Do You Own a Gun ??

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yep. Bunches. Sporting guns, and couple just because they're neat.

 

That ARWEN sounds cool. I thought you could buy 37MM smooth bore guns? I wonder if you could get similar riot control weapons? I'd feel better if I got rid of all my lethal ammo, and it would be good to have SOMETHING to shoot the coyotes with. (Although I'd feel better if they just died, frankly.)

 

TFS

[CraigD]

If you feel so threatened that you need to buy a gun then something is sick in your society.

I don’t this inference is valid. Feeling threatened is, I think, more a matter of individual psychology than the health of a society as a whole.

 

People who feel so threatened that they feel compelled to keep a gun falls into 2 subclasses:

• Those who actually are at risk, for whom having a gun may actually reduce their chance of being harmed;
  
• Those who are not actually at risk, for whom having a gun does not reduce their chance of being harmed, and may actually increase it.
  

Although unusual, there are many people in the US and other countries who fall into the first subcategory - former spouses of dangerously violent people for example example. Such people may be at hundreds or thousands of times greater risk of injury or death than the average (which, on average and rounding to the nearest power of approximately 1 in 10,000). Responsibly having a gun, or a hoshold member having a gun – which includes training and properly securing the gun – can dramatically reduce the likelihood of such at-risk persons being injured or killed.

 

People in the second subcategory are, by definition, suffering from a disorder of rational thinking. This particular disorder is easy to succumb to, due in part to a lack of understanding of probability on the part of a large majority of even well-educated people nearly everywhere. Even if presented with an accurate, statistically sound analysis of the change in likelihood of significant events - such as being robbed, raped, or murdered, or having same happen to a household member – showing that various modes of gun ownership – in ones dwelling only, concealed at all times on ones person - does not reduce or even increases the likelihood of these events, in addition to introducing new risks – such as being robbed for ones guns, or a gun falling into the hands of an unqualified child - the emotional nature of considering such scenarios tends to cause people to discard even information they acknowledge is accurate and statistically sound, and make decisions based on “gut” emotional instinct. The image of one or one’s loved ones being under the power of a reprehensible criminal, even if exceeding unlikely, is so powerful that many people allow it to override their reason.

 

The unbalancing effects of emotionally intense images are not alone in contributing to this disorder. Information sources ranging from books and movies (including those appropriate for young children), print and television news reports, commercials for self-protection products and services, peers, and even internet threads like this one, can contribute to the forming of irrational beliefs about real-life risks.

 

Importantly, I think, these internal and external factors leading to the inaccurate and irrational assessment of risk affect not only ordinary people seeking only to protect themselves, but criminals and law enforcement agents who have guns, increasing the likelihood that they will use them to unnecessarily injure or kill.

 

By addressing the factors that contribute to the disordering of reason in choosing to have and use guns, I believe gun-related and other violence can be reduced far more effectively than simply lowering the rate of gun ownership.

 

Data measuring gun ownership and gun-related death rates are encouraging. The following data, compiled from Lists of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that while the US does have the highest gun-related death rate of nations for which data is available, it does not have the highest household gun ownership rate, and suggest that, while there is a rough correlation between these two data, other factors significantly affect the risks and benefits of guns.

 Gun-related    Household gun 
deaths/100000  ownership/100  Country
-------------  -------------  -------
15.22          32.00          United States
14.15          NA             Brazil
12.74          NA             Estonia
12.07          NA             Mexico
9.19          NA             Argentina
6.86          24.00          Finland
6.82           8.40          Northern Ireland
6.40          35.70          Switzerland
6.35          18.60          France
4.78          19.10          Canada
4.56          14.30          Austria
4.39          31.50          Norway
3.72          13.80          Portugal
3.48          16.50          Belgium
3.07          NA             Slovenia
3.00          NA             Israel
2.95          16.00          Italy
2.94          10.00          Australia
2.66          26.20          New Zealand
2.60          12.40          Denmark
2.36          16.90          Sweden
1.57           9.20          Germany
1.50          NA             Greece
1.25          NA             Kuwait
1.21          NA             Ireland
1.21          NA             Hungary
0.90          12.70          Spain
0.70           1.90          Netherlands
0.58           3.30          Scotland
0.46           3.40          England and Wales
0.42          NA             Taiwan
0.24          NA             Singapore
0.19          NA             Mauritius
0.19          NA             Hong Kong
0.13          NA             South Korea
0.07           0.60          Japan 

This data in mind, I’m better equipped to respond to other points.

