'But the police are there to protect us!'

-_- Way to much text in all posts for me to answer to all your dumbness so I'll just limit myself to you PD.



Ops, my mistake, I thought you said that I said that the US had one of the largest populations etc.

Lets see then:

a) Yes, you are number 24. Then again, check the list, closely. Read the name of the countries and learn some basic geography and world history. You might notice that, except for Russia (which almost can't count), the US is the only large, rich country with that high murder rate until quite a bit down the list. Most of the other ones are small, and/or politically instable nations that suffer from various number of factors that give them a higher number.

b) When I check I can see that Mexico does allow one to bear arms, though it is not allowed for civilians to fire arms that are used, tested or in use of the Mexico military. My point is valid.

c) To allow one to fire a weapon is not the same thing as allowing you to walk around with it as a tool of "self-defense", which is not an acceptable reaso0n to get a license for a weapon. Too bad.



I get so tired when I hear people spouting this bullshit all the time. I mean, wth is wrong with you? I never said that the gun walks around killing people or that it controls peoples minds, making them kill.

What I am saying is that having a gun nearby will never make the situation safer, only more dangerous. You say you have them in self-defense? Tell that to the dude that got angry and snapped and gunned down the dude he was angry with. If no gun had been there, it'd most likely have ended in a fistfight, and no one would have gotten shot, hurt and maybe killed.

And you say that other things can be used to kill people with as well? Yea, but no one that goes outside with a hidden knife is ever thinking "hey, this is for self-defense", not unless you are completely retarded. Also, having a gun makes robbing people much more safer than having to get close to them to be any threat.

Self-defense? Ok, so if someone goes up to you and puts a gun to your face, you really think that even having a fucking tank in your pocket will help you? If you reach for it, you are DEAD. And as he is robbing you, he will also steal your gun, making the situation even worse.

Ok, so he has a knife. Unless he is stupid, you will not even realize he has it until he has put it to your throat, again making the gun useless.



What, you think people dun kill cause they are "good people"? Wrong, people avoid committing crimes cause they fear the punishment.

The murders are not carried out Cause of the gun, but With the gun. Again I say, if someone snaps and goes into berserker rage, do you think it is most likely that he will kill you if he has a gun or if he is unarmed? Even with a simple misunderstanding, a gunshot can fly, something that would not have happened if no gun were there.




Huh? Again you're just spouting bullshit. The gun will always be more lethal than the knife, since it does not matter if you try to run away (unless you're a ninja). The fact that anyone can carry a gun and not a knife, claiming it is for self-defense, it makes it even worse.

"But of course you believe guns can control minds and is the single contributing factor in homicide."

Ya, cuz that is what I said, even once, even anything close to it.

I can tell you this instead.

In my country, I can walk the streets without worrying, without even considering that any person around me carries a gun, cuz the chance of him/her doing it is close to none.

I dun have to worry that the drunk I pissed of at the party suddenly shots me, even if he might regret it the day after. He might hit me, but at least I'm not dead or badly wounded, and the chance that he will run around looking for a knife is slim as well.

Ethil...

1. Yes, The US is the only large industrialized nation with such a high murder rate. But again, Switzerland, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, all three industrialized, western nations that let the civillians have guns and yet, minuscule murder rates. guns might help crimes occur, but that's merely the symptom of socio-economic ailments. You can try and alleviate the pain of a malignant Cancer with painkillers, but that doesn't fix the still-present disease underneath. And besides, if I recall correctly, maniacs in China are racking-up the death tolls just fine with plain-pl kitchen knives.

2. Just an aside, it's only military calibers that are banned from civilian ownership in Mexico. which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Try that in America, and you still have the vast majority of gun crimes committed with rimfire-calibers.

3. Why is self defense not a good enough reason to get a 'license to own a gun'? a gun is the single most effective way to ward off an attacker, even if it isn't discharged. As I said before, conservative interpretation of FBI statistics indicates that more than a quarter-million potentially violent incidents are avoided because it is made known that the defensive party is in possession of a gun. And as to the situation you describe where you already have a gun pointed at you, that is why concealed-carry classes stress situational awareness. You would have already made him expose his intent and reacted to avoid the situation. Yes, sometimes it cannot be helped, but the majority of circumstances are not as you think. If you want to go advanced, then there are effective disarmament techniques.
And why is it ridiculous to think that a hidden knife cannot possibly be defensive? It fits better into a pocket than a gun, if it prints it looks like a cell-phone, and if you are ordered to hand over valuables it looks like you're getting a phone but you bring out the knife and (at least outside Europe where assist-deploy knives are legal)have it ready to go in one swift, fluid motion. You seem to like to spout hyperbole that comes largely from what you see in the media and films.

