[Busemann]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is, of course, why the police and Army do not carry guns. Bullets are useless against a well-aimed Judo chop.

I think maybe you should rent Indiana Jones.

and I think you should play some xylophone!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Busemann:
In modern day society, guns don't offer much more than false sense of protection. If you want to practice useful self-defense, you should take up martial arts instead. Then you don't fund one of the most corrupt industries either (the gun industry)

Sorry, criminals don't rely on martial arts, they rely on S&W. And since they do, I do as well.

"Wow, is that a crescent kick?" *BANG* "Very impressive!"

[DBursey]

It makes no one any safer. You might remember immediately after this happened, when Ca$h started appearing on these boards as "knifecarrier" in protest. In that moment, I gained a lot of respect for him.

The (missed) point being that collective security outweighs the perceived needs of the individual.

"Gun crime" is an artificial distinction, meant to make crimes seem somehow magically worse because of the type of weapon used.

Your opinion does not an 'artificial' destinction make. Look up any analysis of crime and you'll find statistical delineation based on commission means and circumstances, which in our case involves a mechanized method of killing beyond any other in terms of its point & click accuracy and ease of use.

This is a problem because... why is it a problem, again? In and of itself, it means nothing, and so mentioning it in and of itself is just a red herring.

I suppose if you strip a statement of context it can be so misconstrued. Not so in this discussion, which attempts to causally link gun proliferation with gun crime.

Finally, I commend you on your devotion to your martial art of choice. I've studied Judo for the past five years, and expect to test in the upcoming year for my 1st degree shodan. I have other means of protecting my family, however, including securely deadbolted and electronically alarmed doors and windows. Finally, I have a trusty aluminum bat with which to scare off any hypothetical intruder who somehow manages to elude my security perimeter as described above.

[Spliffdaddy]

$178 Shotgun from Wal-Mart

the answer to:

Judo

deadbolts

security perimeters

& aluminum baseball bats

[DBursey]

To my knowledge Walmart is not permitted to sell guns in Canada.

In any case, a scenario under which someone attempts to force entry into my Canadian home by discharging a firearm simply isn't realistic. The last time a neighbour's home was broken into was years ago, and took place (and was quite intentionally timed to occur) while the house was unoccupied. The thieves made away with some stereo equipment which was promptly replaced (and upgraded!) with insurance money.

Perhaps, in lieu of arming themselves to the teeth, concerned Americans may opt to purchase a similar home insurance policy. Speculation on armed intruders belongs up there with alien abductions as far as the probability of occurance goes in my neck of the woods.

edit: typos relate inversely to bloody sugar levels. Time to eat!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
To my knowledge Walmart is not permitted to sell guns in Canada.

Perhaps not, but I'm sure there are other Canadian vendors for such things.

If all else fails, building a shotgun from parts at Home Depot is pretty easy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Troll:
In South Africa, where almost everyone has a gun, thieves break into houses when people are at home too.

Apparently so. Check this out. South Africa has by far the largest number of gun murders in the world. If my math is right, one out of about every 1300 people is murdered with a gun in South Africa. Even in the US, it's more like 1 of every 50,000 people. Can that be right?

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
$178 Shotgun from Wal-Mart

the answer to:

Judo

...

"Judo, the worlds most famous lethal sport!"

[finboy]

Originally posted by Troll:
In South Africa, where almost everyone has a gun, thieves break into houses when people are at home too.

Maybe people buy guns there BECAUSE breakins are more prevalent.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by DBursey:
[B]Perhaps, in lieu of arming themselves to the teeth, concerned Americans may opt to purchase a similar home insurance policy. Speculation on armed intruders belongs up there with alien abductions as far as the probability of occurance goes in my neck of the woods.

Then don't buy a gun. Nobody is forcing anyone to own one. It's a personal right, not an obligation. All that anyone objects to is that right being taken away by ideologues with bad arguments.

By the way, insurance is also bought for unlikely events. Most people never experience a fire or flood, but insurance is there just in case. For most gun owners a gun in the house is very much the same concept. It's not something they expect to use, or hope to use, but rather something that you'd regret not having in the unlikely event you need it. You apparently do understand the concept because you have that baseball bat (which, by the way, I don't). Why have a baseball bat if you are opposed to weapons and homeowners defending themselves? That's a lethal weapon too.

And of course, just like the "rely on the police" argument used above, your get insurance rather than a gun is a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Why not have both?

[Sherwin]

Reply to a couple of interesting points (I can't be bothered to quote them as I'm a bit pushed for time):

1) Without a gun, you can't defend yourself against intruders if you're not a huge guy. The thought of a 70-year-old widow learning judo to protect herself against young fit thugs just about sums up the stupidity of the argument against guns.

