Abother senseless mass murder brings up the issue again. This time on an american college campus.

Guns have been around sense the revolutionary war in 1776, and there is a constitutional right for americans to bear firearms for their own personal protection. When was personal protection needed more than it is now?

I personally know a doctor and a dentist that defended their own lives with a hand gun while at the knifepoint of their assailants. They had money, their assailants did not. They did what the police could not do for them -- they protected their own lives by killing their attackers.

The liberal minded exclaim, "This isn't the wild west anymore!" Oh really, it isn't? Actually it's worse than the wild west. Back then you never heard of serial killers walking into restaurants and randomly shooting people with their guns. There were college campuses back then, and schools too -- and there were guns. So what's changed?

And here is the real clincher: a nation that can't control its own borders from the steady flow of illegal aliens is expected to control guns with a gun contol law. Like a law really makes a difference for someone that's determined to break it. There is a law here against murdering people.

Maybe there should be a gun control law in Iraq. That would really solve all the problems there, wouldn't it? :shrug:

Woody, how much cash was your Doctor friend carrying? I'd love to know how much he values human life.

It's time to develop some smart guns that would not open fire on a target unless it senses a threat!

The problem with pro-gun logic is, if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion you end up with absolutely everyone, including children bearing arms.

That's moving in the entirely wrong direction, you need to be moving the other way - taking guns gradually out of circulation.
Yes you'll always have the odd few who manage to get hold of illegal fire-arms, but if you look at how well illegal gun sales have been quelled in European countries its completely self-evident that it is possible to almost completely take them out of circulation.

In the long run you end up with less deaths by taking guns out peoples hands, its a complete non-topic really.
Its only ever Americans in the developed west who ive ever seen atempt to argue against this.
Ive a feeling this issue is much more to do with bad-habits simply asking becomming accepted as the 'way things' are. Rather than any kind of logic.

Change is good people, society wont crumble beneath your feet.

i would have shot the mother fucker aswell if i had a gun and he pulled a knife on me asking for my cash,


why would the doc give him cash knowing he could shoot his ass without bieng harmed? i value decent human life, but why does a robber brandishing a knife threatening your life deserve to not get a few caps in his ass?


respect to the pistol tottin doc,


peace.

The problem with pro-gun logic is, if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion you end up with absolutely everyone, including children bearing arms.

That's moving in the entirely wrong direction, you need to be moving the other way - taking guns gradually out of circulation.
Yes you'll always have the odd few who manage to get hold of illegal fire-arms, but if you look at how well illegal gun sales have been quelled in European countries its completely self-evident that it is possible to almost completely take them out of circulation.

In the long run you end up with less deaths by taking guns out peoples hands, its a complete non-topic really.
Its only ever Americans in the developed west who ive ever seen atempt to argue against this.
Ive a feeling this issue is much more to do with bad-habits simply asking becomming accepted as the 'way things' are. Rather than any kind of logic.

Change is good people, society wont crumble beneath your feet.

that is a very good post/reply.


i do actualy agree with you even though i want a gun to protect myself! how strange. but you are right america has the highest death rate due to shootings in the west and they also have the most amount of legal guns.

the government teach people that you need guns because the government makes money from the sale of guns.


just like smoking the government tells you they are against smoking but they are not they love people smoking and giving them tax money, and people dying off early and not claiming a pension is a nice bonus also.


peace.

in the "good 'ol days" children took their guns to school.
i personally remember kids driving their parents pickup truck to school with a gunrack full of rifles, of course nobody blasted up the schools.

no, what has happened here is that americans have grown into a bunch of mulling babies, a pack of gutless cowards. when these assholes realize americans will fuck them up they will stop this shit.

EmptyForceOfChi


the government teach people that you need guns because the government makes money from the sale of guns.

No the government doesn't teach you that you need guns, the criminal does that quit well.
And the fact that the government doesn't have a responsibility to protect you as a Individual speaks for it self, to sue the government you have to get permission from the government to do so, and by case law they have built the law so as to the fact that there is no right to protection by the Police, or the Government, and this is true of every country in the world, so with these laws as facts, do you need a gun? Look around the world, how many people are dieing ever day, and do the Government do any more than absolutely necessary, no and it is ever country that operates in this manner.

leopold99,

I to remember taking a gun to school to go hunting after classes, I remember me and my friends on weekends walking across the county hunting rabbits, squirrels and grouse and no one even raised a eyebrow, no parents, just us, we could stop by any farm to get a drink, and many the time the wife would give us cookies or fresh bread while we relaxed, and we often left some of the game we killed for them to enjoy for their supper, but the time were different, we were taught responsibility for our actions, and that to have the right to do what we did required taking responsibility for our action, the worst thing that could happen in our lives back then was to be judged not responsible enough to have a gun, and have it taken away for being a jackass with it.

is this just the US government or uk aswell? because i hope that does not include the uk government because we are not allowed to own guns, or carry knives, mace/ cs gas or even a metal pole, or night stick on the street to protect ourselves.


why do american police say they are there to "protect and serv" then if they are not there to protect anybody.

peace.

is it just me or did that last post by buffalo roam strike an image of him looking like elma thudd in your minds ?


ima huntin wabbits. :)


peace.

is it just me or did that last post by buffalo roam strike an image of him looking like elma thudd in your minds ?


ima huntin wabbits. :)


peace.
no, not really.
try killing a squirrel in a tree at 50 yards with a shotgun and see how much it reminds you of "elmer fudd".

Well From what I've read on Thomas Jefferson, the intent for the "right to bear arms" was for people to organize militias and defend the country from attack. Also to put down an oppressive federal government ;)

I guess hunting too back then.

Rifles are required for all these objectives. I am the strongest advocate for free rifle use. I strongly believe rifles=democracy.

Pistols however are, truely secondary arms for warfare. You have to truely be an expert to be able to seriously compete in a firefight beyond 50 feet. They are for picking on people without them and very close combat and little else.

In Canada we have very tight restrictions on pistols. Even rifles, you now have to take a course in safety. Pistols are for target practice(sport) only. Not allowed to hunt with them. All weapons must now be registered(previously only pistols but liberals made longarms registered too - to the bill of 2 billion dollars+a whole new government dept!). Pistols found on even a legal owner better be locking in the trunk of the vehicle and a MAP to the gun range, showing the route from home to the gun range CLEARLY marked. If you are outside this route you are charged with violating the gun law.

None-the-less, we had a guy in Montreal do a mass killing(actually mass wounding - only killed 1) at a college last year. He did in fact appropriate his weapons legally(though did have some knives/hand weapons which were illegal).

There seems to be a polarization to this issue. All or none. The answer must lay in between. I do not like the gun laws in Canada, for the most part the punish and are costly to the law-abider and simply ignored by the criminal. Due to the proximity to some of the most open gun lawed U.S states(Love Alaska LOL), criminals have easy easy access to guns(and cheaper).

Speaking of Alaska, the State with NO restrictions on weapons. Anyone know if they have a problem with "guns"? I know they DO have a fair number of suicides even for it's small population, no mass killing.

I think that it IS too easy to get a handgun in America. It's rediculous frankly. At least a waiting period in all states, jeez.

These mass killings will still occur and more often as people become more and more cogs in the machine, less morality taught to them, basically more abberance in the general population.

We in North America, need to take a page from Japan and teach morality in the school system(even a basic "the right for you to extend your fist ends at my nose"). Some kids are clearly not getting it at home.

the problem here is that banning guns will not ban murder. guns just makes the process a little easier and somewhat cleaner. if you don't believe me then ask your friendly neighborhood IED maker.

nietzschefan


I think that it IS too easy to get a handgun in America. It's rediculous frankly. At least a waiting period in all states, jeez.

By law ever state in the nation has a waiting period.

I agree, the media seems to be pointing the finger everywhere and trying to say "We must make it impossible for this to happen", which is in fact, not possible. Watching CNN I'm startled to see how many are wanting to be able to put people in jail simply for what they THINK. WTF is this the minority report movie becoming reality? That is...in between CNNs run-on commercials for drugs and the litany of sideeffects mumbled at the end of commericals. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".

nietzschefan



By law ever state in the nation has a waiting period.
unless the law recently has been changed texas will sell you a gun on the spot.

I thought I saw on CNN the propaganda network, that the shooter just had to wait in the store while his background check cleared. I mean 2 week - wait for you guns, waiting period.

leopold99, yes I just checked it out and there are several states that do sell on the spot, but for some reason I thought that there was a federal requirement to have a waiting period.
But what good would a waiting period have done, the guns were purchased long before Cho went on his temper tantrum. and would have been cleared for purchase because the was no court ordered commitment, or criminal act that would have disqualified him from the purchase, and as it was shown he was intent on doing this act so he would have found the weapons needed to carry out the act be they Guns, Explosives, or Chemicals, recipes for explosives and chemicals are on the internet for anyone who wants them.

The root of the problem:

http://judicial-inc.biz/f.aces_of_the_gun_lobby.htm


That sums it up pretty well, huh?

The root of the problem:

http://judicial-inc.biz/f.aces_of_the_gun_lobby.htm


That sums it up pretty well, huh?
no, it doesn't


leopold99, yes I just checked it out and there are several states that do sell on the spot, but for some reason I thought that there was a federal requirement to have a waiting period.
But what good would a waiting period have done, the guns were purchased long before Cho went on his temper tantrum. and would have been cleared for purchase because the was no court ordered commitment, or criminal act that would have disqualified him from the purchase, and as it was shown he was intent on doing this act so he would have found the weapons needed to carry out the act be they Guns, Explosives, or Chemicals, recipes for explosives and chemicals are on the internet for anyone who wants them.
it's been reported that fuckhead had a history of mental illness. a background check would have revealed that. the question now becomes why it wasn't revealed.

travis


The root of the problem:

http://judicial-inc.biz/f.aces_of_the_gun_lobby.htm


That sums it up pretty well, huh?

NWTRT

leopold99


it's been reported that fuckhead had a history of mental illness. a background check would have revealed that. the question now becomes why it wasn't revealed.

But it wasn't adjudicated, a court hadn't issued a commitment order, and Federal laws restrict what universities can reveal. Generally, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Ferpa, passed in 1974, makes it illegal to disclose a student’s records to family members or any one else without the student’s authorization.

instead of gun control why aren't these people focusing on sharing information?

if this mans history of mental illness had been available to the reveiw process then this might have been prevented.

but would a reveiw prevented him from getting guns? no, it wouldn't. in my state it's illegal for a felon to own guns. i personally know a felon that owns guns. his entire rap sheet is one of violence.

leopold99


instead of gun control why aren't these people focusing on sharing information?

if this mans history of mental illness had been available to the reveiw process then this might have been prevented.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Ferpa, passed in 1974, makes it illegal to disclose a student’s records to family members or any one else without the student’s

leopold99


but would a reveiw prevented him from getting guns? no, it wouldn't. in my state it's illegal for a felon to own guns. i personally know a felon that owns guns. his entire rap sheet is one of violence.

Have you reported this individual to the Police? if not why?

leopold99, yes I just checked it out and there are several states that do sell on the spot, but for some reason I thought that there was a federal requirement to have a waiting period.
But what good would a waiting period have done, the guns were purchased long before Cho went on his temper tantrum. and would have been cleared for purchase because the was no court ordered commitment, or criminal act that would have disqualified him from the purchase, and as it was shown he was intent on doing this act so he would have found the weapons needed to carry out the act be they Guns, Explosives, or Chemicals, recipes for explosives and chemicals are on the internet for anyone who wants them.

In this case it MIGHT have not helped. However maybe his trip to the loony bin would have been caught.

In other cases(hot headed murder) it might help.

I support people having the right to buy whatever gun they want, but the justification Woody gave is spurious. Justifiable homicides in the US are dwarfed tenfold by the non-justifiable homicides. You could give hundreds of cases where a gun protected a life, but there are thousands where it contributed to the taking of innocent life.

nietzschefan


In this case it MIGHT have not helped. However maybe his trip to the loony bin would have been caught.

In other cases(hot headed murder) it might help.


I doubt that it would make any difference, hot had use what ever is at hand, they don't take the time to go out and buy a gun, I have read of murders committed by hot heads with everything from a frozen turkey to base ball bats, the hot heads didn't waste the time to go out and buy a weapon, they used what was at hand.

spidergoat


. You could give hundreds of cases where a gun protected a life, but there are thousands where it contributed to the taking of innocent life.

Demographics please, you need citation for this statement.

This was being discussed in the mountain bike forum I belong to as well.
I'm a huge gun person. I have two.
I will tell you one thing, tightening gun control laws isn't going to do shit for situations like this. Tightening gun control laws is just like keeping your doors locked; it will only keep honest people honest. If I was a deranged lunatic like that VA Tech dude was, and wanted to go on a killing spree like that, even if the whole damn country banned handguns, I could still go out and find a pistol on the black market to assist me with my task.
Maybe the gub'mint should focus more effort on acquisition, registration and especially tracking (who owns what).



Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Ferpa, passed in 1974, makes it illegal to disclose a student’s records to family members or any one else without the student’s
Hmmmm...maybe a few more instances of VA Tech and Columbine type shootings might prompt Congress to rethink this act. But then again, given our Congress' lack of action on everything else (like illegal immigrants), maybe not.



You could give hundreds of cases where a gun protected a life, but there are thousands where it contributed to the taking of innocent life.
You could say the same thing about automobiles. Does that mean we should ban them too?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Without a person with malicious intent, a gun will just lay there and not do anything.

Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html)

In 2005, 143

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html)

In 2005, 16,692

Murder, Types of Weapons Used
Percent Distribution within Region, 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html)

68% of all murders used a gun, so that's 11,350


That's .6% of all homicides using a gun being classified as justifiable homicides by the FBI.

spidergoat and how many time did the presence of a gun that wasn't use prevent a crime from occuring? you don't always have to use a gun to prevent a crime from happening.


http://www.hinzsightreport.com/lance/lance-%20031907.html

Lethal use of privately-owned guns accounts for only a small portion of the number of crimes prevented or deterred by private citizens with guns. Estimates of the number of times guns are used in self defense range from 1.5 million per year (P. J. Cook’s and J. Ludwig’s "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" in National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, May, 1997) to over 2 million (G. Kleck’s and M. Gertz’s "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, volume 86(1), 1995). This means that 1.5 to 2 million would-be victims of crime owe their safety to privately owned guns. Now residents of Washington, D. C., will be able to defend themselves in the same way. No longer will a criminal predator brazenly invade a private home, knowing that the law severely restricts his victim’s access to firearms to defend himself.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR, NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY CONFIRMS By J. Neil Schulman

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html


The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his or her firearm more than once.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/rig.../klekview.html

You aren't allowed to carry a gun on campus anyway, even if you own one, so that wouldn't have helped.

Furthermore, your statistics are based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). That's right, a poll. Hardly as compelling as actual FBI statistics.

If your point is that the presense of a gun deterred crime, even when it isn't fired, then a FAKE GUN would have been just as effective.

If your point is that the presense of a gun deterred crime, even when it isn't fired, then a FAKE GUN would have been just as effective.
Until a would be shooter, robber, mugger, called your bluff.
The military has been deployed to places as a show of force/deterrent many times before; you don't think they carry around fake firearms on these deployments, do you?

That only happened 143 times in 2005, compared with an alleged 2.5 million instances of prevention. So, your bluff is only called .6% of the time.

My whole point is that the rhetoric about guns being necessary for personal protection is all hype.

it all boils down to the fact that americans have turned into gutless cowards, period.

why that asshole could pick off 32 people without someone bashing his brains out is a mystery.

when that weirdo in texas showed up at that tower the people brought out their shotguns and rifles and tried to kill him.

it's time people, it's time we take back our country away from these terrorizing freaks.

that weirdo in texas.

Narrow it down a bit?

Narrow it down a bit?
i can't think of that dudes name. i believe it was in austin though.
i believe it was in the 1960s when this happened.

edit:
found it
But its most infamous part in history came on August 1, 1966 when student Charles Whitman perched atop the tower and starting shooting. Thirteen died. Many more were injured.
http://austin.about.com/cs/tours/l/blvt_ut_tower01.htm

That guy was a marine, and his standoff lasted longer.

he was also barrackaded in that tower. if he had been on the streets the people would have shot him.

Woody, how much cash was your Doctor friend carrying? I'd love to know how much he values human life.

He values his life more than you value yours I suppose. :confused:

The doctor was assaulted on a house call to a poor neighborhood by a crazy person brandishing a knife. The guy with the knife was trying to kill the doctor.

May I suggest?:

http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gallery/4/2007/04/medium_450893455_e272642d00_o.jpg

Don't leave home without it.

Yes you'll always have the odd few who manage to get hold of illegal fire-arms, but if you look at how well illegal gun sales have been quelled in European countries its completely self-evident that it is possible to almost completely take them out of circulation.

Geographically Europe isn't the USA. How does the USA stop the illegal flow of goods and people across it's border with Mexico NOW. Liberals don't enforce the laws.

In the long run you end up with less deaths by taking guns out peoples hands, its a complete non-topic really.

Likewise for capital punishment. The more crooks that die, the less innocent people get killed.


Its only ever Americans in the developed west who ive ever seen atempt to argue against this.

It's how we got our freedom. The citizens of our country can fight invaders along with the armed forces.

I thought this was an interesting article pertaining to this thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18161645/site/newsweek/

The author of the article mentions that VA is trying to get the 'no guns on campus' rule lifted.

Life in prison accomplishes the same thing.

Why can't we have artillery and battleships, then? We are way behind the times in terms of arming citizens. In fact, the second ammendment pertains to a state militia, which is the national guard. They keep their weapons in armories.

Owning a battleship would be really cool.

Governments don't have to be moral, why should we have to be?

I think governments do have to be moral.

Uh oh, more gun control topics.. here, read all this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56596

And also in that discussion you'll find a couple reports of some college guy killing 8-15 people at his college with a knife. Uh oh, now we'll need knife control! I sure hope some deadly kung-fu badass guy never comes and kills everyone with his death touch otherwise we'll need body control and we'll walk around in handcuffs and ball and chain to keep ourselves safe..

- N

no, not really.
try killing a squirrel in a tree at 50 yards with a shotgun and see how much it reminds you of "elmer fudd".


whats your point dont you have a sense of humour?

and i dont hunt squirrels i hunt for meat not sport, and i use a bow not a gun, it takes alot more skill, does a shotgun have much effect over 50 yards?





peace.

dont you think this is stupid, in the uk i have the right to own a tank! and actualy drive it through the streets of london like a car.

but i cant walk down the street with a tonfa/night stick to protect myself (i have had a tonfa conviscated before by the police on the street)


im allowed a fricken tank! but not a stick,

thats it im getting a tank,

peace

In fact, the second ammendment pertains to a state militia, which is the national guard. In fact, it does not.

The militia was conceived as the general populace, trained and armed to defend themselves. It was intended specifically to protect us from the tyranny of the state and the power of a standing army. It is our protection against our own government.

The National Guard is nothing more than a state army. Far from establishing such an army the second amendment was designed as a counterbalance to such a force.

~Raithere

so gathering a civil army and waging war against bush is ok?

or have i got that wrong ad hearing what i want to hear?

peace.

In fact, it does not.

The militia was conceived as the general populace, trained and armed to defend themselves. It was intended specifically to protect us from the tyranny of the state and the power of a standing army. It is our protection against our own government.

The National Guard is nothing more than a state army. Far from establishing such an army the second amendment was designed as a counterbalance to such a force.

~Raithere

I disagree, the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the Constitution. One purpose is to defend against the possible tyranny of the Federal Government. The general populous isn't trained, and is thus no protection from much of anything.

howcomes your allowed to wield a gun without proving you can use it properly?

or do you have to pass a shooting/handling course before you can purchase a gun? if so does it teach you how t correctly deal with a deadly situation and tactics on how to handle other armed assailants in your home.

peace.

I disagree, the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the Constitution. One purpose is to defend against the possible tyranny of the Federal Government.

But the National Guard are duly-sworn US military soldiers, thus they'd be the very ones who'd be part of the tyranny of the US government!! ...LOL! And thus the regular, plain-old, ordinary citizen ...without a gun... would be easy pickin's, huh? Is that what you'd like to see?


The general populous isn't trained, and is thus no protection from much of anything.

Trained? What does it take to teach/train a decently intelligent person about how to use guns? You act like it's a year-long, difficult, highly-involved training session. :D

Baron Max

May I suggest?:

http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gallery/4/2007/04/medium_450893455_e272642d00_o.jpg

Don't leave home without it.

Lego? Evil Danes, flooding the American market with lethal children's toys.

The problem of gun control is that the manufacturers have their hands in the pockets of administration; Republican and Democrat both - and who wants to be the fellow who kicks Springfield Arms out of the state? Lost jobs.

The solution is simple: abandon the free market and go communist. Come on, you know you want to. ;)

Originally Posted by spidergoat
I disagree, the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the Constitution. One purpose is to defend against the possible tyranny of the Federal Government

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2887

Historical Background

During the War of 1812, many governors refused to mobilize state militia’s to invade Canada. Their refusal sparked off a debate about whether the constitution allowed the president to order state militia units to fight outside of the United States. Congress circumvented this issue in 1908 by designating the National Guard as the United States' first line of reserve.7 When the president calls-up the Guard units to federal duty, he in effect “drafts” the unit into the military. When units are drafted, they technically become part of the United States Military, but they retain all the same equipment and members. The only major difference is that they go on active, full-time duty and become subject to the orders of the United States Military and no longer serve their state.8

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=836

The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense is a case in point. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.


The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment.
Also in 1990 the Court in another case affirmed the definition of “the people” expressed in the Bill of Rights as meaning individual persons, not a group.
So the statist left has its “militia” and the rest of us have ours. No wonder so many of them can’t free themselves from the false but mesmerizing aura of the “Militia=National Guard” equation. The statist left doesn’t want to because it’s interested not in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyrannical federal government, but in giving that tyrannical federal government a blank check, figuratively and literally, to indulge in state-sponsored terror under the tautological trinity of “crime prevention," "anti-terrorism" and "national security.” And Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen has all but told us to “get used to the idea.”
So there it is. General militia versus special militia.

I don't understand how people take massacrse like the one at VT and see them as some kind of guns rights issue. Guns like drugs are not the problem, fucked up people are. Guns are inanimat objects that are not evil, or bad or mean. It is the fucked up people of this world that do fucked up shit, guns like airplanes (9/11) or only tools.

This is not about GUNS. Its about CRAZY people!!!

This is not about a student that stumbled into a gun closet and said "cool, guns!, I think I'll shoot 30 people today!" It is about a guy who wasn't stable and snapped. It is nothing new. In fact, the worst school attack happened in the 1920's, so you can't even blame this on modern times.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

People snap all the time, sometimes they kill one person, sometimes lots of people, sometimes themselves, and sometimes no one. If they are determined, there is little that we as a society can do, but respond to the crisis. We can try to be prepared for such things, but the reality is that there is a random element to events like this that pervent people from forseeing all the possible scenarios. One can't plan for everything, because one does not know everything.

If your dumb enough to believe that more guns in classrooms or stricter gun control laws will pervent events this, then your delusional ass should stop breathing and stop wasting the oxygen smart people use to think.

A criminal doesn't obey gun control laws and carrying a gun does not equal protection.

Crazy people will do crazy shit and there is little a socitey can do to stop other than stop producing crazy people....and I don't see that happening any time soon if ever.

Think about it.

Life in prison accomplishes the same thing.

OK, so they get to kill guilty victims while they're in prison. Your idea does have some merit.

BTW, how many murderers are repeat offenders I might ask? Compare that to the ones that were executed.


Why can't we have artillery and battleships, then?

A gun is good enough to defend yourself. I've thought about poison darts though.

Actually I don't have a gun, but I'm glad for law abiding citizens that do -- like the girl at my brother's apartment complex -- she killed a serial rapist that broke through her sliding glass door to take his umpteenth victim. He had a knife, but she had a gun. Guess who lost. :D


We are way behind the times in terms of arming citizens. In fact, the second ammendment pertains to a state militia, which is the national guard. They keep their weapons in armories.

It's always been interpreted as the right for any citizen in good standing to bear firearms.

Easily accessible guns means easily accessible homicides and manslaughter.

'Nuff said.

Oh wait, I've got an equation for that:

Access = Opportunity

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. I did think about putting it in Physics and Maths.

I'm not arguing for taking away our right to have a gun, it's obvious to me that wouldn't have prevented someone set on killing alot of people. It's just that the second ammendment isn't that clear, and there are restrictions presently on gun ownership. If it was a clear right, there wouldn't be a backround check or anything.

Oh wait, I've got an equation for that:

Access = Opportunity

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. I did think about putting it in Physics and Maths.

I thought you were afraid of Physics and Maths?

Don't make me call some geeks. I'll do it.

I'd like to know how many people were shot by people with a complete background check.

Um, which forum did I opt for, Geoff?

Easily accessible guns means easily accessible homicides and manslaughter.

'Nuff said.

Not really. Many people have easily accessible guns and never commit murder or homocide...why? because the opportunity never presented itself or it isn't in that persons constitution to shoot someone.

Guns are just tools. They are only bad when bad people have them.

Guns are not the problem. People are. If someone wants to hurt someone else, if it not guns, then its knives, if not knives then rocks, if not rocks then are bare hands.

Either way, violence in people is the problem, and limiting or allowing access to tools won't avert violient tragedies from happening.

Um, which forum did I opt for, Geoff?

Well then why'd you even think about the other one then? Don't go telling me you're going to toss it in with the spooky Math-ish people and then do a runner to Politics.

Thassit. Fisticuffs.

Not really. Many people have easily accessible guns and never commit murder or homocide...why? because the opportunity never presented itself or it isn't in that persons constitution to shoot someone.

Guns are just tools. They are only bad when bad people have them.

Guns are not the problem. People are. If someone wants to hurt someone else, if it not guns, then its knives, if not knives then rocks, if not rocks then are bare hands.

Either way, violence in people is the problem, and limiting or allowing access to tools won't avert violient tragedies from happening.
Oh fuck. Here we go..


http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/circular.gif

Not really. Many people have easily accessible guns and never commit murder or homocide...why? because the opportunity never presented itself or it isn't in that persons constitution to shoot someone.

Guns are just tools. They are only bad when bad people have them.

Guns are not the problem. People are. If someone wants to hurt someone else, if it not guns, then its knives, if not knives then rocks, if not rocks then are bare hands.

Either way, violence in people is the problem, and limiting or allowing access to tools won't avert violient tragedies from happening.

Guns make it easy. If you want to kill someone with something else, it's fairly hard to do it accidentally. To do it intentionally, you really have to hate them, or else be an enraged janitor from the Midwest.

Oh wait, I've got an equation for that:

Access = Opportunity

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. I did think about putting it in Physics and Maths.

Acess=opportunity?:confused:

Just because one has access to guns does not mean they will have the opportunity to use it.

i might not be able to be armed with a handgun but atleast im allowed to roll down the london streets in a tank.


peace.

Acess=opportunity?:confused:

Just because one has access to guns does not mean they will have the opportunity to use it.
Um...

<thinks>

Yes it does. :confused:

"Guns don't kill people. People do. With guns."

I still think that's not only my best contribution to the SciWiki, but the best sentence in it.

Guns make it easy. If you want to kill someone with something else, it's fairly hard to do it accidentally. To do it intentionally, you really have to hate them, or else be an enraged janitor from the Midwest.

I don't get this either. Guns don't make it easy to kill. A person must have the gumption to kill in order to kill. Using a gun just requires less effort then most means of killing someone...it is a tool.

And people get killed accidently by things other then guns all the time...car accidents is an example.