4. You speak of people killing each other over minor disputes just because guns are present. Now...before we had shall-issue concealed-carry here in Michigan (as well as many other states) we had groups like the Brady Campaign and Violence Prevention Center decrying that we would have blood in the streets and OK-Corral shootouts over parking spaces. Aaaaand guess what? Like I said, Michigan State Police statistics say not one CPL holder had his license revoked due to murder/manslaughter conviction.

5. "People don't kill because they fear the punishment."
Again, another statement based in ignorance. Maybe in Europe, among people you know, that is the case. But here in America, the vast majority of gun owners don't kill and rob because they respect the life and property of others. Not necessarily because they will be punished, but out of respect.

6. Again, you repeat your belief that carrying a gun for reasons of self defense is wrong. Care to elaborate please? Like I said before a Gun is a tool. It directs force up to a ranged distance to disable a potential threat. The definition of threat depends on the person using it, but again, the vast majority of people define a threat as someone who they genuinely fear will eminently commit bodily harm unto them.

Hey, keep this civil. I've never insulted you nor your opinions, so don't insult mine.



It's too bad you ignored a lot of our "dumbness". Most of us already tried to explain to you that there are outside factors that cause crimes. Also note how the homicide rates aren't specified towards gun use nor citizen on citizen (terrorist attacks contribute to the homicide rate). As for your part (c), please explain why it isn't an acceptable reason. The license is to CARRY a weapon, not to fire at will, there is no license to kill (that's available to the public)



How would you define safer? Instead of telling the dude that snapped, I'd tell the person he snapped at. Humans are fragile. You think a fist fight is safe? The reason why there are referees in boxing is to make sure no over serious damage results from a fight. People can die from punches. So with your hypothetical situation, I'd say that if the other guy had a gun, he could at least have a chance defending himself. Nobody ever said having a gun guarantees safety, but it sure as hell gives you a fighting chance.



If everyone in the city is carrying a concealed weapon in their pockets/purse, and their hands are already in their pockets/purse, would you, in a position of a robber, dare to approach anyone attempting to mug them? At any given second you try to mug someone, there will be a gun pointed right back at you ready to take you out.



... That's exactly our point. The knife response was mostly to your analogy of a "gun free world". You go to say how dangerous guns are, knives have the exact same potency for danger. Hell, the September 11 tragedy was due to a hold up with box cutters, and no guns involved. How does limiting the availability of guns help the crime rate? And to your scenario, if everyone was allowed to carry concealed weapons, criminals would have to be extremely irrational to attempt mugging. It's the fear of the possible victim actually carrying a weapon that can fight back that offers deterence.



I don't get your first sentence. So are you implying that good people murder? Or that accidents happen? And the second sentence, I don't agree. People avoid committing crimes because they wouldn't benefit from it. If a person knows he can rob a bank and get away with millions guaranteed, most would jump at the opportunity. Morals be damned. People don't avoid committed crimes because they fear the punishment. Punishment is a cost, if they see that killing the person is worth it (revenge for killing your parents for example) then they will murder.



Murders are also carried out with knives, poison, rope, bombs, and good will. If someone goes berserk, they will find other methods of committing murder. Hell, a berserk'd person has the strength to even bash a person's skull in with his fist.

The one that would fire a gun with a simple misunderstanding is what we call an unstable person. If you reading our "dumbness" earlier, there will be several statements on that.



How does being able to run away from knives make it less lethal? Doesn't matter if you can run from a knife, it can still be used for maim and murder. I also ask you, who can't carry a knife? Pocket knives are pretty common.



Guess what, I walk the streets without worrying also, and I'm living in one of the cities in the top 10 crime rates. Hell, some punks tried to mug me once pretending they had a gun, I just laughed at their face and continued walking. Why? Because I had my hands in my pocket and they didn't know if I was armed or not. That and even though you have this notion that we all carry weapons, we don't, and I knew for a fact that he didn't have a weapon.

Now, to continue with your situation. In your country, what is the crime rate? Do you have drug gang wars in your neighborhood? Is your country's prison population the largest in the world? That pissed off drunk guy, if he was really into it, a good punch in the temple would knock you out and then he'd be free to smash your face in, or he could carry a small pocket knife, butterfly knife, swiss army knife, all of which are easily put into the back pocket to stab you. Guns aren't the only means to murder.

Now, if your country was lenient on gun control, you'd be aware that he might have a weapon and he would be aware that you might have a weapon. In that situation, you'd both likely be civil instead of trying to piss each other off.