2) If I break into your house you'll have no chance of stopping me from doing whatever I want to, unless you've got a gun. No, your 5th dan (whatever) in Judo won't help you. Neither will your baseball bat.

3) The police aren't there when it happens, and usually don't get there for hours afterwards.

4) Yes, it does suck to live in a country where they don't let us have weapons.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

The thought of a 70-year-old widow learning judo to protect herself against young fit thugs just about sums up the stupidity of the argument against guns.

What if she has osteoporoses and is unable to pull the trigger!?

No seriously, one that knows martial arts can be better fit than one with just a gun.

[DBursey]

Why have a baseball bat if you are opposed to weapons and homeowners defending themselves? That's a lethal weapon too.

I also have a nice Sherwood composite hockey stick! The primary function for both sporting accessories on my property is in keeping with the manufacturer's intended usage. Rest assured, I won't mistakenly bludgeon a family member with either.

Then don't buy a gun. Nobody is forcing anyone to own one. It's a personal right, not an obligation.

My participation in open discussion here at the lounge should not be called into question based on my personal convictions as expressed in said discussion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
JSorry guys; in a violent society such as yours your point may be valid.

Violent society? 90% of America doesn't fall under this.

It's just in the bigger cities that are crowded with people.

Like any other country.

[DBursey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
[B]Reply to a couple of interesting points (I can't be bothered to quote them as I'm a bit pushed for time):

1) Without a gun, you can't defend yourself against intruders if you're not a huge guy. The thought of a 70-year-old widow learning judo to protect herself against young fit thugs just about sums up the stupidity of the argument against guns.

2) If I break into your house you'll have no chance of stopping me from doing whatever I want to, unless you've got a gun. No, your 5th dan (whatever) in Judo won't help you. Neither will your baseball bat.

1) Defend yourself against what? An armed intruder? Your vague speculation is meaningless in context of most people's lives. You've also stripped the Judo comment of the context contained in my post, which was in response to a particular issue raised by another poster.

2) Aren't you the tough guy though! Beware of Sherman the unstoppable!

[DBursey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Violent society? 90% of America doesn't fall under this.

It's just in the bigger cities that are crowded with people.

Like any other country.

With exception to your generalizing in regard to the relative crime and personal safety levels of international cities, I otherwise quite agree. This is in keeping with my personal opinion that guns are not only unnecessary, but that they create far more problems than their possession will ever address.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by DBursey:
1) Defend yourself against what? An armed intruder? Your vague speculation is meaningless in context of most people's lives.

No. Not a week goes by here without a report of some old lady beaten black and blue in her own home.

This wasn't a reply to your post in particular (I wasn't keeping track of who posted what - pushed out of the place with work), therefore wasn't stripping any context out of any post. Someone suggested Judo as an alternative to a gun, which is obviously the martial artist not thinking about anyone else's method of defending themselves.

Originally posted by DBursey:
2) Aren't you the tough guy though! Beware of Sherman the unstoppable!

Yep.

If you think that everyone can stop an intruder by close-contact force alone, you're living in a fantasy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
With exception to your generalizing in regard to the relative crime and personal safety levels of international cities, I otherwise quite agree. This is in keeping with my personal opinion that guns are not only unnecessary, but that they create far more problems than their possession will ever address.

I am betting a good percentage of this town's people own guns. I know most people I know do.

The crime rate is very low here. Gun ownership isn't the problem.

[DBursey]

If you think that everyone can stop an intruder by close-contact force alone, you're living in a fantasy.

Sorry Sherwin; I got your handle wrong in my earlier post. No disrespect intended.

I'm not living in a fantasy. I'm reacting to the notion that one has to keep a firearm to protect one's life & property from intruders. There are plenty of options open for the provision of security, short of the acquisition of firearms.

Beyond that, isn't the safe storage of guns and ammunition itself a legal issue in jurisdictions where such ownership is condoned? As I understand, guns are required legally to be safely stored with a trigger lock, in a location separate from the ammunition. In the break-in hypothesis as you've described, can the law-abiding gun owner access, unlock and load his weapon in time to effectively deter the intruder?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Sorry Sherwin; I got your handle wrong in my earlier post. No disrespect intended.

No worries.

Originally posted by DBursey:
I'm not living in a fantasy. I'm reacting to the notion that one has to keep a firearm to protect one's life & property from intruders. There are plenty of options open for the provision of security, short of the acquisition of firearms.

Please voice these options! While you're doing so, please remember the size difference between the 70-year-old widow and the two thugs.
Seriously, please show the other options - I'll change my mind about gun ownership if they're viable.