But neither of us live in the crazy world of the USA.

Though we do top the list for gun-related death rate, the rate – 15.22/100,000 – is still very low compared to disease and other less scary causes. At least with regards to gun violence, for the large majority of people, the USA’s not that crazy a place.

Compare the States with Canada.

Forget Canada, with its gun death rate only 69% lower than USA’s – if you want to minimize your risk of gun-related death, Japan’s - with one 99.5% lower - the country for you!

 

Though you Aussies and Kiwis have reason to be proud of your 81% and 83% sub-USA gun death rates – especially the Kiwis, who have only a 18% lower rate of gun ownership! :)

[Jay-qu]

There was a shooting in Melbourne today - in broad daylight in the middle of a street, I cant remember anything like this ever happening before.. apparently the gunman has been ID'd and has a previous police record. There is now a search underway across three states :)

[Michaelangelica]

Gun-related Household gun

deaths/100000 ownership/100 Country

------------- ------------- -------

15.22 32.00 United States

14.15 NA Brazil

Japan [/code]This data in mind, I’m better equipped to respond to other points.Though we do top the list for gun-related death rate, the rate – 15.22/100,000 – is still very low compared to disease and other less scary causes. At least with regards to gun violence, for the large majority of people, the USA’s not that crazy a place.Forget Canada, with its gun death rate only 69% lower than USA’s – if you want to minimize your risk of gun-related death, Japan’s - with one 99.5% lower - the country for you!

 

Though you Aussies and Kiwis have reason to be proud of your 81% and 83% sub-USA gun death rates – especially the Kiwis, who have only a 18% lower rate of gun ownership! :)

Your logic is insane.

Disease?

Getting shot is NOT a disease!!

This is sooo sick

Your interpretation of statistics is wrong.

Your OWN statistics show the states has the highest gun ownership and the highest death rate.

 

I know I am not going to change you mind but you are all CRAZY!! in the USA!!!

Some facts

Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States and have killed more than 30,000 people every year since 1972 (4).

 

Firearms increase the lethality of violent incidents and are associated with roughly 70% of all homicides and 60% of all suicides; among youth aged 15 to 19 the proportions are even higher (80% and 68% respectively; 5 and 6).

 

In 1998, homicide was the leading cause of death for black and the second leading cause of death for Latino males aged 15 to 34. For both groups, firearm injuries were the leading cause of homicide and legal intervention deaths (3).

Unintentional shootings constitute 1-2% of gun fatalities, with a staggering number of these being children. Within five years, firearms are expected to surpass motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among children (4).

 

In addition, there are roughly 84,000 non-fatal injuries to guns every year in this country. 20-25% of nonfatal gunshot injuries result in permanent, primarily neurological damage, in children (7).

 

Furthermore, survivors and their families endure lingering effects of firearm violence. Many survivors not only have to undergo months of reconstructive surgery and physical and occupational therapy, but also psychological counseling to deal with subsequent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, nightmares, insomnia, and emotional disturbances (8).

 

Such services are not without considerable financial expense. The average annual cost of firearm injury healthcare is $4 billion, with the estimated cost per fatal incident exceeding $14,000 (9). Without intervention, the prevalence of gun-related injury will increase significantly.

http://www.snma.org/downloads/snma_gun_violence.pdf

So how does buying more guns help?

You have been brainwashed by the people who sell guns.

You are so aware of this in other things; why so blind with guns?

You are all crazy!:eek: :hihi:

 

We are looking to tighten our hand-gun controls in Oz

 

Do USA stats include accident and suicide?

2005

A few months ago the the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that

the total number of gun deaths in Australia for year 2003, was 290.

This figure shows that there has been a great reduction in yearly gun

deaths since governments started to introduce stricter gun laws a

decade and a half ago. Here is the 2003 breakdown of gun deaths.

 

By Category:

* Accident 40

* Suicide 193

* Homicide 54

* Legal etc. 3

The total gun death figure of 290 compares most favourably with the

figures of the 1970's and 1980's when 700 was a typical approx. figure.

Thus we are witnessing the fact that because of the steady increase in

gun controls over 400 fewer Australian die from gun wounds each year

compared with two decades ago.

