Guns? Hunting? or ?

[azraelle]

Statistics in this country show that you have somewhere between a 1 in 4 chance and a 1 in 3 chance to get mugged, robbed, raped, or burglarized while you are still at home, at least once in your lifetime, by someone armed and willing to kill. My point was that if push came to shove, most people would rather get shot to death than get stabbed to death, if for no other reason than you will (usually) die faster with less suffering. A scholar by the name of Gary Kleck has done some rather massive research on the subject of deterrence, including extensive interviews with criminals behind bars, and what he found was that a person who put up a fight was less likely to die than one who wasn't, and that a person armed with a gun wasseveral times more likely to escape unscathed than someone armed with a knife (the next best thing according to his research). Which is why easily obtainable concealed carry permit laws really do work, and why over half of the states in the US have now enacted them.

[hoverfly]

Geeeeeeee..... Did I not say it is not the gun that is the cause of societies problems? In Britain you removed the gun out of the hands of the common man. Then way did the police shoot a common man because he had a gun. Forget the fact that he was committing a crime, he still had a gun. Where did the gun come from? It has been possible to remove the guns from small populated countries but try to remove 300 million plus guns form the United States. Most of them unregistered. The truth is gun violence deaths may be unfortunate but they are a small number of deaths. Don't blame the gun, blame your self.

[hoverfly]

On 2002-05-31 14:00, Trolldeg wrote:

So what Azraelle is saying is; it's no use to have laws against weapons, because if a person wants to kill, he will kill. Then we might aswell have no laws against drugs, because if a person wants to take drugs, he will take drugs.

And what about people who get killed by accident with guns purchased for family protection? Would they still find a way to kill themselves even if gun control was enforced?

You need laws, laws that are based on common sense. If you commit a crime then you should be punished. If you kill a family member by accident then you should be held responsible. If a family menmber kills them selves with a gun, where was the help/locks needed to prevent that? My self I would over dose on sleeping pills. What good is the law when there is a lack of enforcement? What good is the law when there is a lack of enforcement? It's a fact, the most written laws in the United Stats is.........GUN LAWS!!! See how effective they are?

Drugs. Here in the United States we could halved used the military to secure our borders and airports form drug smuggling a long time ago. We have enough laws, it's just that these laws are not enforced.

Here is one more thought, in a case when it comes to self defense you are all ways are a potential killer. With or with out a gun. It's killed or be killed. Sad but true. If you think we are civilized, buddy pull your head out of your but.

Don't blame the gun, blame your self.

_________________

Hello, my name is Hoverfly. I am a high heel addict…. Weeeeeeeeeee!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hoverfly on 2002-06-01 02:16 ]</font>

[terayon]

guns dont kill people, people kill people plain and simple and about drugs...i think that the US spending millions on "the war on drugs" is stupid....there are some drugs that are bad, but stuff like weed....thats stupid...they should legalize weed...it is not a drug anymore than alcohol or cigarettes are...they should legalize weed and make it illegal to smoke cigarettes....dont get me wrong, there are horrible drugs like heroin and cocaine which i am strongly opposed too, they really ruin peoples lives....and actually are addictive......however, unlike cigarettes and cocaine, weed is NOT physically addictive, it is entirely mental and you can quit whenever you want too

[hoverfly]

Well I would not say weed is not addictive, I seen enough people who been using weed for a long time and they are all messed up. The real reason the U.S. spends millions on drugs it's to create jobs. Like I said it's the lack of enforcement. In this case the lack of true enforcement. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hoverfly on 2002-06-01 02:45 ]</font>

[azraelle]

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!" seems to describe most of the posters from the other side of the pond. Consequently my posting on this topic ceases as of now on this topic. Had I realized what a war zone it would create I never would have asked the original question.

[Trolldeg]

On 2002-06-01 02:37, terayon wrote:

guns dont kill people, people kill people

plain and simple

and about drugs...i think that the US spending millions on "the war on drugs" is stupid....there are some drugs that are bad, but stuff like weed....thats stupid...they should legalize weed...it is not a drug anymore than alcohol or cigarettes are...they should legalize weed and make it illegal to smoke cigarettes....dont get me wrong, there are horrible drugs like heroin and cocaine which i am strongly opposed too, they really ruin peoples lives....and actually are addictive......however, unlike cigarettes and cocaine, weed is NOT physically addictive, it is entirely mental and you can quit whenever you want too

it seems like you've smoked enough already.