Originally posted by DBursey:
Beyond that, isn't the safe storage of guns and ammunition itself a legal issue in jurisdictions where such ownership is condoned? As I understand, guns are required legally to be safely stored with a trigger lock, in a location separate from the ammunition. In the break-in hypothesis as you've described, can the law-abiding gun owner access, unlock and load his weapon in time to effectively deter the intruder?

This is an issue if the gun isn't in the bedside cabinet.

[DBursey]

Then to be effective in defending her home, is Granny required to sleep with the gun under her pillow, in contravention of safe-storage laws?

As for the options available to Granny; a good home alarm system would be a good start. Secure locks on doors and windows, voice-activated two-way alarm monitoring, knowing the neighbours, etc. all are strategies employed to deter unlawful intrusion. Finally, if a thug manages to smash his way thru to granny's inner sanctum, I'd council a passive, non-confrontational stance as granny's safest bet. If the guy wants her stuff, he'll take it. The police will find him, and granny's insurance will replace her treasured silver tea serving set.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:

Beyond that, isn't the safe storage of guns and ammunition itself a legal issue in jurisdictions where such ownership is condoned? As I understand, guns are required legally to be safely stored with a trigger lock, in a location separate from the ammunition. In the break-in hypothesis as you've described, can the law-abiding gun owner access, unlock and load his weapon in time to effectively deter the intruder?

Only in a vehicle. In a home (at least here in TN) there are no such laws. I keep a loaded .45 in the drawer of my nightstand. It's safety is set "on", of course. Plus, there's the loaded Mossberg 12 gauge pump in it's holder on the bedroom wall.

I used to leave the .45 laying out on the nightstand itself, but it gave the girls the creeps so I put it in the drawer.

Anyway, all of that is irrelevant in my case. I have a concealed carry permit and can carry a loaded handgun almost anywhere.

[SimeyTheLimey]

And remember again, we aren't talking about itching for an actual shootout. Rather we are talking about increasing the burglar's pucker factor so he doesn't come in in the first place.

Whose going to make him rethink his plans the most? Sweet talking Granny, or this one?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Busemann:
What if she has osteoporoses and is unable to pull the trigger!?

No seriously, one that knows martial arts can be better fit than one with just a gun.

Now go look up stories about what usually happnes to people who try and disarm a subject when they have a rifle pointed at their chest. This outcome is the exception, not the rule.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by DBursey:
The (missed) point being that collective security outweighs the perceived needs of the individual.

I disagree. Collective securiy is nothing more than the sum total of the security of individuals; in order for all to be safe, every one must be safe. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but heaviest of all are the needs of the one.

Your opinion does not an 'artificial' destinction make. Look up any analysis of crime and you'll find statistical delineation based on commission means and circumstances, which in our case involves a mechanized method of killing beyond any other in terms of its point & click accuracy and ease of use.

So it's easy to use; what's the problem with this? You still haven't exstablished a causal link between easy-to-use weapons and crime. You're demonizing the weapon, rather than the one who actually commits the crime; that's what makes it an artificial distinction.

You're letting emotion -in this case, feat of guns- get in the way of your reasoning.

I suppose if you strip a statement of context it can be so misconstrued. Not so in this discussion, which attempts to causally link gun proliferation with gun crime.

...and fails. We've already shown how hopelessly manipulated these statistics are, even if you take out the artificial "gun crime" distinction.

Finally, I commend you on your devotion to your martial art of choice. I've studied Judo for the past five years, and expect to test in the upcoming year for my 1st degree shodan.

Although I do have extensive martial arts training, that is not what I was talking about, as the advantages gained from these are slight at best when you're dealing with an intruder.

I have other means of protecting my family, however, including securely deadbolted and electronically alarmed doors and windows.

Very good first lines of defense, and commendable. I have the deadbolts; alas, the place where I live does not allow for the alarms you mention.

Finally, I have a trusty aluminum bat with which to scare off any hypothetical intruder who somehow manages to elude my security perimeter as described above.

Do you honestly think the bat will scare away an armed intruder? And you say guns instill a false sense of security; geez.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who is talking about protecting only property? Can you concieve that perhaps more might be at stake if criminals burst into your family's home one night?



The police are neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. By the time they get there, you and those you love could be long dead. Maybe they might catch your killers, and that might be good for the public as a whole and in the aggregate. But that doesn't help you individually at all.

In every civilized society, there is a right to self-defense.