Gun Control Australia

more up-to-date figures here:-

The new laws specifically targeted mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, the weapon of choice in many such crimes worldwide. In the 1996-97 Australian firearms buyback, 643,726 of the newly prohibited guns were bought by the Government from firearm owners at market value, funded by a small surcharge on the Medicare levy. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily surrendered additional, non-prohibited firearms without compensation. All up, more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community and destroyed. No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale.

. . .

But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less mediagenic events, many of them in family violence. And it is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearm-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions, and perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.

 

Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths, suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings were slowly dropping. But after the tragedy, the rate of decline accelerated markedly. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot - an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.

 

Particularly in firearm homicide, the gun death that attracts most attention, the downward trend has been more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline that proved most remarkable, falling 70 times faster after the new gun laws than before.

A safer place after Howard's gun buyback - Opinion - theage.com.au

 

America is a strange, different country.

Full of strange people.

The world is shaking it's collective head in amazement as disbelief at your behaviour nationally and internationally.

Go on happily shooting each other.

It helps reduce global warming.

Talk about it among yourselves.

When will the next massacre happen?

[InfiniteNow]

I know I am not going to change you mind but you are all CRAZY!! in the USA!!!

And we own guns, punk... So you'd better back-up off us! :)

 

 

:hihi:

 

 

Did the ape protecting his territory with a stick reproduce more often than the ones trying to protect theirs with yells?

[Star30]

YES! Why? Sport, Comfort, I personally feel having a weapon enables me to protect my family, my self, my neighbors (unless they are the perpetrator). It is my right as an American. You never know what is going to happen from one day to the next. Home invasions happen and should it happen to us we are prepared.

Before my father died, one night the dogs were barking and we thought someone was outside. Well, we lived about 75 yards from the main road and 400 - 600 yards each other way from our neighbors. If something happened noone would hear a thing. So, he pulled out his 357 hand gun. It was loaded with different ammunition. Two bullets were made with shot, the next was a regular bullet, and the rest were hallow point. I asked him why and he said the first one is to scare him, the next is to warn him, the third is to wound him and if he keeps coming the rest are to kill him.

About a year or two before that I was living in Hawaii. I was in the driver seat of a car stopped at a red light. All of a sudden I hear a bashing sound. I look over my shoulder and 1 lane over 2 cars back there were 2 or 3 locals with baseball bats bashing someone's car and the driver too. I was scared to death, I didn't have a gun with me. I was thinking oh my what am I going to do to help this person? What can I do? Then it hit me, what if they come to my car and then I prepared to take off out of the intersection if they came close.

What if our family go on a road trip, we stop in Kentucky or Tennessee? What if we are having a picnic when a bear comes strolling out of the woods to eat us? CRAZY you think? It has happened. Maybe a year ago a bear bit a little toddler, the mother and then when the little sister ran off to get away the bear ran after her... Do you think our society is going to regress? I don't think we are going to start pulling the highrise buildings down and stop going into the woods. We need to be educated and safe people. Each of us have different experiences and different views there after. Just keep an open mind.

[DougF]

Sometimes even I listen to the wrong propaganda, it's OK you can believe whatever you want this is the USA and you do have that right. :eek:

and they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.:)

 

 

 

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

 

Friday, September 22, 2006

 

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

 

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million.

 

The news media often characterize violent crime as a primarily gun-oriented problem, but the FBI’s report showed that only one in every four violent crimes in 2005 was committed with a gun. In 2005, as in previous years, most violent crimes were robberies and aggravated assaults, most of which were committed with knives or bare hands.

 

Recently, anti-gun politicians and activists have intensified their rhetoric over the “lack” of bans on handguns, so-called “assault weapons”, and .50-caliber rifles; gun registration, gun owner licensing, and mandatory background checks on sales of guns between friends and family members; and limits on the frequency of gun purchases, all of which they say are necessary to reduce the nation’s murder rate. But for the last seven years, the murder rate has been steady¾in the 5.5-5.7 per 100,000 population range¾at all times lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. In 2005, for example, the murder rate was 5.6.

 

Naturally, anti-gunners will downplay the downward trend in violent crime since 1991, and focus on the fact that the FBI’s report showed a 1% increase in total violent crime, and a 2% increase in murder in 2005, compared to 2004. But those changes are miniscule, compared to the huge decrease in crime over the last 14 years.

 

The FBI’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.

 

As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of “first place” in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland’s high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an “assault weapon” ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.