Well, I doubt you read any of this "dumbness" so I'm not even gonna conclude.

Actually, no, I'm not gonna read it all, cuz just reading some of it made me realize that you are one of those people that can not separate reality from fiction. "A fighting chance", lol. Thinking like that is what would make you end up with a bullet hole in between your eyes if you actually were robbed.

And hey, it's not like I dun understand that you want guns, weapons are fun. But thinking they do anything to make the situation safer for you, or that they are effective tools of self-defense is nothing but stupidity and ignorance.

Anyway, I'm done.

Haha, the ignorant never read. I already said I don't have a gun nor have any plans of getting a weapon.

Attack the arguments not the users Ethil.




One of those men would have had a knife or a "Black Jack" for "self defense" in lieu of a firearm. Also the occurrence of such "crimes of passion" are not as frequent as you would like to believe. More often than some guy losing his temper and shooting another guy, it's usually some battered housewife who shoots her husband as he's violently beating her.




Thank you Ethil, Apparently I'm completely retarded for trying to find a legal way of defending myself when I go into Chicago, New York or many other large crime infested cities. I'm banned from carrying a firearm while I'm working as it's illegal to carry one in a commercial vehicle and it's also illegal to carry them across state lines without permits or something to that effect.

Before you say "you'll just end up getting shot". At least a knife and my makeshift cudgel can protect me against anything outside of a gun. Yes, I know how to disarm somebody but, giving me a knife increases my chances of getting away alive.

Criminals will still get their hands on guns. I detailed it above. Gang bangers and their associated scum will buy illegal guns that are channeled from Mexico through the military handing them over to cartels who will then pass them on to their dealers who will sell them to anybody with enough cash. Another way guns will end up in criminal hands is corrupt cops selling evidence from the evidence lockers. Don't say it can't happen because it has.



Criminals avoid people who are openly carrying a firearm. The risk of the person fighting back is too great (unless the person is a crack addict or high on PCP and in that situation you'd rather be fighting a horde of zombies). Also the more guns in an area the more likely somebody can use their firearm to defend somebody else. There is a lot of evidence of events where people have used firearms to defend themselves (from store clerks being robbed) to people stopping a rape in progress or even assaults in progress. Lets end the demagoguery and argue by the use of empirical evidence, logic and facts.




You admit that crimes are committed with a gun but, not because of the gun. You keep arguing for the removal of guns despite that the crimes won't stop just the methodology. Gangs and dealers will still have access to guns. Gang violence won't diminish and that is a large part of our high homicide rates. Look at the American cities with the highest rates and look at the ones with the lowest rates. You'll see the connection.

'Zerker rage isn't a common crime. Even if the gun wasn't there, something else would be used, a knife, a fork, a tack hammer whatever. yes, a gun makes it easier but, is it really logical to disarm and entire country to make 'Zerker rage a little more difficult to commit? What about the increase in other crimes like home invasion?

Also Ethil Sweden doesn't have the rampant gang problems and low income problems that America has. You can feel safer in your country at night because your country is safer. You don't have to worry about Bloods, Crips, Folk Nation, La EME, Nuestra familia, Maniac Latin Disciples, Los Zetas,etc.

Macross made some very nice points in this post. You probably neglected to read it since it has an opposing point of view.

Yes, anyone's opinion unfitting of yours is wrong. Quite mature. I can see that you definitely meet the age requirement to be on this site.



Lol, just wanted to make sure since you said:



Made it sound like we were number one on the homicide rate... oh wait, you did say we were number one...



Doesn't matter. Again I quote your statement:



Your deduction should have meant that Mexico should be lower on the list since "1+1 usually equals 2". Or did you not think through this one too deeply?



Still the same age as the US for acquiring a firearm. According to your theory again, they should be at least be an equal on the charts, not 20 places below us, but if what sv says is true, then I guess I'm wrong.



Of course that's not what you're saying directly, but what you are saying is, is that just a presence of a gun can mean murder or no murder, but in fact, it shouldn't be the case.



Cause if there wasn't a gun, the guy couldn't have pulled a different weapon out of his ass to try and kill with. He would always engage in a fist fight.



And why not? Why can't a person think of it as a self defense weapon? Share your logic on why the person would be retarded.



Basic psychology. It's part of having a safety device in your home in the name of mental comfort. The thought of having a weapon to defend yourself can work wonders, and if that weapon can be used to bargain against a person who has broken into your home or to defend your family by firing it in case of an emergency, becoming more than just a mental comfort, then all the better.