Nor do you have to hate someone to kill them. Soldiers have to kill people all the time, regardless if they hate the person or not.

What are you really tryin to say?

Um...

<thinks>

Yes it does. :confused:

A gun can create a false sense of security. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you'll have the opportunity to use it when you need it. A cop was shot recently in my neighborhood. He didn't get a chance to unholster his gun. He had access but he didnt have the opportunity.

try thinking again. And this time, truly think.

Where the hell do you live? Beirut? There's people dropping left and right in your bloody hood. I wonder you don't have body armour.

Guns are not the problem. People are. If someone wants to hurt someone else, if it not guns, then its knives, if not knives then rocks, if not rocks then are bare hands. Yes if Cho Seung-Hui did not have easy access to guns he would have killed over 30 people (and himself) with a rock or his bare hands.
:rolleyes:

If guns were even easier to come by these incidents would happen more often.

North Carolina, aka The Cakalac, which is part of The Dirty South aka The 3rd Coast?

A gun can create a false sense of security. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you'll have the opportunity to use it when you need it. A cop was shot recently in my neighborhood. He didn't get a chance to unholster his gun. He had access but he didnt have the opportunity.

try thinking again. And this time, truly think.
<Thinks>


<Thinks some more..>


<Double-thinks>


<Goes all-out for the ultimate think, with a triple order of think on the side>


What about the person who shot him... did he have the opportunity?

<Wonders if he passed the necessary background checks>

i dont know where to stand on this issue, but it does seem like people are saying more guns will mean no difference in gun related death, and to me thats illogical.

i dont have much against people owning weapons, hell i own crossbows, bows, a harpoon, tens of swords, daggers, pro slingshots, pistol crossbows, high powered air rifles, high pressure bb guns, hunting knives, spears, kwan daos, grappling hooks, hand claws, shuriken, throwing stars. caultrops, nunchakas, sais, tonfas, coshes, batons, staffs, maces, morning stars, axes, etc etc etc i used to own real guns illegaly but not anymore, but seriously i have so many weapons my home is like an armoury and thats no lie,

so due to that i cant realy say "im against guns" because i own weapons and guns are no different apart from a bit more potent than my collection,


but i gues in all fairness people, you must admit that if the government cracked down on guns and tried its very hardest to outlaw any type of fire arm then there would most likely be less gun related deaths,


but like my collection shows you dont need a pistol to kick some serious ass :) there plenty of choice when it comes to choosing your tool of destruction, ahhhh yeahhhhh,


peace.

But it still is not the responsibility of the police to protect you as a individual, and that is settled case law all the way to the Supreme Court, they don't even have to respond when called, and you can't even sue them for not protecting you, so guess what, your defense fall squarely on your own shoulders, and there are many way beyond hands, rocks, or guns to kill multiple persons, fire bombs, chemicals, explosives, all can be made with common chemicals available from you local farm supply or industrial cleaning chemicals, or even the chemicals that you use for cleaning your own home, and claymore mines are simple to make and very effective in taking down multiple targets, mass murder anyone?

who needs protection from the police. i protect myself and my family with my fighting skills and my weapons.


as NWA said fuck the police, why do you think i want to be allowed to own a gun, so i can blast the mother fucker who wants to do me harm ofcourse.


buffalo your like a broken record sometimes maybe i should bust a few caps in your area where the buffalo dont roam.

im joking but you are gay sometimes man :)

peace.

oh and i would refrain from telling people to make chemical weapons and bombs before the government think you are part of a terrorist cell and try to bust your ass. :)


peace.

I disagree, the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the Constitution. One purpose is to defend against the possible tyranny of the Federal Government. The general populous isn't trained, and is thus no protection from much of anything. And the other purpose?

No, they envisioned a trained populous and were quite specific in intent:


If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " - Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46


"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

~Raithere

in the "good 'ol days" children took their guns to school.
i personally remember kids driving their parents pickup truck to school with a gunrack full of rifles, of course nobody blasted up the schools.

no, what has happened here is that americans have grown into a bunch of mulling babies, a pack of gutless cowards. when these assholes realize americans will fuck them up they will stop this shit.


I think you hit the truth here. American society has changed. Maybe guns were handled more responsibly when you were young, but the current society has created an individual that lost all sense of social responsibility.

Easily accessible guns means easily accessible homicides and manslaughter.

'Nuff said.

Easily accessible cars means you can run over somebody intentionally.

Easily accessible cars means you can run over somebody intentionally.

cars should be illegal too.

i dont know where to stand on this issue, but it does seem like people are saying more guns will mean no difference in gun related death, and to me thats illogical.

I know of responsible gun collectors.

cars should be illegal too.

Nobody can argue that if you put everyone in prision and take away all their rights, you will reduce murders.

I know of responsible gun collectors.

I know of gun collectors that shoot up schools.

I know of responsible gun collectors.

I'm sure that there will be responsible collectors of nuclear weapons if they would be sold to civilians.

Nobody can argue that if you put everyone in prision and take away all their rights, you will reduce murders.

Not really, the US has most people in prison of any nation and still you seem to suffer from more murders than nations that have a factor 10 less people in prison.

I know of gun collectors that shoot up schools.

Who might that be, and why would they shoot up a school? Don't their parents have a say in it? Minors can't purchase guns can they? So who is breaking the law for them?

Who might that be, and why would they shoot up a school?

Turn on your tv.
It's probably already on. Swtich the channel back to fox.


Don't their parents have a say in it?

I don't see what that has to do with... oh, it's an asian joke, huh?
Haha, that's pretty good.

Not really, the US has most people in prison of any nation and still you seem to suffer from more murders than nations that have a factor 10 less people in prison.

this is because it is acceptable for everything but the party line to be illegal in the states.

totalitarianism-lite! now with more illusion of freedom!!!

Not really, the US has most people in prison of any nation and still you seem to suffer from more murders than nations that have a factor 10 less people in prison.

The average prisoner serves less than half his sentence here in the US. Liberals want them to blend in with the rest of society when they get out, and the cycle starts all over again. About 80% become reapeat offenders.

I think you hit the truth here. American society has changed. Maybe guns were handled more responsibly when you were young, but the current society has created an individual that lost all sense of social responsibility.

It hasn't changed at christian schools. They are quite peaceful really -- very little violence is found there. My daughter went to one for a year just to see what it was like.

The trouble typically seems to come from broken families and economically disadvantaged. Typically they have a lower intelligence:

Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA IQ <75 75–90 90–110 110–125 >125
U.S. population distribution 5 20 50 20 5
Married by age 30 72 81 81 72 67
Out of labor force more than 1 month out of year (men) 22 19 15 14 10
Unemployed more than 1 month out of year (men) 12 10 7 7 2
Divorced in 5 years 21 22 23 15 9
% of children w/ IQ in bottom decile (mothers) 39 17 6 7 < 1
Had a baby outside of marriage (mothers) 32 17 8 4 2
Lives in poverty 30 16 6 3 2
Ever incarcerated (men) 7 7 3 1 < 1
Chronic welfare recipient (mothers) 31 17 8 2 < 1
High school dropout 55 35 6 0.4 < 0.4
Values are the percentage of each IQ sub-population, among non-Hispanic whites only, fitting each descriptor. Compiled by Gottfredson (1997) from a U.S. study by Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247–248, 194, 146 respectively.

to make sense of this table check the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq

He values his life more than you value yours I suppose. :confused:

What a stupid comment.


The guy with the knife was trying to kill the doctor.

I'm sure that's the report he filed with the PD, and it wasn't tainted my macho bullshit or self justification one iota,...

If your Dr friend carries a gun for self defense, it means he'salready made his mind up about people's intentions, and the value of their life. Doesn't really sit alongside the Hippocratic oath though, does it?

Likewise for capital punishment. The more crooks that die, the less innocent people get killed.

Er, exactly not. Compare the prison populations of the USA to the UK. Check out your homicide rates. Capital punishment doesn't stop people from committing crime in the USA.


It's how we got our freedom. The citizens of our country can fight invaders along with the armed forces.


You have freedom? No you don't, you just buy what you are being sold, and you are being sold the idea that you are free. Living in fear of muggers and invaders isn't freedom. I hardly think your average obese citizen is in a position to fight an invading Army. Without training and discipline , they'd probably kill more US citizens than invaders. We know what it's like when Americans wield guns, if they are hunting, they shoot each other, and if they are fighting a war they shoot their allies, and then have a frikking hoe down if they do manage to hit an enemy target.

What a stupid comment.



I'm sure that's the report he filed with the PD, and it wasn't tainted my macho bullshit or self justification one iota,...

If your Dr friend carries a gun for self defense, it means he'salready made his mind up about people's intentions, and the value of their life. Doesn't really sit alongside the Hippocratic oath though, does it?

hospital workers in kingston jamaica are armed with pistols, they have to have gun handling training aswell,


peace.

it is true that american troops do shoot their allies an awful lot, you wouldent find british troops killing that many allies, or shooting each other especialy hitting certain convoys cough cough.

and whats with the attitude of your average american soldier, they are like a bunch of school boy morons pumped up taking pleasure in the innocents that they kill, and getting happy and emotional on the battlefield

i dont understand the mentality of your young troopers. they are wierd why would you put such idiots on the battlefield? they are a liability to the rest of the army and your allies. atleast the majority of british troopers are sensible in battle and not always acting the fool.


sure there are exceptions.


peace.

---

I don't understand how people take massacrse like the one at VT and see them as some kind of guns rights issue. Guns like drugs are not the problem, fucked up people are. Guns are inanimat objects that are not evil, or bad or mean. It is the fucked up people of this world that do fucked up shit, guns like airplanes (9/11) or only tools.

This is not about GUNS. Its about CRAZY people!!!



Basically gun control is just pragmatism - if it were genuinely possible to completely cure mental illness and people feeling disenfrancised then yes; we could forget about guns altogether and simply magic away mental illness.
The fact is though - we cant take mental illness out of circulation, we can however take guns out of circulation.
As i said its pure pragmatism.
Btw ive never heard anyone seriously suggest that taking guns out of the equation will stop people from killing each other - im sorry but thats a complete straw man.
Gun control lobbiests simply argue on the basis that taking guns out of circulation will reduce murders - which is a statistically proven fact.

it is true that american troops do shoot their allies an awful lot, you wouldent find british troops killing that many allies, or shooting each other especialy hitting certain convoys cough cough.

and whats with the attitude of your average american soldier, they are like a bunch of school boy morons pumped up taking pleasure in the innocents that they kill, and getting happy and emotional on the battlefield

i dont understand the mentality of your young troopers. they are wierd why would you put such idiots on the battlefield? they are a liability to the rest of the army and your allies. atleast the majority of british troopers are sensible in battle and not always acting the fool.


sure there are exceptions.


peace.

I know you didn't just bash our troops. I know you didn't.
You seem to be British. How bout I start bashing that old cunt that you call your queen? Do you like that?
How the fuck does bashing our troops have anything to do with civilian gun control here in the states?
I'd kick your ass right now if we were in person.
First off, our troops do what they are told. If you have a problem with our military, take it to the top. Leave the troops out of this. They bust their ass everyday. Slam Bush, slam the gub'mint, slam congress, but leave our troops out of this, *******.

Actually, he's right. The US military has an extremely high rate of blue on blue incidents compared to those of other western nations, and have had as far back as WW2, even if it was not as widely publicised back then. There is a definite difference in the attitude and care taken by American troops when compared with those of their allies.
The stats are out there. Go do some reading.

What this has to do with civilian gun control? Attitude.

Have a look at rates of gun ownership in (for example) Canada. Then have a look at their murder statistics, look at America's, and do some mathematics.
The problem is more America than it is guns. The simple minded would prefer to lay blame at the doorstep of the weapons themselves - it helps them avoid looking deeper. Your troops display very similar attitudes to the use of their weaponry as your civilians. Other countries don't.

Ask yourself why.

Perhaps, if you look at little deeper, you can see it - right there, in your post. Shoot, don't think.

Even if gun control was 100&#37; proven to be the answer, it is far too late at this point in history.

Alot of you need to be reminded that americans got their freedom from the barrel of a rifle. Guns founded the country. Give that culture up is very difficult and so far there has been little reason in this modern - so-called - enlightened world to do so.

Problem *#1* is lack of morality in the world. Correct this and you may then correct other problems such as the specific provisions of dangerous tools/weapons such as firearms. No new gun law would have prevented this latest massacre and that's a fact. Exhisting laws even in Virgina could not prevent it. People shitting on eachother day in and day out is the cause and effect of this situation. Go to any public washroom and see what your fellow american has left for you on the toilet seat.

Actually, he's right. The US military has an extremely high rate of blue on blue incidents compared to those of other western nations, and have had as far back as WW2, even if it was not as widely publicised back then. There is a definite difference in the attitude and care taken by American troops when compared with those of their allies.
The stats are out there. Go do some reading.
Really? Our military is a little bit bigger than Britain's, and we have much more equipment, so I would expect more friendly fire incidents. Friendly fire is going to happen during war. Unfortunately it's a fact of life. It sucks that that A-10 destroyed the British convoy. My condolences are with the family. It's a part of war. My unit had to bury a Marine who was killed in Nasariya when an A-10 struck his aamtrak. I wish it didnt' happen, but it does.


Have a look at rates of gun ownership in (for example) Canada. Then have a look at their murder statistics, look at America's, and do some mathematics.
The problem is more America than it is guns. The simple minded would prefer to lay blame at the doorstep of the weapons themselves - it helps them avoid looking deeper. Your troops display very similar attitudes to the use of their weaponry as your civilians. Other countries don't.


