Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'd take my chances if in the very unlikely senario that I'm confronted with a gunman, drunk drivers or riders on the other hand dont often leave you with any. To mention just one threat someone under the influence can pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'd take my chances if in the very unlikely senario that I'm confronted with a gunman, drunk drivers or riders on the other hand dont often leave you with any. To mention just one threat someone under the influence can pose. I think it is safe to say that living on the Isle of Man the chances of you confronting a crazed gunman intent on shooting the first man he sees are indeed relatively low and the chances of you being able to load your own gun upon coming into contact with him are even lower. The less weapons in this world the better I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Obviously we are not really talking about the IoM. Originally I was responding to “the right to bear arms” comment, referring presumably to America’s 2nd amendment (sarcastically or not). For civilians here or in most of Britain carrying for personal protection is not good reason or legal, which is quite understandable. But if it were, I think you'll find many historic examples in other nations, where in the scenario you suggest, the odds are against the bad guy as they don’t suspect or see it coming from the civilians they set out to attack, especially from those in average civilian clothing such as concealed carry weapons holders in the US. However, again here it’s different and arguably not worth the risks. Indeed, were all entitled to our opinion. I tend to say not as we don’t reside in a perfect world, probably never will, so particularly not if it infringes on a good persons right to defend themselves. I’m also dead against stripping good peoples civil liberties, their choice of sports, recreation, or hobbies, and for me that it no way just applies to this. The media is largely responsible for portraying firearms and owners in a negative light, they have produced a widespread fear culture and hatred for ‘dangerous things’ very rarely do they publicize anything positive. Just look at this, pathetic nonsense. http://www.thisislon...ay-6435847.html "There is no link between Olympic-level shooting and crime. It's like saying that a thief would use a Formula One car as a getaway car." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 MDO, Yes it looks like a right PITA, a liability even. I am anti gun myself and anti violence. As most people are I to am anti violence, but not anti-gun, the sad fact is there will always be weapons in the hands of those who want to cause us harm for whatever reason, would you seriously deny yourself the ability to defend you and your loved ones in a nation where this is a constantly high threat?. Gun free zones in the US are proven killing fields. Virginia tech being a prime example. The only people free from guns in those places are the law abiding, not nut-job criminals. As far as bans are concerned, again they only impact the law abiding, look at all the handgun crime in the UK, I thought they were pretty much banned???. Ah yes, only from the law abiding. USA = 10.48 firearm related deaths/100,000/year England = 0.46 firearm related deaths/100,000/year Seems to me that this banning people from having weapons that kill, actually prevents deaths! who would have thought... Half the time it seems that americans end up accidentally shooting the very loved ones they intended their gun to defend. ( "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000" ) Just wondering, do those statistics take into account that the USA has a population 5 times that of the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Just wondering, do those statistics take into account that the USA has a population 5 times that of the UK? The per/100,000 was the giveaway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 MDO, Yes it looks like a right PITA, a liability even. I am anti gun myself and anti violence. As most people are I to am anti violence, but not anti-gun, the sad fact is there will always be weapons in the hands of those who want to cause us harm for whatever reason, would you seriously deny yourself the ability to defend you and your loved ones in a nation where this is a constantly high threat?. Gun free zones in the US are proven killing fields. Virginia tech being a prime example. The only people free from guns in those places are the law abiding, not nut-job criminals. As far as bans are concerned, again they only impact the law abiding, look at all the handgun crime in the UK, I thought they were pretty much banned???. Ah yes, only from the law abiding. USA = 10.48 firearm related deaths/100,000/year England = 0.46 firearm related deaths/100,000/year Seems to me that this banning people from having weapons that kill, actually prevents deaths! who would have thought... Half the time it seems that americans end up accidentally shooting the very loved ones they intended their gun to defend. ( "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000" ) Just wondering, do those statistics take into account that the USA has a population 5 times that of the UK? *face-palm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Just wondering, do those statistics take into account that the USA has a population 5 times that of the UK? They don’t need to MDO, if they were produced by an organization such as the GCN, it aint worth the paper it was written on. Or by anyone with any bias, as its all to easy to cherry pick what you add to the stats and what you decide to ignore. How many of those US deaths were suicides that would otherwise have been carried out differently (a rope and tree for example)?, armed robbers, attackers, home invaders... or idiots attacking armed police officers, and if the victims happened to be in the UK, would they have just ended up on the deaths by "other weapons" list instead?. In other words, would the attacker just have gone for a more readily available kitchen knife, claw hammer, crow bar, or baseball bat instead?. It doesn’t take a genius to realize there’s a lot more to it (assuming its even accurate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 The other side of the coin for once. England vs USA Gun control myths Thomas Sowell November 26, 2002 Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America. Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws. In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London. If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available." England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century. Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year." The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it. It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out. In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster. While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals. In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either. In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 It will be interesting to hear the outcome of the recent incident in California (about the worst place in America for a legal gun owner), I will make two guesses now, one the weapons used were not legal on in compliance with the states laws, and two that the school or university was another "gun free zone" (aka, killing field), such as Virginia tech, Columbine, and Fort Hood, incidentally the Fort Hood nutter was stopped by weapon that shouldn’t legally have been in the premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 For anyone who wants a laugh about guns, this is an old video that you may have seen before but it always makes me chuckle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwRjw8vZ3AE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 There are some funny vids there, here's a good one for a laugh, America's Hypocrites of gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 My video is funnier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 If your a dork! One of the reasons Hitler kept clear of Switzerland, why Switzerland have the lowest crime rates in the world, and why gun control advocates have a real problem with them. In fairness they have more things right with their population than most, which helps, however it's perfect proof that weapons are not the problem. Oh and regarding Rosie in the above video, blaming guns for violence is like “Rosie O'donald blaming her fork because she's fat”!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 If your a dork! One of the reasons Hitler kept clear of Switzerland, why Switzerland have the lowest crime rates in the world, and why gun control advocates have a real problem with them. In fairness they have more things right with their population than most, which helps, however it's perfect proof that weapons are not the problem. Oh and regarding Rosie in the above video, blaming guns for violence is like “Rosie O'donald blaming her fork because she's fat”!. I thought Hitler kept clear of Switzerland because it was neutral, had little offensive capabilities and alot of german money at the time was tied up in swiss banks - nothing to do with their gun ownership laws. To be honest with you, I'm a little concerned as to why you are so hell bent on legalising gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.