And as for roberries; well I think most are done not with the intent of killing the occupant of the property, more like without them even knowing.
That's probably the case in the UK.
Here in Texas robbery as a crime is often dealt equal or in many cases MORE severely than murder.
Example: My wife's uncle got out of jail 2yrs ago after doing 30yrs for robbing a convenience store...30yrs.
The point there is that criminals often have an incentive here not to leave witnesses because of the ridiculous amount of time they are going to get just for the robbery...often murders get less than armed robbers here.
So the idea that they wont shoot you if you don't shoot them is a bit misguided..at least over here it is...the convenience store down the street has been robbed at least 7 times...the deli I used to go into at lunch for work...the manager was shot and killed at 5am one morning and robbed of $50. He was shot "just because"...he gave the money without 'fighting' back and was shot anyway.
As I implied, trying to apply UK culture/society to US culture/society doesn't work.
If a criminal is facing 30-50yrs for robbery...he might as well go ahead and kill any witnesses...thereby giving him an extra chance of not being ID-ed.
To play Devils Advocate a little, maybe slenkar means that in the US, where guns are far more prevalent and easier to come by, the educating of kids about guns needs to start at an early age...?
To try and analogise it, as I see it anyway, here in the UK we are trying to combat teenage pregnancy by teaching kids as young as 5 about sex education. In the US maybe they are trying the same with guns?
Kind of like a "Stop Shooting" campaign on either side of the pond :D
slenkar?
Yes and no.
I believe that...
-Safety training is absolutely necessary.
-kids should not be allowed to own guns or be left alone with a gun until they are 16 at least. Kids under the age of 16 are very irresponsible and do silly things.
-I think kids should be exposed to guns on the shooting range so they get used to them , because I think as a people we need guns. In a perfect world we wouldnt need them, but in this real world of criminals and corrupt politicians we do need them.
The reason I say that, and I urge you to watch this documentary as I think it would really interest you, is that in Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore goes across to Canada where they have, IIRC, more or less the same gun laws as in the US. Yes, there are less people to get annoyed at over there, but even though many people own guns (I think it's a similar ratio to the US) there is virtually zero gun crime.
It's well worth watching that documentary, it certainly cemented in my mind the need for zero tolerance on guns in the UK. I don't think we're as laid back as the Canadians :-)
I really wouldn't watch that movie...and a movie it is not a documentary...and edited in such a way to make you think certain things happened which didn't...
"Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting."
Here in Texas robbery as a crime is often dealt equal or in many cases MORE severely than murder.
Example: My wife's uncle got out of jail 2yrs ago after doing 30yrs for robbing a convenience store...30yrs.
The point there is that criminals often have an incentive here not to leave witnesses because of the ridiculous amount of time they are going to get just for the robbery...often murders get less than armed robbers here.
So the idea that they wont shoot you if you don't shoot them is a bit misguided..at least over here it is...the convenience store down the street has been robbed at least 7 times...the deli I used to go into at lunch for work...the manager was shot and killed at 5am one morning and robbed of $50. He was shot "just because"...he gave the money without 'fighting' back and was shot anyway.
As I implied, trying to apply UK culture/society to US culture/society doesn't work.
If a criminal is facing 30-50yrs for robbery...he might as well go ahead and kill any witnesses...thereby giving him an extra chance of not being ID-ed.
Yep , should have made it clear that I was talking about the UK. Tbh regardless of what laws would be passed in the US, even if they were to introduce a 'no fireman' law people would ignore it , and in all likelihood many law enforcement officers wouldn't enforce it. It would turn out (at best) to be like another Prohibition fiasco, with people carrying on their lives as normal, but with criminals making tons of cash from the situation.
In all honesty I can't see anything ever being done to improve the situation in the US, but at least here in the UK we've had fair warning of where we could end up.
Yep , should have made it clear that I was talking about the UK. Tbh regardless of what laws would be passed in the US, even if they were to introduce a 'no fireman' law people would ignore it , and in all likelihood many law enforcement officers wouldn't enforce it. It would turn out (at best) to be like another Prohibition fiasco, with people carrying on their lives as normal, but with criminals making tons of cash from the situation.
In all honesty I can't see anything ever being done to improve the situation in the US, but at least here in the UK we've had fair warning of where we could end up.
Right, it is what it is at this point.
Prohibition in the 1920's/30's as you mention is a great example of how trying to outlaw something that is well established is futile...If I recall alcohol consumption actually increased during prohibition!
Bit like Marijuana use now being legalized in several states...they finally figured out it's impossible to police and they can actually tax the stuff/empty out the jails thereby saving tax payers even more money.
So you deny the general public the ability to disable a murderous psychopath?
You place your trust in the big brave police force to protect the public?