 

The FBI’s report must have displeased New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg ®. Despite the mayor’s recent posturing on the gun issue, and his self-laudatory comments about fighting crime, the Big Apple’s murder rate was more than double that of the rest of the state. Similarly, in Philadelphia, where anti-gun politicians are calling for a statewide one-gun-a-month law, the murder rate was more than seven times higher than the rest of Pennsylvania.

 

Adding to the reasons why voters should “Dump Doyle” in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election, their state had the greatest total violent crime rate increase (15.1%) between 2004-2005. Murder was up 25.2%; robbery up 11.2%; and aggravated assault up 20.2%. Wisconsin is one of only two states that prohibits Right-to-Carry entirely, but in 2005, 11 of the 12 states that had the greatest decreases in total violent crime, and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states. The seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates in 2005, and 11 of the 12 states that had the lowest murder rates, were Right-to-Carry states.

 

Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and “Castle Doctrine” movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida’s 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state’s landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.

 

 

NRA-ILA :: Legislation

 

 

Gun control laws may be partly at fault in massacre

 

By John R. Lott Jr.

 

The tragic attack on Wednesday at Windy City Core Supply left six people murdered. What can be learned from the attack? Acting Chicago Police Supt. Phil Cline was already being described in the press as taking ''a swipe at lenient U.S. gun controls.''

 

The attack took place in a city where new handguns since 1982 are already banned, a giant so-called ''gun-free safe zone.'' Yet, consider the following: Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying ''This Home is a Gun-Free Zone''?

 

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens--not would-be criminals--would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

 

Fortunately, legislators around the country are realizing this. In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws--laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 35 states. In a new book, The Bias Against Guns, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and I examine multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and find that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

 

No other gun control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.

 

Gun control laws may be partly at fault in massacre

 

 

U.S. Gun-Control Laws Don't Save Lives - The Last Word

 

For instance, it does not require overcredentialed academics to commit study after study to conclude whether the graphic violence that is routine on television and in the movies has an effect on young viewers: It unarguably affects them. At the very least it dangerously denies the pain that always is part of violence in the real world.

An even more obvious area of attention is firearms. To those of liberal piety, gun control is not just the first commandment but all 10 (they have tossed the Biblical version over the side anyhow). Rid America of the curse of firearms, they loudly proclaim, and no one ever need lock his doors at night. That's nonsense. Gun control as these zealots conceive it would be effective only in disarming the law-abiding.

 

U.S. Gun-Control Laws Don't Save Lives - The Last Word Insight on the News - Find Articles

 

 

 

There is more like this, but I think I made my point. :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

What's the difference between your two affirmative options (choices 1 & 3)?

 

Still waiting for clarification.

 

Was Jay-qu's supposition accurate?

[Star30]

For leading causes of death in the US Please see: cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

I actually think there are more accidental health/surgery related deaths.

[InfiniteNow]

For leading causes of death in the US Please see: cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

I actually think there are more accidental health/surgery related deaths.[/QUOte]

While this may be true, I believe most individuals go into surgery with a certain degree of understanding of the risk involved. They also are asked to read a detailed description of what the risks are, how they may manifest, and are asked to sign off that they understand them. I'm not so sure that everyone who gets shot has such an ability to make a personal decision which would ultimately effect this outcome.

[Zythryn]

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

 

Friday, September 22, 2006

 

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high....

 

Doug, while I won't disagree with the facts you listed. Correlation does not prove a cause effect relationship.

Another interesting correlation is that 1991 was 18 years after Roe vs Wade allowed states to decide if abortion was legal or not. New York city was one of the first to legalize abortion. It was also one of the first to reflect a lower crime rate in the early 90s. Just as easily as saying the drop in crime was due to more guns, one could say the drop in crime was due to fewer unwanted children.

Please note, I am not proposing this is the reason, and I DON'T want to sidetrack this thread (if someone wants to start a different one that is fine;)).

I am simply saying that the argument based on that correlation (more guns less crime) doesn't mean anything unless backed up with additional data.

 

Michaelagelica, I don't think the implication was gun deaths and not significant. What was said was that the number of deaths is actually a very low percentage. Yes, it is a higher percentage than other countries. No, it is not higher for the general populace than disease or other causes. So while there is some logic in being afraid of being shot, there is more logic in being afraid of cholesterol:hihi:

[HarmonyAlexandria]

Guns should be banned, but I have one.

 

My neighborhood is nice, but we are crammed in tight, 2 miles in Chicago is a very long ways, and I do get around to different neighborhoods.