I don't disagree one bit that it's America moreso than it is guns, but you're NOT going to sit there and tell me that our troops have bad attitudes and poor weapon control. But what do I know? I only spent 7 years in the Marines. Yeah, it's true that we are taught to be gung-ho and aggressive, but would you expect us to go into combat with a feeble Woody Allen attitude? It's that same 'attitude' that you mention that has allowed us to keep our freedom. As you mentioned, WW2 is a prime example. Would we have even been in that situation for friendly fire to even exist if the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!
Now, I will be the first to say that the U.S. has gotten a bit arrogant and has a chip on their shoulder (I think you would too if terrorists bombed one of your ships and slammed airliners into two of your buildings).
Our troops are probably some of the most professional in the world. They follow orders. If you have a problem with the way the military is ran, bitch about the ones who run it (i.e. the gub'mint), and leave the troops out of it.

My problem wasn't with Chi's mention of the high rate of friendly fire incidents, it was with this:


and whats with the attitude of your average american soldier, they are like a bunch of school boy morons pumped up taking pleasure in the innocents that they kill, and getting happy and emotional on the battlefield
What innocents? The last time I checked, any incident involving needless slaughter of innocents gets dealt with. The Marines involved in the Haditha issue are all on trial. We don't tolerate that shit anymore than anyone else does.
I'd be getting happy and emotional on the battlefield too if my unit killed a bunch of insurgents siding with those responsible for the twin towers.

I started the blue on blue angle, and I'm British.


You seem to be British. How bout I start bashing that old cunt that you call your queen? Do you like that?

Yeah, please do, I'm no royalist and laughed a bucket load when Lady Di copped it. So feel free to criticise the Queen, I know I do. See you think that British people are as mindlessly patriotic as most Americans. We aren't.


How the fuck does bashing our troops have anything to do with civilian gun control here in the states?

If you'd read and understood, the point was about proficiency of weapon use. That includes identifying the correct target.


I'd kick your ass right now if we were in person.

No, you'd try, miss and punch a passer by. You are an American, after all.


First off, our troops do what they are told.

In the case that was brought back to media attention recently, where one of your A10's shot up a clearly marked British vehicle, it was the Pilot's decision. Nobody, not even God, told him to do it.


If you have a problem with our military, take it to the top. Leave the troops out of this. They bust their ass everyday. Slam Bush, slam the gub'mint, slam congress, but leave our troops out of this, jackass.

Abu Grhaib, jackass, ... Bush told troops to attach electrodes to the inmates testes, did he? Or did they make that one up for themselves. Don't try an absolve your troops of their failures and blame it all on Bush.

How bout I start bashing that old cunt that you call your queen?
She is an old cunt.

Nope I agree with Chi on that one. U.S military (not Marines - all my respect to Marines) are TRIGGER HAPPY COWBOYS. I have lost a few aquaintences(Canadian Forces) to U.S airforce(f16) and US army(a10). Worst record for FF incidents.

phlogistician


Abu Grhaib, jackass, ... Bush told troops to attach electrodes to the inmates testes, did he? Or did they make that one up for themselves. Don't try an absolve your troops of their failures and blame it all on Bush.

No Jackass, President Bush Did not, if you have proof that was ordered please provide it, and I will lead the charge to the White House door to arrest the President, and as far as Blue on Blue, the British have as much of it as any one else, it is part of war,

Blue on Blue ground incidents during Operation Iraqi Freedom
The first reported ground fratricide incident during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) occurred shortly after midnight on March 24, when a British Challenger II tank fired on another near Basra. This incident is of particular interest. The two tanks, Britain's most advanced MBT types, were part of a squadron of the Queen's Royal Lancers attached to the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusliers Battlegroup of the 7th Armoured Brigade. The tanks were engaging pockets of Iraqi soldiers near a bridge over the Qanat Shat Al Basra canal which runs along the western edge of the city. In a nearby sector, a troop of CR2 of 2RTR was tracking a group of enemy personnel through their thermal sights, which had been reported by the battle group HQ. The 'target' was indicated as an enemy bunker position. The QDL Challenger was, unfortunately, in turret-down position, below the skyline, its crew working on the turret top, visible to the 2 RTR crew as the reported "enemy" troops.

The RTR TC requested clearance to shoot, which was granted. Firing two shots of HESH at 4000 yards blew the turret off the QDL Challenger, killing two of the crew and seriously wounding the two others. Both tanks were fitted with visual identification systems in working order, but could not render clear visual contact, due to the hull-down positioned tank.

According to reports, tanks in OIF were issued bolted-on identification panels, including those emitting thermal signature which can be seen at long distance using IR observation devices. However there seemed to remain also some of the older fluorescent sheets, used during Desert Storm on some of the AFVs.

And here is a good example of British efficency in operations from the Falklands.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-127798918.html

The Falklands war: the Bluff Cove disaster.

From: Military Review | Date: 11/1/2004 | Author: Bolia, Robert S.
Print Digg del.icio.us
GIVEN THE Falkland Islands' location, one would expect an invasion or defense would require joint operations, an expectation that was certainly borne out when Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 and the United Kingdom dispatched a joint task force to reclaim them a week later. The Falklands War involved a number of joint operations by the British task force, many of them highly successful, including amphibious landings, naval gunfire support of infantry operations, and the insertion of Special Forces by helicopter and ship. One of the less successful joint operations was the amphibious landing of the Welsh Guards on 8 June 1982 at Fitzroy, in which failures in jointness were in part responsible for the ensuing disaster

1939 (10 September - early World War II) – British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat and having received no responses to challenges. Oxley was the first Royal Navy vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British vessel in the war.

1941 - Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck

41 - RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident [8].

1942 - Polish submarine ORP Jastrząb was mistakenly sunk by British destroyer HMS St. Albans and minesweeper HMS Seagull.

1944 - British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage.


1956 - Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ.

1982 - HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.

1982 - 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.

1982 - United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service
Commandos. Falkland Islands.

2003 - British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[6]

2003 - British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke [12]

as Blue on Blue, the British have as much of it as any one else, it is part of war,


No, it's largely part of the American Gung Ho attitude. Whether hunting, or fighting wars, you have 'if it moves, shoot it' attitude.

"The scale of "friendly fire" casualties on the allied side during the Second World War has been estimated in one US study at 15 per cent of the total. In the first Gulf war, 17 per cent of American casualties were the result of friendly fire."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/07/dl0701.xml)

"In addition to the above, due to the number of UK personnel having been killed by U.S. forces, in Britain the term 'friendly fire' is used in a semi-ironic way to imply U.S. Military incompetence"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire)

Sorry, no time to cut and paste specific American fuck ups, it would just take too long, there were 8,000 killed in 'nam alone.

nietzschefan,


Nope I agree with Chi on that one. U.S military (not Marines - all my respect to Marines) are TRIGGER HAPPY COWBOYS. I have lost a few aquaintences(Canadian Forces) to U.S airforce(f16) and US army(a10). Worst record for FF incidents.

Personally I think you have your head fully inserted so far up your fourth point of contact that you couldn't see daylight if you were given a industrial vacuum to suck the lint out of your bell button, I am a retired Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army, and can tell you that the fire discipline in the units that i served with war exceptional, and I can also tell you that FF incident will and do happen, when you have maneuver units with massive fire power, and any lag in position reporting, or obscuring of the vision spectrum which can be caused by weather, smoke-(natural) ( tactical), or just plain exhaustion, caused by tactical tempo, you have a situation for mistakes, it is a absolute wonder to me that it is as low as it is, and that we don't have more, so unless you have been on the Dime your self you have no reference of judgment for you opinion, so take your head out.

How does friendly fire work itself into gun control?

How does friendly fire work itself into gun control?

it doesnt.
its a red herring attempt to hijack the thread.

nietzschefan,



Personally I think you have your head fully inserted so far up your fourth point of contact that you couldn't see daylight if you were given a industrial vacuum to suck the lint out of your bell button, I am a retired Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army, and can tell you that the fire discipline in the units that i served with war exceptional, and I can also tell you that FF incident will and do happen, when you have maneuver units with massive fire power, and any lag in position reporting, or obscuring of the vision spectrum which can be caused by weather, smoke-(natural) ( tactical), or just plain exhaustion, caused by tactical tempo, you have a situation for mistakes, it is a absolute wonder to me that it is as low as it is, and that we don't have more, so unless you have been on the Dime your self you have no reference of judgment for you opinion, so take your head out.

Ok and I know, but your pilots are cowboys, sorry my opinion and I welcome you to attempt to insert my head up my ass at any time.

I think you hit the truth here. American society has changed. Maybe guns were handled more responsibly when you were young, but the current society has created an individual that lost all sense of social responsibility. Actually what happens is that people tend to idealize the past.

The fact is that the violent crime rate in the US has gone down 17.6 percent in the last 10 years and as of a couple of years ago was at the lowest point since the FBI began keeping these statistics in 1973.

The human mind however, is fairly bad at statistics. It evolved to track immanent threats and local incidents in small tribes not to analyze threats being reported by 6 billion people across the globe via modern media. Due to this we have a strong tendency to greatly overestimate the actual threat to us directly. The reporting and concern about SARS is a wonderful case-study of this. The general perception of violent crime is another. In reality, swimming pools are a greater danger to children in the US than are handguns.

~Raithere

Actually what happens is that people tend to idealize the past.

The fact is that the violent crime rate in the US has gone down 17.6 percent in the last 10 years and as of a couple of years ago was at the lowest point since the FBI began keeping these statistics in 1973.

The human mind however, is fairly bad at statistics. It evolved to track immanent threats and local incidents in small tribes not to analyze threats being reported by 6 billion people across the globe via modern media. Due to this we have a strong tendency to greatly overestimate the actual threat to us directly. The reporting and concern about SARS is a wonderful case-study of this. The general perception of violent crime is another. In reality, swimming pools are a greater danger to children in the US than are handguns.

~Raithere

We are not discussing swimming pools.

The Devil Inside


it doesnt.
its a red herring attempt to hijack the thread.

On one side I have to agree with you, on the other side phlogistician, is trying to say that even trained personnel cannot be trusted with weapons, and as you say it is a red herring, warfare is a totally different situation, and FFI is a hazard faced by all troops, it is part of war, now this situation was a planed well executed plan by some one to kill for very convoluted reasons, and the sad fact is that only one other person with a gun could have changed the situation, when you look around the world...Tiananmen Square China, Rwanda, Sudan, Birafria, Uganda, Ogaden, Lebanon, Zaire, The Montréal Massacre, Bosnia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Timor, Burundi, Ethiopia, Germany, what you see is unarmed people being abused by their government, religious sects, or tribal enemies, or the just plain crazies, being killed because they have any way to defend them selves because the government don't, won't, or can't protect them, and refuses them the right to defend themselves, so they fall before the slaughter of others who have weapons ether provided by the governments, or acquired illegally, to carry our their perverted ideas of revenge, religion, national superiority, or paranoia. How many of the millions of innocent dead would be alive it they had weapons, and I mean firearms, to defend them selves against the scum of the world?

it doesnt.
its a red herring attempt to hijack the thread.

Don't be silly, he's a

retired Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army,

that has to have some role here!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

ted nugent?
:bawl:

ted nugent?
:bawl:

What does Jerry Springer say? *anxious*

And Oprah? What does Oprah say? *very anxious*

What does Jerry Springer say? *anxious*

And Oprah? What does Oprah say? *very anxious*

And their say is anymore believable than Nugent's because....???

What does Jerry Springer say? *anxious*

And Oprah? What does Oprah say? *very anxious*

Just because he's anxious doesn't mean he's wrong.

Go Ted.

We are not discussing swimming pools. Yes. Oh master of the obvious.

I agree. We are discussing firearms. Which some people want to ban because they perceive them as a great threat. My point is that if the reason for calling for a ban on guns is the safety threat they pose to society then there are more dangerous things out there than firearms... things like swimming pools and bathtubs. Statistics like these reveal the real reason some people desire to ban guns. It's not because they pose a major threat, it's because they are scary.

And that's fine. If it's your opinion that firearms should be banned for whatever reason you are entitled to your opinion. What I don't like are the lies and the misleading statements. So if you want to ban firearms because they are scary, because they make homicide easier, because you find them morally objectionable, that's fine. Just say so.

But it's not because they are a major threat to the populace or because suddenly we have people with no sense of "social responsibility" as you put it. These problems are not new. The forms change but overall we're not dealing with any massive increase in danger.

~Raithere

Yes. Oh master of the obvious.

I agree. We are discussing firearms. Which some people want to ban because they perceive them as a great threat. My point is that if the reason for calling for a ban on guns is the safety threat they pose to society then there are more dangerous things out there than firearms... things like swimming pools and bathtubs. Statistics like these reveal the real reason some people desire to ban guns. It's not because they pose a major threat, it's because they are scary.

And that's fine. If it's your opinion that firearms should be banned for whatever reason you are entitled to your opinion. What I don't like are the lies and the misleading statements. So if you want to ban firearms because they are scary, because they make homicide easier, because you find them morally objectionable, that's fine. Just say so.

But it's not because they are a major threat to the populace or because suddenly we have people with no sense of "social responsibility" as you put it. These problems are not new. The forms change but overall we're not dealing with any massive increase in danger.

~Raithere

Do you need a gun to be human?

And their say is anymore believable than Nugent's because....??? Because Ted has a brain.

"Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones." -TED

~Raithere

Do you need a gun to be human? Not following you here. Perhaps you could make an attempt to fully express your point. Or are you restricted to simply writing one-liners for some reason?

~Raithere

I bet you that there were FAR more people are killed in any given year by a drunk driver than all civilian firearms combined. Let's ban automobiles!!!!

That's a great idea.

Not following you here. Perhaps you could make an attempt to fully express your point. Or are you restricted to simply writing one-liners for some reason?

~Raithere

Do you need a gun to be human? How difficult is that to answer? Or did you already forget what it is like to be human?

Do you need a gun to be human? How difficult is that to answer?

It's not difficult. You do not need a gun to be human. But what does it have to do with the context of this discussion?

It's not difficult. You do not need a gun to be human. But what does it have to do with the context of this discussion?

It pretty much ends all discussion. We are discussing a need that isn't a need. A political whim that has nothing to do with building a livable society.