Vancouver has the worst home invasion problem in all of Canada, and almost no one gets physically hurt. You protect your family by cooperation. Like the policy at most stores here. You give your robber the money, you don't fight back. Otherwise you get fired. And you know what, almost no one gets hurt in robberies either. My Grandma works at a 711, it was robbed 2 days ago, its been robbed about 20 times when she was working over the last 20 years. She was punched once. With the attitude of fighting back, protecting one self more people get hurt.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Athens:
Vancouver has the worst home invasion problem in all of Canada, and almost no one gets physically hurt. You protect your family by cooperation. Like the policy at most stores here. You give your robber the money, you don't fight back. Otherwise you get fired. And you know what, almost no one gets hurt in robberies either. My Grandma works at a 711, it was robbed 2 days ago, its been robbed about 20 times when she was working over the last 20 years. She was punched once. With the attitude of fighting back, protecting one self more people get hurt.

Wow, that is severely messed up. Damn, those aren't stores, they're ATMs. Sounds like you need some law enforcement. What's the problem? All the RCMP hanging out at the local Dunkin' Donuts and not doing their jobs?

[Athens]

Originally posted by BRussell:
There's no doubt in my mind that crimes can be stopped by guns in the home. There's also no doubt in my mind that the risk of injury or death in your home is greater when you keep a gun in it. So I'd only want to keep a gun if my chance of stopping a crime in my home was greater than the risk of harm coming to me or a family member from the gun.

a: the probability or risk of a crime in your home
b: the increased probability of stopping a crime in your home if it occurs
c: the increased probability or risk of death or injury due to keeping a gun at home

I'd keep a gun for protection if:

(a - b) > c

I think this would be pretty easy to calculate. You could find the number of homes victimized by crime, the number of times a crime is stopped by a gun, and the number of injuries/deaths to family members in homes with guns. Make the right comparisons, come up with the probabilities, and there you have it. I doubt any analysis like this would show that it makes sense to own a gun for protection unless you lived in a very high-crime neighborhood.

It also seems to me that b and c are inversely related: If you keep it so locked up that kids can't get it, for example, it becomes less accessible for preventing a crime.

Here is a couple problems with your argument, 1, you need to have that loaded gun on your person at all times to be effective. If a group of people burst in while you are watching TV, and your gun is stored in your drawer beside your bed, good luck getting to it in time. 2nd, unless you posters all over your property saying I am armed and willing to shoot you, a criminal wont know you are armed and then it wont be a deterent to prevent the crime. 3rd in the situation that you do have your loaded gun ready when some one bursts into your home for your money or something, and you manage to draw it out, what you have is a fire fight, bullets flying both directions. Sure you might kill the guy bursting in, and even come out of it unhurt, but what about your wife who was on the couch now slumped over with a bullet in her head? Chances are if you didnt fight back, you would have all ended up tied up and poorer, but all still have your health. Of course then again what happens if you drop that loaded gun at dinner and some one gets shot in the foot, of 14 year old billy thinks its cool and shows his friends and accedently kills him. Well his in jail now. Or worst shoots himself. What if 14 year old billy is getting bullied at school and only means to scare some one. Access to guns in no way makes things safer. And as I said useless if the gun isnt on you all times loaded.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Athens:
Vancouver has the worst home invasion problem in all of Canada, and almost no one gets physically hurt. You protect your family by cooperation. Like the policy at most stores here. You give your robber the money, you don't fight back. Otherwise you get fired. And you know what, almost no one gets hurt in robberies either. My Grandma works at a 711, it was robbed 2 days ago, its been robbed about 20 times when she was working over the last 20 years. She was punched once. With the attitude of fighting back, protecting one self more people get hurt.

That is totally weak. If some bitch comes into your house, you shoot the bastard in the foot, not give him money. Do you think they would go into houses where they know the owners are skilled marksman? Hell no.

Seriously, that is about the wimpiest thing I've heard in about a month. Go buy a damn pistol, spend time working on accuracy and learn how to use it safely, and keep it locked away in your room. Unless the UN's anti-gun arm has infiltrated CannuckLand, I believe owning a pistol is okay.

[Athens]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow, that is severely messed up. Damn, those aren't stores, they're ATMs. Sounds like you need some law enforcement. What's the problem? All the RCMP hanging out at the local Dunkin' Donuts and not doing their jobs?

I guess I should have added even though its the worst in all of Canada its still FAR FAR FAR below the average American city.

Vancouver is a port city, all port cities have problems with drugs and crime. Just because it has the worst home invasions in Canada doesn�t mean there isn�t enough law enforcement. And Vancouver list has its own police, RCMP are for the smaller cities that rather rent a police service. Oh and a lot of the home invasions are actually criminals robbing criminals. And the funny thing is the only ones that end up with some one being shot, are the ones where the owner of the house was armed.