 

Now that it's summer if I go outside my girlfriend's apartment between 3:30-5 am, I will hear automatic gunfire in the distance.

 

I've seen someone get shot dead in a club before, , had to dive for cover a few times because people were shooting, and I'm a girl...really bad things could happen to me if I meet the wrong person at the wrong time.

[Star30]

Zythryn, I agree with what you are saying indirectly. InfiniteNow, that's not what I was saying. Give me a break.

Do you think that our Health Care System makes no mistakes? Do you think that everyone is as educated as yourself or more going into surgery? Do you think everyone listens and comprehends to the full extent what is going to happen? Do you think it is possible that patients put their lives in the surgeons hands expecting they know what they are doing with unrealistic expectations of pulling out with no complications?

Whether it be a GUN, a knife, a baseball bat, a car anything can be considered a weapon. Take the recent killings at Virginia Tech, Cho would have found a weapon if Guns had not been available. Mental Illness was the underlying cause. In my opinion had Cho not been able to obtain the Guns he possibly could have done more harm in another way.

 

Education and giving a damn will make a difference.

[DougF]

Doug, while I won't disagree with the facts you listed. Correlation does not prove a cause effect relationship.

Another interesting correlation is that 1991 was 18 years after Roe vs Wade allowed states to decide if abortion was legal or not. New York city was one of the first to legalize abortion. It was also one of the first to reflect a lower crime rate in the early 90s. Just as easily as saying the drop in crime was due to more guns, one could say the drop in crime was due to fewer unwanted children.

Please note, I am not proposing this is the reason, and I DON'T want to sidetrack this thread (if someone wants to start a different one that is fine;)).

I am simply saying that the argument based on that correlation (more guns less crime) doesn't mean anything unless backed up with additional data.

 

Michaelagelica, I don't think the implication was gun deaths and not significant. What was said was that the number of deaths is actually a very low percentage. Yes, it is a higher percentage than other countries. No, it is not higher for the general populace than disease or other causes. So while there is some logic in being afraid of being shot, there is more logic in being afraid of cholesterol:hihi:

Yes! I agree with you, this does not prove a cause effect relationship.

Stats like that are a little bit harder to find, (on this subject anyway)

but it is food for thought.

[InfiniteNow]

Guns should be banned, but I have one.

 

My neighborhood is nice, but we are crammed in tight, 2 miles in Chicago is a very long ways, and I do get around to different neighborhoods.

 

Now that it's summer if I go outside my girlfriend's apartment between 3:30-5 am, I will hear automatic gunfire in the distance.

 

I've seen someone get shot dead in a club before, , had to dive for cover a few times because people were shooting, and I'm a girl...really bad things could happen to me if I meet the wrong person at the wrong time.

 

I think that, despite Chicago having a unique personality and culture, it has many parellels with other big cities across the planet. Decreasing resources, decreasing levels of comfort and calm, increasing anxiety and violence.

 

Any of us can be at the "wrong place at the wrong time," and I certainly hope that anyone reading this be safe, as well as those with whom they share love and affection. I also understand the intrinsic desire to protect oneself... to have "at the ready" a greater "counter weight" to sway potentially disasterous odds in your favor. What I'm curious about is your first line... The two parts there seem in opposition to one another. To be clear, I'm not attacking, am not a strong advocate or opponent of firearms, and am being cautious to come across kindly, but perhaps you can explain how you justify wanting guns to be banned but feeling a need to have one at the same time.

 

I think it's perhaps yet another example of how we so often have our natural instincts and expressions legislated against. :D

[Moontanman]