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, instead of filming those animals with cameraphones wouldn't it be better for someone to have pulled out a gun and blown their heads off?
So you deny the general public the ability to disable a murderous psychopath?
You place your trust in the big brave police force to protect the public?
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, instead of filming those animals with cameraphones wouldn't it be better for someone to have pulled out a gun and blown their heads off?
What's more scary? One murderous psychopath, or several million armed members of the general public? You've seen the poor standard of driving many people have on the road? Now imagine giving those same peope some basic firearms training and then putting a weapon in their hand. A weapon that can be lethal at ranges up to half a mile (I'm thinking stray bullet from a 9mm handgun here). Good idea? F U C K. T H A T.
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, instead of filming those animals with cameraphones wouldn't it be better for someone to have pulled out a gun and blown their heads off?
erm...they both were shot by police. And they both claimed they wanted to be shot, hence why they hung around at the scene and ended up charging the police car.
erm...they both were shot by police. And they both claimed they wanted to be shot, hence why they hung around at the scene and ended up charging the police car.
I think his point was...Perhaps if there had been an armed civilian at the scene initially the innocent guy would still be alive and the criminals would be dead...
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, instead of filming those animals with cameraphones wouldn't it be better for someone to have pulled out a gun and blown their heads off?
So the general public police the streets with loaded weapons? Yup, that would end well...
You're using extreme, incredibly rare cases to justify your standpoint. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you at all.
I think his point was...Perhaps if there had been an armed civilian at the scene initially the innocent guy would still be alive and the criminals would be dead...
fair enuff...well that's the entire argument in a nutshell really isn't it. in which case I agree with what Dave C just said
So the general public police the streets with loaded weapons? Yup, that would end well...
You're using extreme, incredibly rare cases to justify your standpoint. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you at all.
Well the number of gun accidents are equally incredibly rare considering the millions of guns in circulation...hence why it's all over the news when an accident happens.
So using that to justify the opposite standpoint of disarming/not arming is equally...silly.
I think his point was...Perhaps if there had been an armed civilian at the scene initially the innocent guy would still be alive and the criminals would be dead...
Or, it could have turned into a shoot-out resulting in many more people being killed. Because the police officers were trained firearms specialists they managed to shoot those two c*nts without hitting any bystanders. You think 'white-van-man' would be so careful?
Well the number of gun accidents are equally incredibly rare considering the millions of guns in circulation...hence why it's all over the news when an accident happens.
So using that to justify the opposite standpoint of disarming/not arming is equally...silly.
erm...they both were shot by police. And they both claimed they wanted to be shot, hence why they hung around at the scene and ended up charging the police car.
Yeah but what if the public had firearms when they started their attack, instead of filming it they could have helped prevent it and done society a favour into the bargain!
It's only a couple of plane crashes worth. Hardly worth mentioning is it?
But I admit in terms of the for vs against - it's not really part of the argument, no mater how tragic the circumstances
Right...and as for the stats of homicides...note, most of them are criminal on criminal homicides...which tends not to be mentioned when citing the numbers.
Oh darn...those poor criminals...someone get me a tissue.
Yeah but what if the public had firearms when they started their attack, instead of filming it they could have helped prevent it and done society a favour into the bargain!
Bullet's go through people - unless they are standing against a brick wall. There's a reason why the police have firearms training.
There are not 300 million gun owners in the us. Your just trolling now. :-D
gun population I said, not human population... There are an estimated 270-310 mil guns in circulation...obviously some people own more than 1...my ex father in law had about 30 and delighted in showing them to me with a glint in his eye.
Comments
That's probably the case in the UK.
Here in Texas robbery as a crime is often dealt equal or in many cases MORE severely than murder.
Example: My wife's uncle got out of jail 2yrs ago after doing 30yrs for robbing a convenience store...30yrs.
The point there is that criminals often have an incentive here not to leave witnesses because of the ridiculous amount of time they are going to get just for the robbery...often murders get less than armed robbers here.
So the idea that they wont shoot you if you don't shoot them is a bit misguided..at least over here it is...the convenience store down the street has been robbed at least 7 times...the deli I used to go into at lunch for work...the manager was shot and killed at 5am one morning and robbed of $50. He was shot "just because"...he gave the money without 'fighting' back and was shot anyway.
As I implied, trying to apply UK culture/society to US culture/society doesn't work.
If a criminal is facing 30-50yrs for robbery...he might as well go ahead and kill any witnesses...thereby giving him an extra chance of not being ID-ed.
Yes and no.
I believe that...
-Safety training is absolutely necessary.
-kids should not be allowed to own guns or be left alone with a gun until they are 16 at least. Kids under the age of 16 are very irresponsible and do silly things.