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
That is totally weak. If some bitch comes into your house, you shoot the bastard in the foot, not give him money. Do you think they would go into houses where they know the owners are skilled marksman? Hell no.

Seriously, that is about the wimpiest thing I've heard in about a month. Go buy a damn pistol, spend time working on accuracy and learn how to use it safely, and keep it locked away in your room. Unless the UN's anti-gun arm has infiltrated CannuckLand, I believe owning a pistol is okay.

That�s crap! The guy breaking into the house has the element of surprise, and also will prob have his weapon drawn and ready to fire. I doubt some one can ready 100% of the time just incase. And most home invasions aren't a single person but a group of 2-4 people. Its proven you have a better chance of coming out unharmed by cooperating then fighting back. I rather live to be robbed another day then to get killed over a TV.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
That�s crap! The guy breaking into the house has the element of surprise, and also will prob have his weapon drawn and ready to fire. I doubt some one can ready 100% of the time just incase. And most home invasions aren't a single person but a group of 2-4 people. Its proven you have a better chance of coming out unharmed by cooperating then fighting back. I rather live to be robbed another day then to get killed over a TV.

Why not put the shoe on the other foot. Make the robber ask himself Should I live and rob another day, or get killed today for a TV?

It wouldn't necessarily come to a firefight. I suspect most burglars would turn tail if they heard the ching-ching of a pump action chambering a 20 guage shell. It's quite an intimidating noise. They'd probably prefer to rob a house where the owners are more hospitable to criminals. Like yours perhaps.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Athens:
That�s crap! The guy breaking into the house has the element of surprise, and also will prob have his weapon drawn and ready to fire. I doubt some one can ready 100% of the time just incase. And most home invasions aren't a single person but a group of 2-4 people. Its proven you have a better chance of coming out unharmed by cooperating then fighting back. I rather live to be robbed another day then to get killed over a TV.

How fast do you really think it takes to fire off 4 shots with a regular pistol? I hate to say it, but you're really acting like a total coward letting them run into your house and letting them have your TV. It's your damn house, defend it. Unless those asses come up your window, you could get that gun out in less than 1 minute, if even that. If I were a burglar, I sure as hell wouldn't risk my life against a guy threatening to defend his property.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why not put the shoe on the other foot. Make the robber ask himself Should I live and rob another day, or get killed today for a TV?

It wouldn't necessarily come to a firefight. I suspect most burglars would turn tail if they heard the ching-ching of a pump action chambering a 20 guage shell. It's quite an intimidating noise. They'd probably prefer to rob a house where the owners are more hospitable to criminals. Like yours perhaps.

I've hear the sound of a 20 gauge shotgun. I was 10 when I first fired one at camp. That thing was heavy and the sound it made was very imposing and monotonous. Perfect for your average criminal.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why not put the shoe on the other foot. Make the robber ask himself Should I live and rob another day, or get killed today for a TV?

It wouldn't necessarily come to a firefight. I suspect most burglars would turn tail if they heard the ching-ching of a pump action chambering a 20 guage shell. It's quite an intimidating noise. They'd probably prefer to rob a house where the owners are more hospitable to criminals. Like yours perhaps.

Most BNE's and actually most property crime are due to drugs. These are people that only care about one thing, getting there next fix any way they can and they dont care who gets hurt.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Here is a couple problems with your argument, 1, you need to have that loaded gun on your person at all times to be effective.

No you don't. We are talking about deterrance. That means sowing doubt in the mind of the criminal.

unless you posters all over your property saying I am armed and willing to shoot you, a criminal wont know you are armed and then it wont be a deterent to prevent the crime.

Yes, those are common and a good idea. Even sometimes when the owner doesn't own a gun. As long as the threat is credible, there is no real way for the criminal to know whether or not you are bluffing. With any luck, he'll think twice and go away. Of course, this doesn't work if you make it illegal for citizens to defend themselves.

3rd in the situation that you do have your loaded gun ready when some one bursts into your home for your money or something, and you manage to draw it out, what you have is a fire fight, bullets flying both directions. Sure you might kill the guy bursting in, and even come out of it unhurt, but what about your wife who was on the couch now slumped over with a bullet in her head? Chances are if you didnt fight back, you would have all ended up tied up and poorer, but all still have your health.

Or maybe your abductors will realize after they rape your wife that perhaps leaving a live witness who can identify them in court isn't such a smart idea. So they will kill you and your wife not because you weren't perfectly compliant, but because they figure their chances of getting away with their crime are better with you dead.

