a tad higher, and aquiring a handgun is in almost every case & place more difficult than in the USA.
So, Gundead, Murdered, Armed robbings, and Raped, how does it shine?
In short, you normally have to look for certain patches in that area to rank to USA average. Or, look for patches in the USA for ranking country stats of countries within the area (Which is what you did).
Then
"a 200lb, 20-year-old hard muscled thug who has been involved with violence since he was old enough to fight over lunch money, including a stay or two in jail or prison can easily take my property, beat me to death, rape my wife... whatever he decides to do "
He could probably do that to me as well. Unless I catch his neck with a bull-grip or show him the business end of my un-sawn shotgun, - don't need a Makarov, - he might not notice it :D
(Of course wife could be quicker getting the Baikal 12" :D)
-
You guys miss something. The thing that sticks is here:
Where it is hard to aquire hanguns gun crime rate is lower.
Really?
Switzerland and the gun (BBC Article)
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
Few restrictions
In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.
The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.
Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.
But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.
Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.
Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.
Low crime
But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.
From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
Perhaps there is something more at work than just the ready, common persence of firearms?
"And some communities with a population of 150,000 have a lower/or equal murder rate to Iceland."
Firstly, how do they do with gun crime.
Then, oh, really, - source?
Now, there may be some fraction of a percent difference or such, but then it's hard to see if the data is a fully comprable. I would say close enough.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Naperville-Illinois.html
Thirdly, how do communities with that number do in AVERAGE?
Fourthly, try comparing it with Iceland ex-Reykjavik area. (The whole country aside for the SW corner). It'd be a bit tough beating the 0% in several categories.
But that's just an odd island, definately benifiting from arming up a bit better yes?
You guys keep failing to realize that population density, economic strata (apparently Iceland it's fairly uniform overall with few factors that noramlly promote crime) even how things like how illegal drugs are distributed (controlled organize crime vs. factional street games) have an impact on gun violence. You cannot compare Iceland to the US. I think you can compare Iceland to Switzerland though, where gun ownership is common.
Charon
-
charon is doing an excellent job of myth dispelling.... I would only add that I have read most of the info he is putting out there... it is nothing new.
angus... what ranges do you think American gun homicides happen at? would you be surprised that they mostly happen at less than 10' ?
As charon has pointed out... there are parts of the UK with higher gun crimes and homicides than places in the U.S. In the U.S. the cities with the highest amount of gun crime and homicide are the ones with the most strict gun control while.... next door.. where the gun laws are more lax... the gun crime is low.
I am glad that you are young and strong but would chide you for being so selfish as to say.. "I can take care of myself so the hell with the old and the infirm and the women"
The fastest growing group of new gun owners is women here... followed by the elderly.
lazs
-
Angus, I loved this part of your post.
I could also run out of the house NOW, and saw of my shotgun, in 5 MINUTES.
It's still bulky and only 1 shot. At anything beyond 20 yards it's becoming a nuicance rather than a lethal weapon.
It's total and grade a bovine excrement. Keep it up, I'm sure the gardeners in your area can use the fertilizer.
Shotguns, including open choke (plain bore) are deadly well out past 20 yards. A cut down shotgun is no more bulky than a bat and far deadlier.
-
mav... I am sure you are aware... a 10" long double barrel shotgun is very easy to make and conceal and much more deadly than any handgun at close range.
angus and nashwan seem to get their firearms experiance from hollywood.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Angus, I loved this part of your post.
I could also run out of the house NOW, and saw of my shotgun, in 5 MINUTES.
It's still bulky and only 1 shot. At anything beyond 20 yards it's becoming a nuicance rather than a lethal weapon.
It's total and grade a bovine excrement. Keep it up, I'm sure the gardeners in your area can use the fertilizer.
Shotguns, including open choke (plain bore) are deadly well out past 20 yards. A cut down shotgun is no more bulky than a bat and far deadlier.
Depends on the ammo. Oh, we don't have buckshots or slugs...
I've shot Ptarmigans at all sorts of ranges, with everything from no3 with 42.5 grams to 36 grams 9 (clay pigeon) at very varying distances, cleaned them up, cooked and eaten, - so I bloody well know where and if yu find the lead in them, or if they got hammered without penetration.
I've shot plywood, metal, old machinery, plastic, concrete, sheet metal, beforementioned ptarmigans, ravens, seagulls, Cats (Yes, cats) with all possible ranges and ammo from BB to 9. In short, I'm bad :D
The fertilizer is yours. And if you like, I can measure my gun as a minimum. We can then compare how much the difference it is with a little .45, as well as the lethality and penetration at 20 yards, - or do you want 50?
Boil it down to this: Even if you can saw of a shotgun it is nowhere as conceilable, as flexible, as useable (rounds) nor as leathal (exceptions VERY close up) as a Glock, S&M, 357, .45 or whatever.
May the grass grow!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav... I am sure you are aware... a 10" long double barrel shotgun is very easy to make and conceal and much more deadly than any handgun at close range.
angus and nashwan seem to get their firearms experiance from hollywood.
I once eliminated a colony of Seagulls from the land.
I used up so much ammo that I had a remark from the tax about it.
The only Hollywood ammo I ever used was when I fired the M1Garand :D
Edit: 10" is for girls :D
And long barrel is hard to hide.
And double Barrel only has 2 shots.
Not the choice of a thug who wants either lots of deads or lots of people held frozen.
-
Angus,
You don't need buckshot or slugs to be lethal. I've already seen the results previously.