-I think kids should be exposed to guns on the shooting range so they get used to them , because I think as a people we need guns. In a perfect world we wouldnt need them, but in this real world of criminals and corrupt politicians we do need them.
There are lots of cases of guns saving the lives of the innocent and the criminal being incapacitated or killed
E.g.:
http://newsone.com/2125608/loganville-mother-shoots-home-intruder-paul-ali-slater/
In the UK that mother and her children would have been just another statistic.
just found another:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Prosecutors-Renton-woman-shoots-2-intruders-864729.php
Channel 4 and the BBC are only going to give you negative gun stories.
I really wouldn't watch that movie...and a movie it is not a documentary...and edited in such a way to make you think certain things happened which didn't...
"Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting."
it's as silly as that "loose change" 9/11 movie.
Yep , should have made it clear that I was talking about the UK. Tbh regardless of what laws would be passed in the US, even if they were to introduce a 'no fireman' law people would ignore it , and in all likelihood many law enforcement officers wouldn't enforce it. It would turn out (at best) to be like another Prohibition fiasco, with people carrying on their lives as normal, but with criminals making tons of cash from the situation.
In all honesty I can't see anything ever being done to improve the situation in the US, but at least here in the UK we've had fair warning of where we could end up.
Right, it is what it is at this point.
Prohibition in the 1920's/30's as you mention is a great example of how trying to outlaw something that is well established is futile...If I recall alcohol consumption actually increased during prohibition!
Bit like Marijuana use now being legalized in several states...they finally figured out it's impossible to police and they can actually tax the stuff/empty out the jails thereby saving tax payers even more money.
So you deny the general public the ability to disable a murderous psychopath?
You place your trust in the big brave police force to protect the public?
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, instead of filming those animals with cameraphones wouldn't it be better for someone to have pulled out a gun and blown their heads off?
What's more scary? One murderous psychopath, or several million armed members of the general public? You've seen the poor standard of driving many people have on the road? Now imagine giving those same peope some basic firearms training and then putting a weapon in their hand. A weapon that can be lethal at ranges up to half a mile (I'm thinking stray bullet from a 9mm handgun here). Good idea? F U C K. T H A T.
The latter obviously....problem with your question though is...there isn't just ONE murderous psychopath. ;)
erm...they both were shot by police. And they both claimed they wanted to be shot, hence why they hung around at the scene and ended up charging the police car.
I think his point was...Perhaps if there had been an armed civilian at the scene initially the innocent guy would still be alive and the criminals would be dead...
So the general public police the streets with loaded weapons? Yup, that would end well...
You're using extreme, incredibly rare cases to justify your standpoint. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you at all.
fair enuff...well that's the entire argument in a nutshell really isn't it. in which case I agree with what Dave C just said
Well the number of gun accidents are equally incredibly rare considering the millions of guns in circulation...hence why it's all over the news when an accident happens.
So using that to justify the opposite standpoint of disarming/not arming is equally...silly.
(and a bit of a double standard...)
Or, it could have turned into a shoot-out resulting in many more people being killed. Because the police officers were trained firearms specialists they managed to shoot those two c*nts without hitting any bystanders. You think 'white-van-man' would be so careful?
Not sure you can have a shootout when the crims are armed with machetes
Still about 1 a day though.
Only the goodies have guns, cool.
It's more like 1 per hour in the US. 10,000+ per year.
1 a day = 365....number of guns estimated in civilian hands in the US 270,000,000 to 310,000,000
...as I said, extremely rare ;)
...or how you define 'accidental'.
I had a quick Google and for 2010 in the us, accidents accounted for 600. A lot more fore homicides.
I believe at least one of them also had a gun.
So shoot him first while he is drawing it (trying not to spin the gun on your finger until you've dispatched the 2nd one ;) )
That's 0.00019999999999999998% when you apply it to the gun population around 300 million
So I'm going to revise my "extremely rare" statement to, "almost none existent as bearing any relevance on the argument for and against guns" :lol:
It's only a couple of plane crashes worth. Hardly worth mentioning is it?
But I admit in terms of the for vs against - it's not really part of the argument, no mater how tragic the circumstances
Yeah but what if the public had firearms when they started their attack, instead of filming it they could have helped prevent it and done society a favour into the bargain!
Right...and as for the stats of homicides...note, most of them are criminal on criminal homicides...which tends not to be mentioned when citing the numbers.
Oh darn...those poor criminals...someone get me a tissue.
There are not 300 million gun owners in the us. Your just trolling now. :-D
Bullet's go through people - unless they are standing against a brick wall. There's a reason why the police have firearms training.
gun population I said, not human population... There are an estimated 270-310 mil guns in circulation...obviously some people own more than 1...my ex father in law had about 30 and delighted in showing them to me with a glint in his eye.
stop trolling :D