It pretty much ends all discussion. We are discussing a need that isn't a need. A political whim that has nothing to do with building a livable society.

Oh, I see what you're saying. No there is no 'need' for guns. But the 'right to bear arms' isn't based on a 'need' for guns. It's more symbolic of our freedom.
As I mentioned before, guns are about as much the main problem in violent crimes as cars are in drunk driving accidents.

Oh, I see what you're saying. No there is no 'need' for guns. But the 'right to bear arms' isn't based on a 'need' for guns. It's more symbolic of our freedom.
As I mentioned before, guns are about as much the main problem in violent crimes as cars are in drunk driving accidents.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1362447&postcount=15

spuriousmonkey


It pretty much ends all discussion. We are discussing a need that isn't a need. A political whim that has nothing to do with building a livable society.

I am afraid you are wrong, livable societies are guarantied by the right to defend your self and your family, if you look around the world, societies that restrict that are becoming less and less safe and the scum of the world are preying on the innocents, we are afraid to walk our street at night, go into our parks, do business in areas of our cities, we now lock our doors at night, we have to fear going to school, we aren't even safe in our own cars when we travel, look around the world the dark side is winning, and we are told not to defend our selves because we might make them even more dangerous, yes I wonder if we are not headed for another dark age, were the meanest asshole makes the rules, and you pay the price, live on the whim of someone else's paranoia, as for me I will fight and protect my own, and do so as long as is possible to do so, and then pass my weapons on to my sons, and grandsons.

One could go on and on but I will spare you the ramblings of an old fool and leave it at this.

And now I ask you to re-examine everything you ever thought and took for granted.

What is the American people?
Broad question. More specific please.


What does it really mean that I can own a gun?
What does it mean that I can own a car? A house? Pets? Tools?


Is the convenience of owning a car worth the death and destruction it causes?
Do you own a car?
Is the convenience of living on the east coast worth the death and destruction that hurricanes cause?
Millions of people seem to think so (for both questions).


Is convenience freedom?
IMO, convenience is a privledge, freedom is a right
But you can't have convenience w/o freedom.


What is the USA?
the United States of America


And do I need a gun to fight against the US regime of tyranny?
With the way this gub'mint has been bickering back and forth lately, you might.


Did Ghandi need a gun to overthrow the British regime?
Nope, but the Colonial United States did to overthrow the British!


Is there maybe another reason why the American government wants you to have guns and stimulates you to think it means freedom?
You've been reading way too many conspiracy theory books and are looking way too far into this.
Plain and simple: Americans like their guns. Whether it be for protection, sport, hunting, survival, what have you. Just like Americans like their beer, their soda, their hot dogs, their football games, their cars. Need I go on?

how deep. You like your guns. By all means...go shoot each other.

how deep. You like your guns. By all means...go shoot each other.

I like my car too. Maybe I'll go run over somebody.

spuriousmonkey



I am afraid you are wrong, livable societies are guarantied by the right to defend your self and your family, if you look around the world, societies that restrict that are becoming less and less safe and the scum of the world are preying on the innocents, we are afraid to walk our street at night, go into our parks, do business in areas of our cities, we now lock our doors at night, we have to fear going to school, we aren't even safe in our own cars when we travel, look around the world the dark side is winning, and we are told not to defend our selves because we might make them even more dangerous, yes I wonder if we are not headed for another dark age, were the meanest asshole makes the rules, and you pay the price, live on the whim of someone else's paranoia, as for me I will fight and protect my own, and do so as long as is possible to do so, and then pass my weapons on to my sons, and grandsons.

That's right out of the Republican playbook- FEAR! Don't pay any attention to the root causes of violence in our society (excepting the odd maniac), just barricade yourself in your McMansion, watch Fox, be scared, and vote for an agenda that only makes it all worse.

It pretty much ends all discussion. We are discussing a need that isn't a need. A political whim that has nothing to do with building a livable society. We don't need art, science, medicine, or philosophy either. We don't need federal governments and social security programs to be human either.

The main argument for gun ownership IMO is not self-defense either. It is for the very reason that the second amendment exists in the first place; as a balance against the power of the state. It is an indelible fact of history that in order to subdue a population you must first disarm it. This holds true not only for foreign invasion but for oppressive governments as well. This is the reason the Constitution of the U.S. guarantees the right of it's citizenry to bear arms. As the last bastion of freedom against those who would rule.

Of course, Heinlein said it better:


"Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. " -Robert A. Heinlein

~Raithere

Well it's not working.

i am seriously devided within myself on this subject/issue.

i want to ask single questions at a time so i can keep a good solid train of thought on this without too much chaos.

do the people who back the right to bear arms believe it is ok to own certain arms and not others? if i can own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then should i be allowed to own an m16 an ak47 or an ar15 ? or hell even an rpg. if i should then why cant i, and if not then why not?


peace.

You can have all those things except the rocket launcher.

anouther gunman has gone at it, he went into a nasa institute held hostages killed 1 guy then killed himself in houston (obviously)

he didnt do as well as cho though, only a single body now that just screams no effort,

foreshame


peace.

You can have all those things except the rocket launcher.

im allowed a high powered fully automatic machine gun!!! seriously?


thats it im moving to the usa, i didnt think fully automatic weapons were allowed. i will appeal against the grenade launcher. what kind of society doesent allow a regular joe to own a tank busting launcher.




peace.

Sure, I have a video from youtube of Hunter S. Thompson and Conan O'Brian shooting full auto guns up at Hunter's ranch. It just takes a special permit.

What a stupid comment.

The doctor felt his own life was worth protecting. OK, so you don't agree.


I'm sure that's the report he filed with the PD, and it wasn't tainted my macho bullshit or self justification one iota,...

I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.


If your Dr friend carries a gun for self defense, it means he'salready made his mind up about people's intentions, and the value of their life. Doesn't really sit alongside the Hippocratic oath though, does it?

House calls in the slums come with their risks. Doctors carry drugs and paraphenalia with street value. Perhaps he should have just let the patient die that night. :shrug:

wow thats pretty screwed up, yet cool at the same time. i dont know what to think.

its stupid and very alarming, yet i cant help but want one, thats why americans are the way they are, i understand it now! they think guns are ok because the way they were brought up in society.


i myself wouldent mind owning a few of those bad boys, but yet its quite scary knowing mother fuckers are armed with these things, and yet you still get house burglary and robbery in the states?


who the fuck would break into anybodys house knowing they might be packing some serious automatic ass busting heat like an m16 or an ak47 i wouldent chance it no way,


peace.

I want one of these instead:
http://www.kungfu360.com/weapons_ninja_zatoichi_sword.htm

Hunter S. Thompson - best american evar!

wow thats pretty screwed up, yet cool at the same time. i dont know what to think.

its stupid and very alarming, yet i cant help but want one, thats why americans are the way they are, i understand it now! they think guns are ok because the way they were brought up in society.


i myself wouldent mind owning a few of those bad boys, but yet its quite scary knowing mother fuckers are armed with these things, and yet you still get house burglary and robbery in the states?


who the fuck would break into anybodys house knowing they might be packing some serious automatic ass busting heat like an m16 or an ak47 i wouldent chance it no way,


peace.

When they are crazy for drugs they'll do anything. Yes, they get their butts plugged with lead too.

Did you see the clip of Hunter's modified rifle-pistol? I think it looks like a .233 caliber. Puts the 44 magnum to absolute shame.

I want one of these instead:
http://www.kungfu360.com/weapons_ninja_zatoichi_sword.htm

thats a cane sword they are cool, i have a new favorite sword every month :)

i wish i had mor time to master each sword i own, i love katanas they have nearly perfect cutting power, a real katana is able to cut through 7-8 people in one strike,


and thats not a myth or a lie its recorded fact in japan. the samurai used to cut through dead bodies of criminals in japan, the bodies were tied together either on a tree or the floor, and used as test cutting for initiation of a new blade, to test the blades "mettle" before it is given to a samurai to be used,

the bodies were then sewn back together by butchers and leather makers, then other common people were allowed to "give it a go" and chop up the people all over again, the most recorded bodies a hand forged katana has cut through in 1 single strike is 8 bodies.

tameshigiri this is called, it means "test cutting" but the chopping of bodies stopped after regime change :) and after the change only samurai were allowed to own and walk the streets with swords. :(.

then they started using fresh green bamboo wrapped with soaked straw mats for test cutting (i use the same) it perfectly resembles the resistence level of a real body to test the blade.


peace.

Well it's not working. True.

This is because people have decided they would rather be "safe" than free. People like spurious who believe that the government's job is to tend to us like we are children. Of course, the safety is an illusion and being cared for like children means we only have the rights of children.

Still, arms are important. When things get bad enough there will be rebellion.

~Raithere

EmptyForceOfChi


who the fuck would break into anybodys house knowing they might be packing some serious automatic ass busting heat like an m16 or an ak47 i wouldent chance it no way,

Automatics are legal to own in this country as long as you go through a massive background check by the BATF, pay $200 for the tax, and have a bundle of money, the cheapest full auto runs about $5000, and that is for a Mac-10, a M-16, is from $11,000 to $18,000, depending on the manufacture, and for something like a M-60, be prepared to pay $20,000 plus, and then you will find out they are almost useless for self defense, unless you do a massive amount of training they are not controllable for point targets, they are designed for suppression of a area, not to hit a specific individual, you saturate the area as your maneuver units close to make the final assault. If you are really serious about defending your self, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 hard shot inside the home is the most effective weapon you can have, out on the street, it would be a 38/357 revolver, remember you are carrying for defense not offence, and you are only authorize to stop the threat at the point of attack.

nobody is going to rebel, everyone is too much of a pussy nowdays. that goes for americans and british people.

its already gone far enough and nobody is doing shit we just take it like prostitutes. i would be down for a revolution but by myself i will just look like some kind of nut and be arrested.



peace.

as pistols go i woulld opt for a desert eagle, i know it is a semi and could jam but it has magnum calibur and can hold more shots than a revolver.

i wouldent want the assult rifle or machine guns for protecting myself on the street, i would assult enemy vehicles outside of my home from a secure window position or on my rooftop.

i dont like mac 10s or mac 11s i used to own 1 they are pieces of shit, spray and prey weapons they are too small. but i think i could control a larger machine gun,

the little weak 12 year olds in africa seem to be able to handle ak 47s easy enough, so i doubt i would have any trouble i do have alot of weapons experience.

peace,

and those guns are cheap!, your american currency is weak, i could take my strong &#163;'s over there and arm myself up like like a king.


peace.

EmptyForceOfChi, really? and can you even have them in G.B., I do believe that your government would have a coronary, and you would receive a visit from the Special Branch.

Would it really be that much of an assault on the 2nd ammendment to require training in the use of a gun before you get to buy them? Our standards are higher just to drive a car.

i dont own any of my guns anymore, my wife doesent let me because i am a respectable member of society now, and we are starting a family, and we have moved out of the hood into a nice part of london.


guns are illegal here. always have been doesent stop people owning them though.

trident have nothing on me i have no illegal weapons in my home, all i have is legal weapons,

peace.

and thats what i said spider, whats so hard about taking a training course to prove you are worthy to wield a gun?

the government would lose out on alot of money thats why, because i bet half the people would fail the tests and not be allowed to buy them. the government dont care about whats right or wrong, they care about howmuch cash they get thats all they ever care about.


peace.

EmptyForceOfChi

In America it is called hunter safety, and to hunt you have to have it, and when does it take the government to teach, My Father taught me gun safety, when he bought me my first gun, that was 46 years ago, and I taught my son the same 20 years ago, and I have spent a life time on learning gun control, and safety, always being aware of were any weapon is pointed, I learned more on safe handling of a fire arm on my own than any course that I have ever attended, the courses that I have taken only taught the bare basics of gun safety, if you are really serious about owning a gun it is up to you personally to be safe, and learn all the rules of safe gun handling, and self defense laws.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21592924-5006506,00.html

JAPAN'S government will consider tightening gun-control rules after the murder of Nagasaki's mayor, as a new gun death rattled the country.



A man was shot dead outside a shop in suburban Tokyo, just three days after the mayor was gunned down in Nagasaki in a killing that has stunned a nation priding itself on its safety record.


“We are in a serious situation in which crimes with guns are happening,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki told a news conference.


Japan already strictly controls guns, with only police and licensed hunters and some sportsmen allowed to own firearms.

And how are they going to affect the criminal with the intent to kill with Yakuza connections from obtaining a gun that is already suppose to be illegal for him to obtain?

The number of guns, and the process in Japan for obtaining a permit.

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIB3a.html


In Japan, the kind of guns owned by civilian are as follows.

Air Rifle
Hand Rifle
Rifle
Air Pistol (limited to 500 people for sports shooting only)
Pistol (limited to 50 people for sport shooting only)
Shotgun
-----------------------------------------------------------------
F. According to the white paper by the National Police Agency of Japan,
published in 1995, the number of legally owned guns are as follows.
| Figures are for 1994. The population in Japan is about 120 million.

Air rifles 34,746
Rifles 35,599
Shotguns 381,789
---------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Figures about gun crimes are as follows.

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94
---------------------------------------------------------------
# of arrested 200 155 176 130 159
(173) (125) (140) (99) (117)
*171 *132 *151 *97 *131
(165) (116) (133) (90) (113)
Dead 36 31 21 30 38

* Figures in () are those by Bouryoku-dan (=violent organization)

L. The number of seized illegal guns are as follows.

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94
---------------------------------------------------------------
963 1032 1450 1672 1747
(45) (78) (378) (476) (505)

* Figures in () are from non Bouryoku-dan citizens.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
M. Punishment to gun crimes are as follows.
By 'over', I mean 'equal to or more than'.

Shooting ... penal servitude of over 3 years or for life
Illegal owning ... penal servitude of 1 to 10 years
Import ... penal servitude of over 3 years
Import for sale ... penal servitude of over 5 years or for life
with penalty of at most 10,000,000 Yen.
Manufacturing ... penal servitude of over 3 years
Manufacturing for sale ... penal servitude of over 5 years or for life
with penalty of at most 5,000,000 Yen.
Transfer ... penal servitude of 1 to 10 years.
Transfer for sale ... penal servitude of over 3 years
with penalty of at most 5,000,000 Yen.