I own a twelve gauge marine magnum. I keep it loaded with five 000 buck magnum shells. I was raised around guns and I am completely comfortable with them I bought both my sons a gun when they turned 12 and taught them how to use it safely. Both have been successful hunters from the start. God needs to help anyone who would break into their homes because my sons wouldn't. I have taught them it is wrong to shoot and not mean to kill. But it is even worse to kill for any reason other protecting you own life or the life of another. Property is never worth killing over. Things can always be replaced, a human life can never be recalled. As animals we feed off the death of something, even Vegans have to kill plants to live. No one should ever trivialize death or killing. Even killing an animal has a profound effect on all but the hardest hearts. I never kill an animal I don't intend to eat even fishing is catch and release unless I intend to eat them. Then I kill the fish in the most humane possible way. The main reason I keep a gun these days if for home defense. Since I don't live in one of the rich enclaves where the police show up almost before a crime happens I have to be prepared to understand that I can get a pizza faster than I can get the police. If some one kicked down my door with the intent of doing me or my wife harm the police would get there in time to question any survivors. I intend to make sure my wife and I are the survivors being questioned. I used to have a nine mill hand gun and I was a pretty good shot but it became obvious to me that a hand gun was more dangerous to me than it was to criminals and more likely to have to be used. The act of pulling down the slide on a twelve gauge pump will cause most reasonable men to run for their lives. Pistols are a little less convincing too easy to use, too easy to steal, and too easy to accidentally shoot your self or someone you don't want to shoot. In my state I can carry a concealed hand gun but since I got rid of my Smith and Wesson Nine Millimeter I haven't carried a gun out into public. So far I haven't been in a situation where I felt the need for it but three times and I was able to talk my way out of the situation with out violence all three times. Having my two sons with me helped a little bit:hihi: If you choose to have a gun, please get the right training so you are comfortable with it. Don't get one with the idea of using it for intimidation. If you cannot shoot it you don't need it and it will be used to beat you to death in an emergency. Go to your local police gun range and get the police officers to help you learn. If that not possible go to a gun range that is frequented by police officers. The police know their stuff and will not lead you astray when it comes to fire arms. I sent my wife to concealed carry classes and the police officer went around to the women inspecting their guns. Fully half were sent home because either they or their husbands had bought them cheap toys that were more likely to harm themselves than any criminals. He picked out my wife as having the best pistol there. He told her "Your husband must really want you to survive a criminal encounter, that gun is on of the best I've seen and the safest" I tell you that because cheap Saturday night specials are dangerous to you more so than the criminal. A gun should have an easy reliable safety. A good safety is the most important thing, you don't need a huge 44 magnum, a nine millimeter SW or .45 Army Colt are two of the safest guns you can have. The most important thing to remember if you have the responsibility of carrying a gun is to act like you don't have it. Avoid confrontation just like you would if you were unarmed. Don't even consider using it unless you are forced to do so with no other reasonable options. Oh yeah, my wife passed the course with flying colors, the officer who trained her told her she should post her target up on the outer glass door to our house to show any would be home invaders what they are up against!

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

Your logic is insane.

Disease?

Getting shot is NOT a disease!!

This is sooo sick

Your interpretation of statistics is wrong.

Your OWN statistics show the states has the highest gun ownership and the highest death rate.

 

I know I am not going to change you mind but you are all CRAZY!! in the USA!!!

 

http://www.snma.org/downloads/snma_gun_violence.pdf

So how does buying more guns help?

You have been brainwashed by the people who sell guns.

You are so aware of this in other things; why so blind with guns?

You are all crazy!:cup: :D

 

We are looking to tighten our hand-gun controls in Oz

 

Do USA stats include accident and suicide?

 

Gun Control Australia

more up-to-date figures here:-

 

A safer place after Howard's gun buyback - Opinion - theage.com.au

 

America is a strange, different country.

Full of strange people.

The world is shaking it's collective head in amazement as disbelief at your behaviour nationally and internationally.

Go on happily shooting each other.

It helps reduce global warming.

Talk about it among yourselves.

When will the next massacre happen?

 