Of course then again what happens if you drop that loaded gun at dinner and some one gets shot in the foot,

I guess you have never handled a firearm. If you had, you would know that they don't go off if you simply drop them. You have to have a round chambered, pull the trigger and have the safety off.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No you don't. We are talking about deterrance. That means sowing doubt in the mind of the criminal.

Criminals have nothing to lose, you figure being put on death row would be a deterrance to stop people from killing people. We'll does that work nope.

Yes, those are common and a good idea. Even sometimes when the owner doesn't own a gun. As long as the threat is credible, there is no real way for the criminal to know whether or not you are bluffing. With any luck, he'll think twice and go away. Of course, this doesn't work if you make it illegal for citizens to defend themselves.

Except when the guy breaking in is expecting you to have a gun and just shots you right away.

Or maybe your abductors will realize after they rape your wife that perhaps leaving a live witness who can identify them in court isn't such a smart idea. So they will kill you and your wife not because you weren't perfectly compliant, but because they figure their chances of getting away with their crime are better with you dead.

Things are very different in the united states. Here most people just end up being locked in the bathroom, not tied up and I have never heard of one case of rape ever. Most of the time they have masks.

I guess you have never handled a firearm. If you had, you would know that they don't go off if you simply drop them. You have to have a round chambered, pull the trigger and have the safety off.

I did in Sea Cadets, and ture its not likly to happen, but if you do have a gun with a round in the chamber it can go off from dropping it.


I don't know things are different there. Im happy enough that I live in a place that you don't need to arm yourself for protection. Its a nice feeling knowing you don't need protection. My chances are much much better being hit by a car or being killed in a accedent like falling down stairs then being murdered. I work in the worst area of the city, also known as the worst area in all of Canada, Pender and Abbot street and Hastings. I don't even feel a threat 3am in the dark allys of course just plain street smarts says that a stupid place to be, but still there is no place in this entire city I feel I would need any form of weapons, clubs, knifes, guns to feel safe. Perhaps thats a sign that we are doing things right, who knows.

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess you have never handled a firearm. If you had, you would know that they don't go off if you simply drop them. You have to have a round chambered, pull the trigger and have the safety off.

Well, I don't know if they can go off by simply dropping them but I once went out in the field shooting with my two cousins from Atlanta, Georgia. We had a '22 rifle, a '22 revolver and a Magnum45 with us. I really liked the semi automatic Magnum...until the moment when it went off without me pulling the trigger!!
If I am not mistaken, the safety goes off in the moment you grab the gun because it is not some kind of switch but a kind of bar that gets pressed when you hold it in your hand!?
Luckily nobody was hurt because we always followed the most important rule: NEVER EVER POINT THE GUN AT SOMEONE!

This was the last time I touched a gun and I will not do it again - too dangerous!!!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No you don't. We are talking about deterrance. That means sowing doubt in the mind of the criminal.

It has been proven that murderers are not deterred by the possibility of their own death. Someone who is breaking in to your home to kill you isn't going to think twice about doing it because you may be armed. Guns are not a deterrent to violent crime; that has been proven medically and it is proven empirically too. When a population arms itself, the crime rate generally rises rather than drops. The most armed populations of the world are more likely to die violent deaths than less armed populations. Compare Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg with Copenhagen or even London and then tell me guns are a deterrent.

The main point here though is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that you are ever going to be in a position where your life is threatened by an intruder. If you ever have the misfortune of having an intruder in your house, he's more likely to want to steal your possessions than your life and if he is armed he's more likely to shoot at you if you pull a gun on him. So, the chances of you ever using your gun to defend yourself are remote and once you do pull a gun, you're raising the stakes in a way that may not be favourable to you. On the flip side, the chances of there being an accident involving your gun are far less remote.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Troll:
It has been proven that murderers are not deterred by the possibility of their own death. Someone who is breaking in to your home to kill you isn't going to think twice about doing it because you may be armed. Guns are not a deterrent to violent crime; that has been proven medically and it is proven empirically too. When a population arms itself, the crime rate generally rises rather than drops. The most armed populations of the world are more likely to die violent deaths than less armed populations. Compare Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg with Copenhagen or even London and then tell me guns are a deterrent.

The main point here though is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that you are ever going to be in a position where your life is threatened by an intruder. If you ever have the misfortune of having an intruder in your house, he's more likely to want to steal your possessions than your life and if he is armed he's more likely to shoot at you if you pull a gun on him. So, the chances of you ever using your gun to defend yourself are remote and once you do pull a gun, you're raising the stakes in a way that may not be favourable to you. On the flip side, the chances of there being an accident involving your gun are far less remote.

VERY WELL SAID!

[BC_SIG]

Hello everyone, lets make my first post here, and try not to declare war on anyone.