And still they have gun crime?


Number of suicides by age group and gender. JAPAN, 2003.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/japa.pdf

32,109 in 2003 the latest year that I can find.

EmptyForceOfChi

In America it is called hunter safety, and to hunt you have to have it, and when does it take the government to teach, My Father taught me gun safety, when he bought me my first gun, that was 46 years ago, and I taught my son the same 20 years ago, and I have spent a life time on learning gun control, and safety, always being aware of were any weapon is pointed, I learned more on safe handling of a fire arm on my own than any course that I have ever attended, the courses that I have taken only taught the bare basics of gun safety, if you are really serious about owning a gun it is up to you personally to be safe, and learn all the rules of safe gun handling, and self defense laws.

but like spider said. you have to take a test and get a license to drive a car, so why not a gun?


yes you have good points man, but other people arent as sensible as you your father and your son, there are some crazy people out there who are not safe, thats why we have driving licence,

you could say well teach yourself how to drive and be sensible, but you cannot garantee everyone will be safe or will handle the car with care. thats why we have driving licence because you put your life and other peoples lives at risk if you are not careful,

now the same applys with guns if you are not safe and if you do not take care your life and other peoples lives are at risk.


so what is bad about having to pass a test before owning a gun or buying 1?

the only reason is gun sales and you know it :).

Even if gun control was 100% proven to be the answer, it is far too late at this point in history.

Alot of you need to be reminded that americans got their freedom from the barrel of a rifle. Guns founded the country. Give that culture up is very difficult and so far there has been little reason in this modern - so-called - enlightened world to do so.
I agree and i think this feeds back into what i said earlier, guns have become a bad habit - an ingrained societal norm.
I find that people generally argue 'for' guns argue for them on that basis alone.
Suggesting to take guns away altogether must seem like someone trying to take away a piece of your day to day reality.
Its all very reactionary.

In all honesty i think i could only really take a pro-gunner seriously whos either A. grown up in a society without firearms or B. lived in a society without firearms.
Otherwise i simply dont trust that they arnt simply defending guns on the basis of them being something theyre just used to as a social norm.



Problem *#1* is lack of morality in the world. Correct this and you may then correct other problems such as the specific provisions of dangerous tools/weapons such as firearms.
Tackling morality (or lack thereof) is a long term problem - i.e. we cant cure immorality in under a decade.
We can however tackle gun crime in that amount of time, its pragmatically much much easy to do.
We dont have to forget about the root problems of crime in doing this either, we can still tackle those as long term problems.

EmptyForceOfChi


you could say well teach yourself how to drive and be sensible, but you cannot garantee everyone will be safe or will handle the car with care. thats why we have driving licence because you put your life and other peoples lives at risk if you are not careful,

And how many people even after they pass a test and get a license are not safe on the road? How many people obey the speed limits? how many people practice defensive driving? and how many time do people kill them self and others because they are not safe on the road with their vehicle. 1675 killed,271017, injured, in 2005.


Road casualties Great Britain 2005 Walk To School! Join the Adventure!
There were 271017 road casualties in Great Britain in 2005, ... The number of deaths among car users in 2005 was 1675, 4 more than in the previous year. ...
http://www.walktoschool.org.uk/content/media_news.php?articleshow=47

Europe - In 1995, according to a 1998 World Health Organization Press Release WHO/57 , two million traffic accidents resulted in 120,000 deaths and 2.5 million injured people in the whole European region. One in every three road traffic deaths involved people younger than 25 years of age. Pedestrians and bicyclists were particularly vulnerable groups, making up 45% of all road deaths in the United Kingdom. In Hungary, the proportion was even higher, over 50%, but in most Western European countries it was substantially lower (17% in France, 20% in Germany and around 30% in Denmark and the Netherlands). In motorized traffic the highest-risk group was motorcyclists, with a death rate ten times higher than for car occupants, and an injury rate six times higher than that of car occupants.

its usualy the foot walkers fault that they die man, if nobody J walked and if they kept out of the road they would not die, obviously theres exceptions but seriously the car usualy hits people in the road not on a crossing or traffic light set. so that means its the persons fault in most cases.

and yes alot of people dont listen to the driving license law. but you cant be saying just because people dont listen to laws there shouldent be a law?


well in that case then we should scrap all laws and abandon them all together huh? because people are going to break them anyway so what the hell fuck em all :)

peace.

Er, exactly not. Compare the prison populations of the USA to the UK. Check out your homicide rates. Capital punishment doesn't stop people from committing crime in the USA.

er, I suggest you check the graveyard. Ever heard of a dead murderer coming back to kill again?


You have freedom? No you don't, you just buy what you are being sold, and you are being sold the idea that you are free.


Living in fear of muggers and invaders isn't freedom.

The last guy that robbed me didn't have a gun.


I hardly think your average obese citizen is in a position to fight an invading Army. Without training and discipline , they'd probably kill more US citizens than invaders.

That's the thing about a gun, it gives granny the upper hand against a big thug.


We know what it's like when Americans wield guns, if they are hunting, they shoot each other, and if they are fighting a war they shoot their allies, and then have a frikking hoe down if they do manage to hit an enemy target.

I personally don't like being around guns after I was nearly shot accidently by a cheap firearm. I must admit, I enjoyed reading the story about the young woman that blew away a serial rapist breaking into her apartment. His picture was in the paper along with at least 16 of his victims pictures he raped at knifepoint. He got what he deserved, she deserved a medal, and where were the police for the other women?

EmptyForceOfChi


its usualy the foot walkers fault that they die man, if nobody J walked and if they kept out of the road they would not die, obviously theres exceptions but seriously the car usualy hits people in the road not on a crossing or traffic light set. so that means its the persons fault in most cases.

Yes? and the people at the school were suppose to be in a gun free zone, even the campus police weren't allowed to have fire arms, so how much good did the law that made this so do? The little self absorbed bullying bastard had a free fire zone, to do as he pleased and make his statement, and when the armed police finally arrived, what good did they do? they didn't even clean up the mess, that was left for the janitors to do, and the coroner to pick up the bodies.

the law allowed him to buy the guns in the first place.

hey im starting to actualy believe i am taking sides in the gun debate.


remember i used to own illegal guns in the uk and i want a high powered machine gun, im not in the anti gun camp, im just trying to understand the debate from bother perspectives.

i got a bit caught up n all,


peace.

where can you draw the line though. i dont know where to stand. there are pros and cons for both sides like usual,

you need weapons to protect yourself from others who will inflict harm upon you with weapons. i agree with this,

but ont he other hand, where does it end. your allowed a stick because others have sticks, your allowed a knife because others have knives, your allowed a sword because others have swords, your allowed a gun because others have guns, your allowed a tank because others have tanks, your allowed a stealth bomber because others have stealth bombers, your allowed a nuke because others have nukes. etc etc etc etc.


where does it end. untill everybody is armed to the teeth with all types of weapons?

i dont know.

peace/

EmptyForceOfChi,


the law allowed him to buy the guns in the first place.

And the law prevented his listing as a mentally unstable person from being reported to the proper authorities, and there by denying his request to purchase a fire arm, and he should have been aware that he was ineligible to own a fire arm, as it is explained when your are out processed from a involuntary commitment, he just didn't care about the law, and he was going to do what he wanted, just like the selfish little self-centered prick he was. He didn't give a shit about the problems of anyone else but him self, he blamed others for his failings, and most of all he didn't give a shit about his family, first because he removed himself by suicide, second because he brought such pain and anguish to his family for the acts that he did, they are not at fault but they are going to spend the rest of their lives wondering if the was any thing that they could have done to stop him, and the sad fact is, no there isn't, he didn't even let his mother know what was going on inside, his father, his sister, and in the end he left his family to face the wrath of some idiots that don't or won't want to understand that they are as much of a victim of Cho Seung-hui as the 32 students from Virginia Tech, and his name will have more recognition than the victims.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65592

read my post here, as this covers my point on the issue.

Would it really be that much of an assault on the 2nd ammendment to require training in the use of a gun before you get to buy them? Our standards are higher just to drive a car. I'm not completely against such a proposal although technically it would be an abridgment.

When I lived in Texas my wife and I both got concealed carry permits. In order to do so we had to attend about 12 hours of classroom training and pass a written test about the legal use of force, self-defense, and firearms safety. We then received a few hours of range training and had to pass a proficiency test in the use of firearms. They ran a background check and we were fingerprinted (fingerprints are then registered with the ATF).

Frankly I'd rather require people have to complete such a course prior to owning a gun than some of the other bans, particularly if it allowed one to then carry.

~Raithere

Granny Get your Gun. Story in the news:

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen)


She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."


I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble

Granny Get your Gun. Story in the news:

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen)

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while:


The man's hometown wasn't immediately available.

If gun control is so helpful, then why is it the liberal-controlled cities are the most F'd up ones of them all? The cities with the highest crime rates are liberal-controlled and already have gun bans, but don't gun bans mean less crime? Don't gun bans mean people can't have access to guns to do bad things with em? Uh, guess not.

Try and think of some other reason besides guns being the result of all this crime. In my opinion, the greatest link between it all is that those screwed up high-crime cities are controlled by liberals. Considering most crimes are caused by illegal immigrants, and they're the types of people liberals cater to, and that liberals try and save everyone, including the scum of society, and liberal cities attract those types of mentally screwed up people, it's no surprise that high crime occurs in those places.

Liberals are do-gooders that try and help society and make it a better place, but they do so without first understanding what the hell is going on. They're like an ignorant chemist. Taking various solutions, components, ingredients, chemicals, and other stuff and just mixing em all together not realizing what they do when certain mix with others. While the ignorant chemist is all alone by themself in some lil lab, we have liberal politicians actually doing this sort of stuff in reality, not just affecting his little self, but entire populations. Ignorant politicians and leaders are dangerous because while most people have their own set views on how the world should be, they usually just speak for themselves and don't have the power to control entire populations like our leaders can. This is why you can't have stupid people in charge, but unfortunately we do, and there's why we have some of the problems we do.

If you're gonna try and save every single person on this planet, including the mentally screwed up ones, when you bring them all together into your city, trouble is bound to occur. That's no different than Bush going to war with Iraq not understanding what turmoil will be caused by all the various clashing groups of people thinking we'll be seen as liberators and that they'll love us. The first rule is not not even touch such a quagmire that has so many different types of conflicting people cause there is no way to control em -- it's completely unstable.

So the liberals try and make everything dandy. Taking each point by themselves, they all sound like great ideas, but not when you mix em all together. Let's give criminals low sentences and not have em serve the full term. Whoops, now we have a ton of reoccuring crimes caused by the same people because the libs thought they could rehabilitate them. Next, let's release all the insane people from our looney bins because it's no place a sane person should live.. just too bad the people in those mental institutions aren't sane. Now we have insane homeless people all over the place. Next, in a perfect society, people should be able to roam free as they like, so let's do away with borders and cater to all the illegal immigrants in this country who cause the majority of our crime. Also poor people shouldn't be poor, let's take care of them too. And [insert numerous other F'd up group] need to be with us too. Let's mix up all these whacky people in our city and see what happens, we should be able to handle all of this like Bush Jr.. lol. I mean, hey, we put gun ban laws in our cities so that should take care of everything in our cities of screwed up people!

Just too bad that they forgot that if people want something, they'll sure get it. This is why places such as Australia and the UK, places with gun bans have high crime, and even have gun crime despite guns being outlawed. A criminal is someone who breaks laws. A gun ban or any other type of law means jack shit to someone who is going to break a law. This dude who shot up V-Tech (damn those Hondas..) would have had a gun in his hand even if guns were banned entirely in the U.S. Don't be so ignorant as to say otherwise because history will prove you wrong. Maybe if liberals quit taking in all these friggin' crazy people, we wouldn't have those types around to do what they do. That'd minimize these crimes a lot more than outlawing guns. A gun by itself is just a gun. A crazy person by himself is still a crazy person able to grab any other tool or device to use to his liking, and remember, bans don't mean objects no longer exist.

- N

P.S. Sorry for saying "liberal" so much as I hate when I hear the right go off and use that non-stop, but damn, couldn't help it. And now I can't wait to be called a right-winger all because of my views on this subject, lol.

Neildo, dam your are sounding like me.

P.S. Sorry for saying "liberal" so much as I hate when I hear the right go off and use that non-stop, but damn, couldn't help it. And now I can't wait to be called a right-winger all because of my views on this subject, lol.
Dont worry, its worse than that......

Neildo, dam your are sounding like me.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while:
"The man's hometown wasn't immediately available."

He must be transient, eh? ;)

If gun control is so helpful, then why is it the liberal-controlled cities are the most F'd up ones of them all?

They have no intention of enforcing laws. That's why the crooks vote the liberal ticket. They have a huge voting block in prison. If they could only empty all the prisons on election day -- sort of like Bill Clinton's amnesty program. They could sweep the election polls.

Just too bad that they forgot that if people want something, they'll sure get it. This is why places such as Australia and the UK, places with gun bans have high crime, and even have gun crime despite guns being outlawed.

Have you ever actually bothered to check/compare the crime rates of those countries though? only non-fatal crimes are higher in the UK (i.e. burglary, theft).

Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.

The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.

A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.

It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.

That means youre statistically far more likely to get murdered in the US than you are in the UK. Any sociologist worth their salt will tell you the key difference is the ease in which firearms can be bought in the US - that's what leads to those increased murder rates.
Seriously there is just no argument here im afraid. More guns = more murders.
Its a proven sociological trend, arguing against it and you risk you looking like a creationist arguing against evolution.





A criminal is someone who breaks laws. A gun ban or any other type of law means jack shit to someone who is going to break a law. This dude who shot up V-Tech (damn those Hondas..) would have had a gun in his hand even if guns were banned entirely in the U.S.