Actually all across the US where concealed carry laws have been passed both crime and gun deaths have gone down. Criminals don't feel comfortable shaking down someone who might be armed. When we ban guns the only people who turn in their guns are honest law abiding citizens. Criminals keep their guns and never seem to have problems getting new ones. I freely admit the USA is an odd place. No where else in the world could a foreigner who doesn't speak the language driving lost in a huge RV be taken in by a whole neighborhood treated to the best time of their lives. Provided with free power hook ups and invited to eat dinner at different houses every night. I've seen it, the visitors were Muslims visiting our country for the first time and they were taken in a made a part of the community for several weeks until they could get their RV back in running order and be on their way. Yes we are an odd country, we always help the underdog, we send our own sons and daughters to be killed helping complete strangers over throw tyrants. Sometimes it turns out bad but if not for our country the 21 century would be a very much different place. I say that not to brag but to state a simple truth. We didn't have to fight in WW 2. We could have holed up in the western hemisphere and allowed the Germans, Italians, and Japanese to have their way with the world. And no we didn't do it by ourselves but without the US and the Soviets this world would not be what it is today.Yes we make mistakes, I am shamed by recent actions by my government but not by the men and women trying to do what they were mislead into doing. You would be amazed at how far Americans will go to keep from hurting others. All foreigners generally see are the Americans who think they are gods people. Less than 1% I would say are this way the rest are truly great people that would go to your aid no matter who you were or what your problem was. We are often criticized because we have nuclear weapons. It is sad we do but face if we didn't someone else would use them to get their way with the word. Knowing that attacking an ally of the USA will bring about devastating consequences does more to keep world peace than all the praying and wailing that has ever been done. Sadly some members of our government seems to have the idea of the USA being the worlds only Mega Super Power to mean we should change the world in our image. Very few of the real Americans feel this way and we will regain complete control of these clowns in the next few elections. It has already started and will come to be. Most of us feel it's time for the world to coexist without the powerful intimidating the weak. It's a strange concept and it will be difficult to gain the trust of the world but it is our goal and as Americans we seldom fail to reach a goal we really believe in. I love my country as I am sure everyone else does their own. But our crazy gun laws are part of who we are. Roving bands of people are not being gunned down in the streets all over the USA, some of the worse places are where guns are illegal. Guns are as much a part of being American as wine is to being French (we love the French by the way despite what some small numbers of tiny minded people have spread around the world) The French were there for us when we were breaking free of England, it's debt that can never truly be paid. We love the English, and the Australians. They are us in a very real way. I have always been fascinated by the middle east and would love to visit and explore that area of the world but I am also aware I would probably be killed if I went to a great many of those countries just because of religion and my governments support of a situation that not only I but a great many other Americans disagree with. But we bear the collective guilt so friendly travel to that part of the world is denied to us. I firmly believe the US, no matter how crazy, will eventually come down off it's high horse and realize the responsibility of being strong is to take care of the weak not conquer what is different. Far too many of us feel that way for those ideas not to take eventual control here. Very few countries have a mixed population like we do and get along so well. I have neighbors all within a kilometer of me that are black, white, oriental, Latin American, Middle Eastern, people of various European decent, and even people like me of native American decent who if anyone should be truly ticked off we have a reason to be. More churches of every imaginable religion with in walking distance and never does anyone harm anyone else because they believe differently. Personally I never give it much thought, I believe the Great Spirit watches over us all! so before you run around shouting fear and loathing because the USA has so much power. think of ways you can help us regain control of this crazy machine. We need real suggestions of how we can cooperate with the nations of the world to make it a better place for us all. At some point as bad as I hate to think of it the military power of the USA can be used to stop really terrible things that are going on around the world. Darfur comes to mind but the United Nations has to decide what is done about these things. The united nations has allowed countries that are more like cancers to wield influence to keep them selves in power while treating their own citizens like animals. We as human beings have to figure out a way to stop these things. Military action should always be the last resort but to say that it can never be used will allow governments to do things to their citizens that would make a stone cry. I have often used this thought experiment to give some idea of what a country is really like. what if tomorrow morning me and my family woke up to find our house had been transported by some unknown power to another country and a family from that country had taken our place in the USA. How would we both be treated? Would either family be suddenly dragged away and locked up or maybe even killed out right due to distrust that both sides couldn't get past. I've come to the conclusion that most of the world would do their best to make the new comers feel at home while they helped them get back to where they wanted to be. That might be naive on my part but I can't imagine most human beings wanting to hurt me or my counterparts transported to my country. I really don't think most humans think that way and those that do often wish they didn't have to. I'm betting less than 25% of the world would be a complete disaster to such a transfer and even those would because of myths and lies told by both sides due to simply not understanding each other. I grew up in the Mountains of West Virginia, people there just weren't mean even though we had a bad reputation for being thieves and murderers. No such things happened in the large area where I grew up and I grew up very poor. Subsistence farming and hunting and trapping wild animals for food and even clothing. So before we start rumors and innuendos about other peoples countries and religions lets find a way to be interested instead of afraid. And lets all start trying to think of a way the whole world can cooperate instead of consistently preparing for war. We as a planet need to start see space as the real final frontier. The Earth will not always be here for us, one day through natural disaster or manmade disaster the Earth will become uninhabitable. We need to start cooperating as a planet to get all our eggs out of this one basket and to cooperate in protecting our beautiful planet from things we can prevent. No matter how good we are eventually we will have to leave this place. I'd rather see us leave as a multicultural group intent on preserving what humanity is all about than one group taking off and waving bye bye to the losers in a race that should have been won by all.

 

Michael