There are many ways a worst case scenario can go down, and not all situation leaves you unable to pick up a firearm to defend you or your immediate peers.



This seems irrelevant to our argument.



Again, you only think of a gun as the only killing device in the world. If a person wants to kill, he will kill regardless of having access to a gun or not.



Apparently you like thinking small. Knives aren't the only things that can be turned into weapons. Look on the internet and you'll find millions of recipes for killing. Shit like bombs.



You make it sound as if a murder happens only because a person is in possession of a gun. But in reality it's because a person made a choice to kill and is the most convenient method. Convenience does not mean it is the single most influencing factor. The gun is just the first weapon that comes to mind. There are many other means to kill someone.



Sounds like blind naivety, or you don't have faith in your countrymen to be resourceful.

Holy balls this turned out to be long.

Wow. You admit to being 'pretty ignorant in general' about gun issues, then proceed to give an unsupported opinion. Hmm...


Well, I have evidence (I found a credible source). The National Self Defense Survey, a peer-reviewed survery put out by University of Florida's criminologist department in 1994, estimated that, nation-wide, there were around 2.5 million instances in which a firearm was used in self-defense. 15.7% were instances in which the 'defendant' genuinely believed they would die in the encounter. That's close to 400,000 lives potentially saved from the presence of a firearm. now, surely as the rate of violent crime has been declining, so has the incidence of firearms used in defense. But that's still a big marble to drop in the circle.

Well, recently, I learned that the UoF study I quote only had a 5000-large sample group. But even if the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) is only 5% of what the UoF stufy states, then the number of murders prevented still significantly outweighs the murders committed.

so apparently people don't think people should have the right to protect themselves how they want to.

Just because someone is part of the force (and kind of gun wielding service) will protect you. Its like that one stupid movie

"your lucky that your living next to a cop."

people will find ways to kill others. And just because your not suppose to have something doesn't mean it will prevent people from having it.

Guns can be very helpful in the right hand. Its like the bill in Hawaii. You can not talk on the phone while driving. Some people obviously can not do it, but because of these people they made it so no one can do it.

Its not like every person who owns a gun is a murdering psychopath.

Its like saying that violent video games WILL make kids become murderers.



simply because that's stupid. Not everyone can learn self-defence. And if you think about it. How is that better then owning a gun? People will be more likely to kill with their bare hands

Can I ask how that is true? Wouldn't forcibly injecting a chunk of metal into someones body would be more likely to kill than bare hands?

I am finding it difficult to make the connection. Can you explain it for me?

with pleasure

to eliminate one form of killing someone is not a done deal. As in Humans will find a way to kill other people. Just because a person can no longer use a gun to kill someone does not lessen their options of ways to kill.

or as in


human use anything they have at their disposal to benefit themselves. While a gun is the favored choice of killing. It is not limited to that.

Like how dynamite wasn't meant for killing people it eventually was used for it.

humans can make anything into a weapon. and fundamentally anything man mad is a weapon.

I must have misread your initial post. I had taken the statement as a claim that it is easier to kill a man with your bare hands than using a firearm. Technically a straight punch to the head or the throat can kill someone if enough force is exerted. Then we have various submission holds/chokes like the Guillotine, reverse naked, triangle,etc. Each of those chokes can kill someone if held too long.

Yes, you are right when you say that most self defense is moot when faced with a gun. However, I am a second degree black belt in martial arts, and have trained for 13 years (I'm 19 right now). This training has included informal training in the laws America has governing self defense (which are retarded, by the way).

Most self defense has nothing to do with defending yourself. Odds are, a person in America will never have a gun pointed at their face. Ever. Most of the time, those who do come face to face with a gun do so because they went somewhere that was a bad idea. (I live about an hour north of Los Angeles, CA, a place that has many 'bad' areas. I know the specific areas in my hometown, and the places in LA where I shouldn't go. If I do go there, and get faced with a gun, then shit. My bad.) Wherever you live, I am sure that there are places where you just don't go. It's a person's responsibility to make sure they stay out of those places, those situations. I know it sounds like a dick move, but that's how it is, at least where I come from.

And if you want to say something like 'a person shouldn't have to make sure they won't be attacked when they walk down the street at night' (first off, gg walking down the street at night, most likely alone), we *don't* live in the fantasy future of Star Trek, where everything is safe and dandy. At least not yet. Until the human race as a whole realizes the things it is doing wrong (i.e. murder, war, pollution, etc.), this is how it has to be. And no, I'm not a hippie. Hippies are cool people though.





And also:

Why the hell are you pissing off drunks? That's a bad idea, guns or no guns.