Now to return the the original thread. Your input has been rather off topic from what the thread was concerned with.
-
Not really.
And this:
"You don't need buckshot or slugs to be lethal. I've already seen the results previously"
Depends on the range which is what I said. Sawed-off scatter very badly you know. Or are you not a shooter?
Back to topic, IMHO for defence of property, as say- a store, a conceilable weapon is not that necessary, - while in the hands of a thug it has formidable assets.
-
Angus,
I am a hunter but that has nothing to do with what I posted and you quoted. I saw the results on a person, who was rather dead. Like I said you don't need buckshot for a shotgun to be lethal in excess of 20 yards even with open choke. A plain bore, no choke opens the pattern approximately 1 inch per yard of travel. 20 yards = 20" spread. Thirty yards = 30" spread. Tested on our range to confirm the results using an open bored 12 guage.
I would not want to be downrange at 30 yards from a shotgun, not even pepershot.
Now this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread since there was no shotgun used in the case of the man with the pistol stopping a slasher.
-
Shot ptarmigans at 50 yds without making a hole in them.
That was no. 9.
BB would have gone right through I guess, but with no barrel you wouldn't hit it at that range.
It's a handgun thread yes. It wasn't me though who pointed out that the sawed off would be an equal or bigger threat.
-
Not sure how things work in Iceland :), but in these parts when Joe Crackhead and E. Money goes into rob the local 7-11, bank, Pizza Hut or whatever there is usualy a vehicle involved.
Concealing their weapons, no matter what it is, is not considered as a rule. It is usualy just the opposite. If they could get a wheeled cannon through the door, that would be the choice.
Shotguns , of all sizes , shapes and forms are used regularly.
Shotguns are not a probelm for the career criminal.
What is the problem of the career criminal is the chance that upon entering an establishment to rob, there could possibly be one, two or more citizens in the area, with a concealed carry permit , who are armed, trained and efficient with their weapon of choice .
Shock factor is what they depend on more than anything else.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154176366_sg.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154176439_sg2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154176480_sg3.jpg)
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
"Not sure how things work in Iceland , but in these parts when Joe Crackhead and E. Money goes into rob the local 7-11, bank, Pizza Hut or whatever there is usualy a vehicle involved.
Concealing their weapons, no matter what it is, is not considered as a rule. It is usualy just the opposite. If they could get a wheeled cannon through the door, that would be the choice."
Hehe, much easier with a handgun. More and faster rounds too.
BTW, what did that nuthead use in Seattle (yesterday?). And the guys in Phoenix?
And the Columbine fellows?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, much easier with a handgun.
Nope. To the contrary. It`s the shock factor. Intimidation. Most of them are cowards anyway.
More and faster rounds too.
Evidently you are not very informed on modern shotguns and accessories. :)
(Dang.......that sounded like Hank Hill)
BTW, what did that nuthead use in Seattle (yesterday?). And the guys in Phoenix?
Doesn`t make much difference what they used, even a cannon. Point being...one or more persons in the area with a concealed carry permit could have stopped them cold in their tracks.
-
Colubine:
"Eric Harris
* 12 gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun Serial No.: ..A232432
* Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9mm semi-automatic rifle with 10 round magazines
* The shotgun was the primary weapon used by Harris and was fired a total of 25 times
* Harris committed suicide with the shotgun
Dylan Klebold
* 9mm Intratec Tec-9 Semi-automatic handgun manufactured by Navegar, Inc. with 32 round magazines
* 12 gauge Stevens 311D double barreled shotgun Serial No.: ..A077513
* The Tec-9 handgun was the weapon primarily used by Klebold and was fired a total of 55 times.
* Klebold committed suicide with the Tec-9
Both
* Both carried numerous knives
* Both carried 9mm magazines in their pockets
* Both had pouches on their belts full of 12-gauge rounds
"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They also had IEDs. :)
-
Angus,
I can't help you shooting at ptarmigan at 50 yards and not hitting them with #9. Wing shooting is tough. Proper wing shooting is tougher.
-
9 shot is too light for almost anything at 50 yards. It's .08 inch diameter shot, ~585 pellets to the ounce. You simply chose the wrong shot for the intended target/range.
5 shot will easily kill a 2 pound pheasant at 50 yards though. It's .13 inch diameter, ~170 pellets to the ounce.
#9 shot launched at 1200 fps has only about 7/10th of a ft. lb. of energy left at 40 yards; #7-1/2 has 1.3 ft. lbs., #6 2.2 ft. lbs., and #5 3.1 ft. lbs. Phrased differently, #5 shot has far more energy at 60 yards (2.2 ft. lbs.) than # 8 shot has at 20 yards (1.7 ft. lbs.).
With perhaps the exception of quail, #8 or #9 shot is best left to the skeet field. #7-1/2 is reasonable for dove and other extremely fragile birds, with #6 good for medium birds at medium ranges. #6 shot performs poorly on pheasants except at short range. (You can place about as much energy per #5 shot pellet into a pheasant at 40 yards as you can with #6 shot at 20 yards.) Insufficient penetration means lost or crippled birds.
Shot size makes a difference; you need to size the shot to the game. Your ptarmigan is probably about 1 -1.5 pounds live weight? That would probably need about the same shot as pheasant, either 6's or 5's for responsible hunting.
-
just saying... if criminals can still get, make or modify guns easily (ten minutes is easily to me)....
Then it is not gun bans that make a country less homicidal.
lazs