The kid was severely anti-social and if reports are correct was possibly autistic. You really think someone like that has 'black market' contacts to aquire an illegal firearm?
I think its incredibly doubtful, this isnt a gang-banger from the ghetto we're talking about here, he was an introverted geek.



Don't be so ignorant as to say otherwise because history will prove you wrong. Maybe if liberals quit taking in all these friggin' crazy people, we wouldn't have those types around to do what they do.

Can you provide any statistics to support your claim that mental health policies have lead to an increase in crime in american cities?
Can you also show that this down to legislation brought in by liberal politicans?



P.S. Sorry for saying "liberal" so much as I hate when I hear the right go off and use that non-stop, but damn, couldn't help it. And now I can't wait to be called a right-winger all because of my views on this subject, lol.
I really dont see it as being a liberal issue atall, well not in Europe anyway - you'll see right wingers and left wingers alike agreeing that gun availablity leads to increased murder rates.

These people who really think gun control laws will solve the problem are fools to very highest degree...I base this upon facts...

Lets see DC and Fairfax, two urban areas, Fairfax having a higher population, higher traffic, etc....Fairfax has looser gun control laws, allowing people to legally buy guns, DC has harsh gun control laws, buying guns are illegal there, using the liberal mind-set you would conclude that in DC there should be less crime than in Fairfax, less shootings, but whats the reality of things?

DC has a much much higher crime rate, its easier to buy guns illegally in DC than it is in Fairfax, VA, therefore we can conclude that the liberal solution fails on all levels....

What we should be really focusing on is finding out what causes someone to have the intent to kill, the intent to kill is really the actual cause of all of this...

These people who really think gun control laws will solve the problem are fools to very highest degree...I base this upon facts...

Lets see DC and Fairfax, two urban areas, Fairfax having a higher population, higher traffic, etc....Fairfax has looser gun control laws, allowing people to legally buy guns, DC has harsh gun control laws, buying guns are illegal there, using the liberal mind-set you would conclude that in DC there should be less crime than in Fairfax, less shootings, but whats the reality of things?

DC has a much much higher crime rate, its easier to buy guns illegally in DC than it is in Fairfax, VA, therefore we can conclude that the liberal solution fails on all levels....

What we should be really focusing on is finding out what causes someone to have the intent to kill, the intent to kill is really the actual cause of all of this...

Except you are just blabbing your ass off. First show causal correlation.

Except you are just blabbing your ass off. First show causal correlation.

I have already shown causal correlation, according to the liberals, banning guns will solve the problem, but I have shown using facts that it solves absolutely NOTHING....therefore I have shown that the liberal solution does absolutely nothing.....

The liberal solution fails on all levels...when will these liberals admit that the actual cause is the intent on killing, not guns...

If Jesus were here today he'd own a gun.

I have already shown causal correlation, according to the liberals, banning guns will solve the problem, but I have shown using facts that it solves absolutely NOTHING....therefore I have shown that the liberal solution does absolutely nothing.....

The liberal solution fails on all levels...when will these liberals admit that the actual cause is the intent on killing, not guns...

which liberals?

Why liberals?

I know plenty of people who are for gun control and are not liberal or american even.

If Jesus were here today he'd own a gun.

definitely...he had a sword.

That means youre statistically far more likely to get murdered in the US than you are in the UK. Any sociologist worth their salt will tell you the key difference is the ease in which firearms can be bought in the US - that's what leads to those increased murder rates.
Seriously there is just no argument here im afraid. More guns = more murders.

Try correlating it to african-american population. In England for example, what is you percentage african american?

Try correlating it to african-american population. In England for example, what is you percentage african american?
African american in England??

African american in England??

You're getting the point. More than half our prison population is african american.

You're getting the point.
Somehow I think you missed it.

Or, y'know...you could just call them blacks? http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=your_stupid_ideas

black_city__________________black residents_&#37; black_homicide rate
1st New York City, New York___2,299,874____28%_____6.6%
2nd Chicago, Illinois__________ 1,557,619____36%_____15.6%
3rd Atlanta, Georgia__________1,189,179 ____61%_____20.9%
4th Los Angeles, California_____1,024,567____10%______12.6%
5th Detroit, Michiga__________1,024,353_____82%_____39%
6th Philadelphia, Pennsylvania__1,023,425_____43%_____25.6%
7th Washington, D.C._________924,518______55%______35.4%
8th Houston, Texas__________727,165_______25%______16.3%
9th Baltimore, Maryland_______703,323______64%______42%
10th Dallas, Texas____________530,715_______26%_____16.4%


sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cities_by_Crime_Rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American

An African American is a person in the United States
You still not getting it buddy?

Somehow I think you missed it.

Check the table I just provided. Blacker means deadlier. http://www.sciforums.com/avatars/avatar23456_96.gif

Oh dear :rolleyes:

Oh dear :rolleyes:

so math is a little much for you is it? ie you can't look at a trend and call it what it is. Here's the post again:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1364785&postcount=202

so math is a little much for you is it?
Is english your weakness?

Is english your weakness?

No. You don't have american blacks in england. Get it yet????? duh

:bravo:

:bravo:


Hence your crime rate in england is lower, not because of less guns, but because of less american blacks. Now do you get it?

your crime rate in england is lower....because of less american blacks
Oh God, just when I thought you got it. :shrug:

Here it is the proof again for the slow minded:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1364785&postcount=202

Here it is the proof again for the slow minded:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=202

Wow way to go. Great link!

Oh God, just when I thought you got it. :shrug:

England doesn't have much of an african population to speak of does it?

Wow way to go. Great link!

Here let's try it again:


http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1364785&postcount=202

see if this works better

blacker means deadlier. The trend is pretty obvious.

So.... "guns dont kill people, blacks do......"

Have you ever actually bothered to check/compare the crime rates of those countries though? only non-fatal crimes are higher in the UK (i.e. burglary, theft).


Yes, I know the crime stats of various countries, which is why in the beginning of this thread, I redirected it to a 44 page previous discussion on this matter as all we're doing is beating the same ol' drum. Here's some things from that previous discussion:


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56596

Anyways, using those stats, keeping in mind that guns are practically banned in those countries and not here in the U.S. except in the big cities where most of our crime occurs, here's the stats according to that site:

Edit: It's also interesting to read the little tidbit facts shown in these lists that gives more detail to various things.

Assaults per capita:

#6 United States 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#8 United Kingdom 7.45959 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada 7.11834 per 1,000 people
#10 Australia 7.02459 per 1,000 people

Burglaries per capita:

#1 Australia 21.7454 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#17 United States 7.09996 per 1,000 people

Car thefts per capita:

#1 Australia 6.92354 per 1,000 people
#3 United Kingdom 5.6054 per 1,000 people
#7 Canada 4.88547 per 1,000 people
#9 United States 3.8795 per 1,000 people

Manslaughter's per capita:

#11 Australia 0.0147337 per 1,000 people
#40 Canada 0.00158512 per 1,000 people

US and UK not shown on list.

Murders overall per capita:

#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

Murders with firearms per capita:

#8 United States 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Perceptions of safety from burglary:

#4 United States 78%
#7 Canada 66%
#10 United Kingdom 58%
#11 Australia 57%

Perceptions of safety walking in the dark:

#2 United States 82%
#3 Canada 82%
#12 United Kingdom 70%
#14 Australia 64%

Police per capita:

#32 Australia 2.09293 per 1,000 people
#34 United Kingdom 2.04871 per 1,000 people
#42 Canada 1.70767 per 1,000 people

US not shown on list.

Reporting to police:

#6 United Kingdom 53%
#7 United States 52%
#9 Australia 50%
#11 Canada 48%

Property crime victims:

#2 Australia 13.9%
#4 United Kingdom 12.2%
#6 Canada 10.4%
#7 United States 10%

Rapes per capita:

#3 Australia 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#5 Canada 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#9 United States 0.301318 per 1,000 people
#13 United Kingdom 0.142172 per 1,000 people

Robberies per capita:

#8 United Kingdom 1.57433 per 1,000 people
#11 United States 1.38527 per 1,000 people
#15 Australia 1.16048 per 1,000 people
#22 Canada 0.823411 per 1,000 people

Suicide rates ages 15-24:

#4 Canada 15 per 100,000 people
#6 Australia 14.6 per 100,000 people
#7 United States 13.7 per 100,000 people
#15 United Kingdom 6.7 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates ages 25-34:

#7 Australia 18.7 per 100,000 people
#8 Canada 18 per 100,000 people
#10 United States 15.3 per 100,000 people
#15 United Kingdom 10.6 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates ages 35-44:

#8 Canada 19.2 per 100,000 people
#10 Australia 15.9 per 100,000 people
#12 United States 15.3 per 100,000 people
#16 United Kingdom 11.4 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates ages 45-54:

#10 Canada 18.5 per 100,000 people
#11 Australia 14.7 per 100,000 people
#13 United States 14.3 per 100,000 people
#16 United Kingdom 9.3 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates ages 55-64:

#11 Canada 15.1 per 100,000 people
#12 Australia 13.7 per 100,000 people
#14 United States 13.3 per 100,000 people
#17 United Kingdom 7.9 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates ages 65-74

#11 United States 15.3 per 100,000 people
#14 Canada 12.1 per 100,000 people
#15 Australia 11.8 per 100,000 people
#17 United Kingdom 7.5 per 100,000 people

Suicide rates 75+

#10 United States 22 per 100,000 people
#12 Australia 16 per 100,000 people
#15 Canada 12.2 per 100,000 people
#16 United Kingdom 9.2 per 100,000 people

Total crimes per capita:

#6 United Kingdom 85.5517 per 1,000 people
#8 United States 80.0645 per 1,000 people
#12 Canada 75.4921 per 1,000 people

Australia not shown.


Okay, I'm running out of big cities to think of. Someone gimme a few more that have high crime rates so I can get the stats and see who's in charge of the cesspool:

- N

Mayors of Washington D.C.:

Walter Washington 1975 1979 Democrat
Marion S. Barry 1979 1991 Democrat
Sharon Pratt Kelly * 1991 1995 Democrat
Marion S. Barry 1995 1999 Democrat
Anthony A. Williams 1999 present Democrat


Mayors of Chicago, IL:

Richard Joseph Daley 1955-1976 - Democrat
Michael Anthony Bilandic 1976-1979 - Democrat
Jane Margaret Byrne 1979-1983 - Democrat
Harold Washington 1983-1987 - Democrat
David Duvall Orr 1987-1987 - Democrat
Eugene Sawyer 1987-1989 - Democrat
Richard Michael Daley 1989-present - Democrat

Mayors of New York City, NY:

William O'Dwyer (Ω) 1946 - 1950 Democratic
Vincent R. Impellitteri (≈) 1950 - 1953 Democratic
Robert F. Wagner Jr. 1954 - 1965 Democratic
John V. Lindsay 1966 - 1973 Republican/Liberal
Abraham D. Beame 1974 - 1977 Democratic
Edward I. Koch 1978 - 1989 Democratic
David N. Dinkins 1990 - 1993 Democratic
Rudolph W. Giuliani 1994 - 2001 Republican (HE ACTUALLY CLEANED UP THE CITY WHILE IN OFFICE)
Michael R. Bloomberg 2002-present Republican

Mayors of Detroit, MI:

# 1962-1970 Jerome Cavanagh - Democrat
# 1970-1974 Roman Gribbs - Democrat
# 1974-1994 Coleman Young - Democrat
# 1994-2002 Dennis Archer - Democrat
# 2002-present Kwame Kilpatrick - Democrat

Mayors of Atlanta, GA:

Ivan Allen, Jr. 1962 - 1970 Democrat
Sam Massell 1970 - 1974 Democrat
Maynard Jackson 1974 - 1982 Democrat
Andrew Young 1982 - 1990 Democrat
Maynard Jackson 1990 - 1994 Democrat
Bill Campbell 1994 - 2002 Democrat
Shirley Franklin 2002 - Present Democrat

Mayors of Los Angeles, CA:

46 Fletcher Bowron 1938–1953 Democratic
47 C. Norris Poulson 1953–1961 Republican
48 Samuel W. Yorty 1961–1973 Democratic+
49 Thomas Bradley 1973–1993 Democratic
50 Richard J. Riordan 1993–2001 Republican
51 James K. Hahn 2001– 2005 Democratic
52 Antonio Villaraigosa July 1, 2005–present Democratic

Mayors of Oakland, CA:

43 May 1, 1966 John H. Reading - Republican
44 July 1, 1977 Lionel J. Wilson - Democrat
45 January 7, 1991 Elihu M. Harris - Democrat
46 January 4, 1999 Jerry Brown - Democrat
47 January 8, 2007 Ronald V. Dellums - Democrat

Mayors of San Francisco, CA:

John F. Shelley 1964-68 - Democrat
Joseph Alioto 1968-76 - Democrat
George Moscone 1976-78 - Democrat
Dianne Feinstein 1978-88 - Democrat
Art Agnos 1988-92 - ???
Frank Jordan 1992-96 - Independent
Willie Brown 1996-2004 - Democrat
Gavin Newsom 2004-present - Democrat

Mayors of New Orleans, LA:

55th 1961-1970 Victor H. Schiro - Democrat
56th 1970-1978 Moon Landrieu - Democrat
57th 1978-1986 Ernest Nathan Morial - Democrat
58th 1986-1994 Sidney Barthelemy - Republican
59th 1994-2002 Marc Morial - Democrat
60th 2002- C. Ray Nagin - Democrat

Mayors of Newark, NJ:

# 1962–1970: Hugh Joseph Addonizio - Democrat
# 1970–1986: Kenneth A. Gibson - Democrat
# 1986–2006: Sharpe James - Democrat
# 2006–present: Cory Booker - Democrat


Mayors of St. Louis, MO:

Joseph Darst 1949 1953 Democrat
Raymond Tucker 1953 1965 Democrat
Alfonso Cervantes 1965 1973 Democrat
John Poelker 1973 1977 Democrat
James Conway 1977 1981 Democrat
Vincent C. Schoemehl 1981 1993 Democrat
Freeman Bosley, Jr. 1993 1997 Democrat
Clarence Harmon 1997 2001 Democrat
Francis G. Slay 2001 -- Democrat

Mayors of Cincinnnati, OH:

1984-1991 Charles J. Luken Democratic
1991 David S. Mann (2nd) Democratic
1991-1993 Dwight Tillery Democratic
1993-1999 Roxanne Qualls Democratic
1999-2005 Charles J. Luken (2nd) Democratic
2006- Mark Mallory Democratic

Mayors of Cleveland, OH:

Ralph S. Locher 1962-1967 Democrat
Carl B. Stokes 1968-1971 Democrat
Ralph J. Perk 1972-1977 Republican
Dennis J. Kucinich 1978-1979 Democrat
George V. Voinovich 1980-1989 Republican
Michael R. White 1990-2001 Democrat

Mayors of Kansas City, MO:

# Ilus W. Davis 1963-1971 - Democrat
# Charles B. Wheeler, Jr. 1971-1979 - Democrat
# Richard L. Berkley 1979-1991 - Republican
# Emanuel Cleaver 1991-1999 - Democrat
# Kay Barnes 1999- - Democrat

Mayors of Philadelphia, PA:

Joseph S. Clark Jr. 1952 - 1956 Democratic
Richardson Dilworth 1956 - 1962 Democratic
James Hugh Joseph Tate 1962 - 1972 Democratic
Frank L. Rizzo 1972 - 1980 Democratic
William J. Green III 1980 - 1984 Democratic
W. Wilson Goode 1984 - 1992 Democratic
Edward G. Rendell 1992 - 2000 Democratic
John F. Street 2000 - present Democratic

Mayors of Baltimore, MD:

Theodore R. McKeldin 1963 1967 Republican
Thomas L. J. D'Alesandro III 1967 1971 Democrat
William Donald Schaefer 1971 1987 Democrat
Clarence H. Burns 1987 1987 Democrat
Kurt L. Schmoke 1987 1999 Democrat
Martin J. O'Malley 1999 – Democrat

Mayors of Memphis, TN: (NOT LISTED IN WIKIPEDIA, WENT TO http://www.worldstatesmen.org)

1960 - 1963 Henry Loeb (1st time)
1963 Claude Armour
1963 - 1967 William B. Ingram
1968 - 1971 Henry Loeb (2nd time)
1972 - 1982 Wyeth Chandler
1982 J.O. Patterson, Jr. Dem
1982 Wallace Madewell
1982 - 1991 Richard "Dick" C. Hackett Dem
1992 - Willie W. Herenton (b. 1940) Dem

Mayors of Miami, FL: (NOT LISTED IN WIKIPEDIA, WENT TO http://www.worldstatesmen.org)

2 Sep 1967 - 25 Nov 1970 Stephen P. Clark (1st time) (b. 1923 - d. 1996)
25 Nov 1970 - 11 Apr 1973 David T. Kennedy (1st time)
19 Apr 1973 - Aug 1973 Maurice A. Ferré (1st time) (b. 1935) Dem
Aug 1973 - Nov 1973 David T. Kennedy (2nd time)
8 Nov 1973 - 13 Nov 1985 Maurice A. Ferré (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
13 Nov 1985 - 9 Nov 1993 Xavier L. Suarez (1st time) (b. 1949) Dem
9 Nov 1993 - 4 Jun 1996 Stephen P. Clark (2nd time) (s.a.)
4 Jun 1996 - 23 Jul 1996 Wilred Gort (acting)
23 Jul 1996 - 13 Nov 1997 Joseph "Joe" Carollo (1st time) (b. 1955) Dem
14 Nov 1997 - 4 Mar 1998 Xavier L. Suarez (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
12 Mar 1998 - 19 Nov 2001 Joseph "Joe" Carollo (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
19 Nov 2001 - Manuel "Manny" Diaz (b. 1954) Ind

Mayors of Houston, TX:

1964 - Jan 1974 Louis Welch (b. 1918)
Jan 1974 - 1978 Fred Hofheinz (b. 1938)
1978 - 1982 Jim McConn (b. 1928 - d. 1997)
1982 - 2 Jan 1992 Kathryn Jean Niederhofer (b. 1946) Dem
Whitmire (f)
2 Jan 1992 - 2 Jan 1998 Bob Lanier (b. 1925) Dem
2 Jan 1998 - 2 Jan 2004 Lee P. Brown (b. 1937) Dem
2 Jan 2004 - Bill White (b. 1954) Dem

Mayors of Boston, MA:

John B. Hynes (D) 1950 1960
John F. Collins (D) 1960 1968
Kevin H. White (D) 1968 1984
Raymond L. Flynn (D) 1984 1993
Thomas M. Menino (D) 1993 —

Mayors of Las Vegas, NV:

1959 - 1975 Oran K. Gragson (b. 1911 - d. 2002) Rep
1975 - 1987 William "Bill" H. Briare Dem
1987 - 1991 Ronald "Ron" Lurie
1991 - 1999 Jan Laverty Jones (f) (b. 1949) Dem
1999 - Oscar Goodman (b. 1939) Dem

- N

So.... "guns dont kill people, blacks do......"

Well they do make up more than half of the prison population. What conclusion would you draw? :shrug:

Also, note that guns are available in all american cities just the same, but the ones with more africans have more murders.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/whoguy.htm


Males and Firearms Violence

In 1996, 29,183 males were killed by guns: 12,014 in homicides, 15,808 in suicides, 1,004 in unintentional deaths, and 357 in deaths of unknown intent.

In 1996 firearms were the second leading cause of death for African-American males aged five to 14, and the leading cause of death among African- American males aged 15 to 24.

In 1996 the rate of firearms homicide was highest among males aged 20 to 24 (30.3 per 100,000)—more than five times higher than the firearms homicide rate for all Americans (6.0 per 100,000 in 1996).

In 1997, nearly one in 10 male high school students reported carrying a gun in the 30 days preceding the survey.

In 1996, firearms were used in nearly eight out of 10 suicides among men aged 65 and older (3,840 of 4,893 suicides or 78 percent

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm#race

I think this graph from the US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE pretty well sums it up:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif

Without the blacks, the american homicide rates would be better than the europeans.

As you can see american whites (at 3.5%) have a lower homicide rate than their violent caucasian european counterparts (at around 7%).

Europeans have gun control laws and the US has readily available guns.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/d_orace.htm

Any arguments, or is the debate over now? :D

Did you happen to take into account anything like history, civil rights, segregation, racism, the link between poverty and crime, and the UK's free education system and health care?

Did you happen to take into account anything like history, civil rights, segregation, racism, the link between poverty and crime, and the UK's free education system and health care?

It relates most directly to age, as homicide is the leading cause of death among young african american males. Want data?

Did you happen to take into account anything like history, civil rights, segregation, racism, the link between poverty and crime, and the UK's free education system and health care?

Regardless of why it happens, it still happens. Whites are the ones who own the majority of guns in the U.S. yet we have a smaller group of people that are committing the majority of those crimes, yet you want to paint everyone with a broad brush saying legally-purchased gun-owners aren't responsible people. Too bad racial subjects are so taboo, it blinds everyone from the real facts.

- N

If you could keep handguns out of the hands of young people, many of whom are underage, what a difference that would make:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm#oage


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/oage.gif

source: US Department of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapage.gif

Source: US Department of Justice

I have always wondered about the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson? before the program was put into effect we had cohesive families in the black community, the black community had a lower percentage of unwed mothers, there was a greater percentage of Fathers as heads of house holds, and they had a crime rate comparable to the white population, then President Johnson started his Great society Programs, they were suppose to lower the number of people who were in poverty, but the only thing it seems to have done is increase the poverty rates, crime rates and destroy the black family, I am going to do some research into the numbers but how about the rest of you, any thoughts?

And it's not like young kids can just go walk up and buy a gun at a store. So much for any gun control laws..

- N

President Johnson started his Great society Programs, they were suppose to lower the number of people who were in poverty, but the only thing it seems to have done is increase the poverty rates, crime rates and destroy the black family

That's usually what happens when the government gets involved with something. When they go out of their way to target something, the reverse happens and things get worse. So if you ever hear of the government wanting to increase the size of everyone's penis, run for your lives cause it'll have disastrous results. :bugeye:

Small government, the only way things should be. Screw democrats and our fake-conservative Bush who created a new gestapo out of our government.

- N

In summary, I would be in favor of banning handguns for anyone under age 25. Good luck enforcing such a law.

And it's not like young kids can just go walk up and buy a gun at a store. So much for any gun control laws..

- N

In 1997, about one in ten boys that went to public school owned a handgun. Don't they have parents too?

In summary, I would be in favor of banning handguns for anyone under age 25. Good luck enforcing such a law.

Sure, I'm up for that too, just to show that we care, but as you mentioned, good luck ever enforcing such a law. Laws don't exist for criminals. More laws = bigger government, bigger government = oppression.

- N

Did you happen to take into account anything like history, civil rights, segregation, racism, the link between poverty and crime, and the UK's free education system and health care?

More than half of all african americans are born out of wedlock. Whose fault is that?

The practice is quite common in africa, where one male sires through several different females, and marries none of them.

It's a cultural thing.:o

Neildo


More laws = bigger government, bigger government = oppression.

= more laws = more crime = more people in jail = more people dependent on the government.

Woody


More than half of all african americans are born out of wedlock. Whose fault is that?

I would lay a lot of that at the feet of the Liberals and their Great Society, and its welfare system, in the fact for a poor family to get assistance form the government the father had to abandon the home, so the mother could receive benefits. It was not a common thing for the Blacks to do so before the Great Society, a situation I believe as a result of slavery, they were denied family under slavery, so after the Civil War was over they had a great appreciation of the family, even greater than the white community.

Woody



I would lay a lot of that at the feet of the Liberals and their Great Society, and its welfare system, in the fact for a poor family to get assistance form the government the father had to abandon the home, so the mother could receive benefits.

Yes, you could say it has been rewarded, but it was here before that. As I said before, multiple fathering (without a marriage) is a way of life in africa.

Connect that to the fact that young african american males are at greatest risk for homicide -- could a lack of parenting be related? Surely it is.

So in summary, parental control is needed, not gun control. Now who will step up to the job of being a parent? Has abortion helped? The data I just presented says "no."

Woody, maybe in Africa, but it wasn't a way of life for blacks in America after the Civil War, they had a beautiful love and appreciation of the family, and they were actually more stable than their white counter parts in this country, it is a fact that before the sixties the unwed birth rate in the black community was lower than in the white community, what changed, the great society and welfare.



Connect that to the fact that young african american males are at greatest risk for homicide -- could a lack of parenting be related? Surely it is.

Exactly, and why? because the Welfare System demanded that the father abandon the home before they would provide assistance, and the fact that to get more money all you had to do was have another baby, and no father.

Woody, maybe in Africa, but it wasn't a way of life for blacks in America after the Civil War, they had a beautiful love and appreciation of the family, and they were actually more stable than their white counter parts in this country, it is a fact that before the sixties the unwed birth rate in the black community was lower than in the white community, what changed, the great society and welfare.

I'd have to see the data. Johnson's social program was a grand fiasco for sure. "civil rights" like that were really "civil wrongs" where everyone loses. :shrug:

However, it is part of the african cultural heritage to have children out of wedlock.

Exactly, and why? because the Welfare System demanded that the father abandon the home before they would provide assistance, and the fact that to get more money all you had to do was have another baby, and no father.

Yeah, I saw it happen. Some incentive system huh?

Now we're on our fifth generation of welfare recipients.

If Johnson could see it now. Yeah it's "great" alright!!:rolleyes:

Has abortion helped? The data I just presented says "no."

R: How Does a Black Woman Fight Crime?

A: She gets an abortion.

*cough, cough*

- N

R: How Does a Black Woman Fight Crime?

A: She gets an abortion.

*cough, cough*

- N

nasty cough you have there.

So you suggest getting rid of a social problem by "refining the breed".

ok, so she gets an abortion, but loses welfare benefits for doing so. :shrug:

Here's the data again, and abortion was readily available over the entire period, starting in '74

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif

But let's say, just for the sake of argument that abortion worked. Why not capital punishment as well? We know it works, because dead crooks don't kill again. Not only that, it punishes the person that commits the crime.

This doesn't seem to be about gun control anymore, just a platform for your hateful Republican lies.

This doesn't seem to be about gun control anymore, just a platform for your hateful ... lies.

That's precisely what "gun control" is ....lies on both sides. Great lies to further their own agenda.

We have about a gazillion laws about the use of guns and the purchase of guns ....one more fuckin' law ain't gonna' do nothin' to change anything.

Baron Max

spidergoat

This does seem to be about gun control, and a just a platform for your hateful Liberal lies.

You must refer to the super ultimate mega megalithic gun thread I made as sderenzi:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59312

It will tell you the general feelings of all those on the forum concerning firearms.

You must refer to the super ultimate mega megalithic gun thread I made as sderenzi:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59312

It will tell you the general feelings of all those on the forum concerning firearms.

Pssh, you call 15 pages, super ultimate mega megalithic? Try 44 pages:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56596

;)

- N

Heh, yeah, I dont know if anything said here doesnt appear on there already.

Don't know. Did anyone already call a redneck a moron here?

Don't know. Did anyone already call a redneck a moron here?
Probably not, but I was thinking it pretty hard.

spidergoat

This does seem to be about gun control, and a just a platform for your hateful Liberal lies.

Riiiight, like black people aren't inherently murderers.

spidergoat


Riiiight, like black people aren't inherently murderers. I dare any Republican to run on the opposite platform.

Now were ever did you come up with that bigoted idea? I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that has ever expressed such a sentiment, do you subscribe to the White Power Neo-NAZI way of thinking?