"quote:Originally posted by Sherwin:
The UK (pop 60m) has more burglaries per year than the US (pop 293m).

UK - no guns.
US - lots of guns.

What does that tell you?

The UK doesn't have no guns. You can get guns over there, just not legally.
Unsurprisingly, only criminals have guns, because criminals (by definition) don't care about breaking the law."

Well first thing to say, many people in the United Kingdom own firearms, but generally Sporting/Hunting Rifles & Shotguns, and the odd permitted collecter owns pistol, and yes CRIMINALS own firearms as well, tho a growing craze in the UK, is using REPLICA FIREARMS. I Know this first hand from going back home and visiting family and being held up with a bloody BB GUN.
Next.
MacNStein said:
"To my knowledge Walmart is not permitted to sell guns in Canada.
In any case, a scenario under which someone attempts to force entry into my Canadian home by discharging a firearm simply isn't realistic. The last time a neighbour's home was broken into was years ago, and took place (and was quite intentionally timed to occur) while the house was unoccupied. The thieves made away with some stereo equipment which was promptly replaced (and upgraded!) with insurance money.

Perhaps, in lieu of arming themselves to the teeth, concerned Americans may opt to purchase a similar home insurance policy. Speculation on armed intruders belongs up there with alien abductions as far as the probability of occurance goes in my neck of the woods."

Well sorry to burst you bubble buddy, but Wal-mart is a fully licensed distributor or Sporting Rifles/Shotguns. Ok Running Out Of Space, See Next Post.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The UK (pop 60m) has more burglaries per year than the US (pop 293m).

Can you produce stats on gun deaths, im sure the US will top that easly

[Spliffdaddy]

As long as you're happy about the decision your government made for you - then it's OK with me.

I'd never allow my governement to disarm me, however.

Just take out that insurance policy and rest easy. I'm sure your family will love having money instead of a family member or two. Right?

[BC_SIG]

Ok keep on talking, yes, Wal-Mart, I know they are a distributor for 2 reasons: 1)I used to work for wal-mart, and to be exact, in the sporting goods/outdoors/toys section. I have dealt with many wishing to aquire arms. 2) I have purchase numerous firearms from Wal-mart, approx 23 off the top of the head. I am an avid collecter, just ask Athens hehe. Oh Forgot to add , I was originally born in England, and have a vast knowlegde of firearms,ect. I am around them daily, as a career and personal passion.

Anywho, touching back on topic of firearms in the UK, well they are actually not that hard to aquire, there is several well known "UNDERGROUND ARMS DEALERS" in England, 2 of which i know personally, are located in Southampton, but no names will ever be used, for safety issues to them. But yes , getting a gun in England is as simple as two phone calls and approx 190pounds. Hope im not annoying too many people, but gotta start somewhere.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as you're happy about the decision your government made for you - then it's OK with me.

I'd never allow my governement to disarm me, however.

Just take out that insurance policy and rest easy. I'm sure your family will love having money instead of a family member or two. Right?

The government hasent disarmed any one. Any one can buy a gun. The only thing the government is doing is wasting billings trying to register all the guns. Again things are different in Canada then the US, we don't need weapons for protection because we dont have your kind of problems. I cant think of a single home invasion in the last 5 years that resulted in some one being killed other then one that was crooks stealing from crooks and they got into a fire fight.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Ok keep on talking, yes, Wal-Mart, I know they are a distributor for 2 reasons: 1)I used to work for wal-mart, and to be exact, in the sporting goods/outdoors/toys section. I have dealt with many wishing to aquire arms. 2) I have purchase numerous firearms from Wal-mart, approx 23 off the top of the head. I am an avid collecter, just ask Athens hehe. Oh Forgot to add , I was originally born in England, and have a vast knowlegde of firearms,ect. I am around them daily, as a career and personal passion.

Anywho, touching back on topic of firearms in the UK, well they are actually not that hard to aquire, there is several well known "UNDERGROUND ARMS DEALERS" in England, 2 of which i know personally, are located in Southampton, but no names will ever be used, for safety issues to them. But yes , getting a gun in England is as simple as two phone calls and approx 190pounds. Hope im not annoying too many people, but gotta start somewhere.

Yes he has LOTS OF GUNS, he is prob as well armed as the Canadian Army LOL.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
It has been proven that murderers are not deterred by the possibility of their own death. Someone who is breaking in to your home to kill you isn't going to think twice about doing it because you may be armed. Guns are not a deterrent to violent crime; that has been proven medically and it is proven empirically too. When a population arms itself, the crime rate generally rises rather than drops. The most armed populations of the world are more likely to die violent deaths than less armed populations. Compare Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg with Copenhagen or even London and then tell me guns are a deterrent.

The main point here though is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that you are ever going to be in a position where your life is threatened by an intruder. If you ever have the misfortune of having an intruder in your house, he's more likely to want to steal your possessions than your life and if he is armed he's more likely to shoot at you if you pull a gun on him. So, the chances of you ever using your gun to defend yourself are remote and once you do pull a gun, you're raising the stakes in a way that may not be favourable to you. On the flip side, the chances of there being an accident involving your gun are far less remote.

It has been proven also that most houses don't burn down. Do you carry insurance on your home?

Anyway, this is an ideological argument. If you or anyone doesn't believe that defending yourself is a good strategy, then by all means adopt a pacifist position to crime. Roll out the welcome mat. Nobody will force you to defend your home.

However, passing laws that criminalize self defense is wrong.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It has been proven also that most houses don't burn down. Do you carry insurance on your home?

Anyway, this is an ideological argument. If you or anyone doesn't believe that defending yourself is a good strategy, then by all means adopt a pacifist position to crime. Roll out the welcome mat. Nobody will force you to defend your home.

However, passing laws that criminalize self defense is wrong.

Which law criminalizes self defense?

I just love how Americans love to make wars out of everything.
War on Crime
War on Drugs
War's on other countries.

All have been lost or been lossing for years.

[BC_SIG]

Hey, I may own a couple hundred, yes, a couple hundred. Well personally I own 413 firearms. tho total house can adds up to approx. 1200 or so. We use them all in a responsible manner, for target shooting & hunting purposes. Tho I know few that hunt with a AR-15 LOL. Anywho I belive, as Limey just stated, that defending what is your's, is a MUST. Tho the extreme's some would go to to accomplish that can be scary, mine however is a 12ga. Remington 870 with Bean Bag Rounds as a last defence, first defense is either a can of mace or traditional baseball bat. Tho my area of the burbs, crime is minimal, to petty vandilism, mainly bored "HARDCORES" seeking attention & pathetic Vehicular B&E's, Ive fallen victim too them several times now.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Hey, I may own a couple hundred, yes, a couple hundred. Well personally I own 413 firearms. tho total house can adds up to approx. 1200 or so. We use them all in a responsible manner, for target shooting & hunting purposes. Tho I know few that hunt with a AR-15 LOL. Anywho I belive, as Limey just stated, that defending what is your's, is a MUST. Tho the extreme's some would go to to accomplish that can be scary, mine however is a 12ga. Remington 870 with Bean Bag Rounds as a last defence, first defense is either a can of mace or traditional baseball bat. Tho my area of the burbs, crime is minimal, to petty vandilism, mainly bored "HARDCORES" seeking attention & pathetic Vehicular B&E's, Ive fallen victim too them several times now.

See there are well armed Canadians, armed enough for all of us lol

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by badidea:
Well, I don't know if they can go off by simply dropping them but I once went out in the field shooting with my two cousins from Atlanta, Georgia. We had a '22 rifle, a '22 revolver and a Magnum45 with us. I really liked the semi automatic Magnum...until the moment when it went off without me pulling the trigger!!
If I am not mistaken, the safety goes off in the moment you grab the gun because it is not some kind of switch but a kind of bar that gets pressed when you hold it in your hand!?
Luckily nobody was hurt because we always followed the most important rule: NEVER EVER POINT THE GUN AT SOMEONE!

This was the last time I touched a gun and I will not do it again - too dangerous!!!

It sounds like you are talking about a Glock, which doesn't have a positive safety. Personally, I think that is a bad design, especially in the hands of a klutz who puts his finger on the trigger when he isn't planning to shoot. That design was designed originally for the police and military, who keep their weapons holstered until they are ready to use them, and who are trained not to put their fingers on the trigger until they are ready to fire. They aren't meant to be toted for long periods in the hand.

Most decent handguns have a safety that positively blocks the firing pin. In order to disengage it, you rotate a lever (or similar action) that uncovers the firing pin. Until that is done, the weapon physically cannot discharge. The Beretta 92F (AKA the M9) that I carried for several years in the Army was of that type. You could drop it off a cliff and it wouldn't go off.

As with any tool, it is always possible to mishandle it, or misuse it. If you go to any hardware store, you will find shelves of power tools that are quite lethal to their owners if misused or handled carelessly. Guns are no different in that they should be handled with care and preferably, after training. If you handle a gun so stupidly that you discharge it accidentally, i have no sympathy if you manage to hurt yourself. No more than if you saw your thumb off mishanding a band saw.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Which law criminalizes self defense?

Britain's.