[terayon]

hahaha dare you seriously debate that weed is a worse drug than alcohol? because that is a battle that nobody can win, when consumed in excess alcohol DOES impare your judgement to a point where you can pass out/die and you will not be able to act serious even under pressure....i do not drink at all ever since i saw a friend of mine get WAY too drunk and throw up all over himself then pass out for 9 hours...when his parents came to pick him up, he couldnt act normal even though he knew he would be in trouble...alcohol is a horrible drug.....and i wont even touch the crap.....im by no means a pot head either, but at a party or something i would MUCH rather get stoned than drunk for a few reasons....you can snap out of being high if something happens that is serious, while as with alcohol you cannot, not to mention there is no chance of you puking your brains out and then passing out of a pool in your own vomit until you regain conciousness in a police holding cell with a swolen prostate because your new bitch master bubba was hungry for love (never happened to me) long story short government: legalize, or at least de-criminalize weed, and make alcohol and cigarettes illegal

[Arctic]

I'm not going to get a nobel prize for this, but anyway: it's a complex thing and there is no solution. Laws can often help in solving problems, but not all. Legalizing weed and criminalizing booze and tobacco wouldn't work. Where I live here, things are rather extreme in terms of illegalizing "bad things" or at least taxing them heavily. - Strict weapon laws: they work. It's next to impossible to obtain something that shoots and I can't recall having heard that somebody went nuts with a gun in his hands. But the problem shifts: dynamite is used extensively here in the construction business (very rocky terrain) and that gives people inspiration. It's only a few months ago that somebody tried to blow up an appartment block of immigrants with a few kg of TNT. - Tobacco laws: they don't work. A pack of cigarettes costs something like 4-5 EUR/USD here (nearly all taxes of course, and have doubled in price over the last few years) but the number of teenagers taking up smoking is skyrocketing. - Drugs laws: they do work. Somewhat. Posessing a bit of weed will land you behind bars for a long time (relatively) and it's still a marginal issue. Hard drugs are getting more popular, especially in the coutryside areas with high unemployment. Now Russia and the Baltic states are more accessible, so are the hard drugs. - Booze laws: they don't work. A beer costs also 4-5 EUR in a bar (and that's not a pint, but a SMALL beer) but people still drink themselves silly. Not as often, since it would ruin them, but if they take one, they drink until they pass out. (not all of them, but it's not at all uncommon). A bottle of wine costs 3 times as much as in central Europe. A bottle of beer (only recently available from supermarkets) costs 4-5 times as much as in central Europe. The state controls alcohol sales, anything stronger than beer can only be sold in state owned monopoly shops. Despite all this, 400 people (in a 4.9 million country) die each year of alcohol poisoning - they just drink so much until their brain stops working and they "forget" to breathe. That's equivalent to 24000 people dying each year in the us. More people die of alcohol poisoning than traffic accidents. Then what about this: due to the high taxing of booze, people start to try other things, like windscreen washing liquid. They go to a gas station and buy a bottle of stuff that you are supposed to pour into your car, but they drink it. 10g causes blindness, 50g causes death. ANOTHER 400 people die EACH YEAR because of this. Then: some people go to a gas station to buy windscreen washing liquid to drink, but they take the wrong bottle and go home with engine coolant. They drink that, good for another 30 deaths yearly. Now they want to pass a law here that forbids the sale of windscreen washer liquid that contains alcohol. Will it solve it? I have my doubts. Bottom line: you can go very far in taxing/illegalizing things, but they may have the opposite effect. Bert

[terayon]

if you are stupid enough to drink winshield washer fluid, then you deserve to die...no excuses whatsoever, if it has a danger symbol on it...do not put it in your mouth, thats shit they teach you in kindergarten.. i dont know how its like in europe, but around here smoking isnt that big a problem...in my school of about 1500 people, maybe only about 50 people smoke....its not very big thing here, girls know guys hate them if they smoke...i wouldnt do a girl who smoked...like kissing an ashtray...and they know that...plus there are municipal bylaws that say its illegal for you to smoke in public places, also, restaurants had to choose between being a restaurant or a bar...and if you chose a restaurant, NO SMOKING (unless you built an air tight and seperately ventilated area for smokers to go), and if you chose to be a bar, your customers could smoke, but nobody under the age of 18 could enter your establishment...i think its a stupid law considering that if your parents smoke at home, you have no choice, and are exposed to smoke, but you cant choose to go to a restaurant where people will be smoking....but, the laws do seem to be working, not very many smokers around here <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: terayon on 2002-06-02 17:05 ]</font>

[hoverfly]

Ops.. That was from me.

[Dr. Shoe]

here in the UK, there is also high taxation on booze and fags. 20 cigarettes will set you back £4.00 ($6.00) and a beer in a pub will be £2.00 per pint. Around 70p on the beer is tax and around £3.50 on the cigarettes. The solution: you buy your supplies in France, you cross as a foot passenger from £3.00 and bring back a car full of beer and up to 600(?) cigarettes per person take four non-smokers with you and you will have several weeks' supply of fags. It seems a bit odd to me if taxation is so high on booze yet hard drugs are so much easier to obtain in Finland, why don't people smuggle more booze? Then there won't be so many idiots killing themselves on washer fluid!

[terayon]

smoking ciggarettes is real stupid, there is no high or even sensation out of them, and they cause cancer and are physically addictive...stupid almost as dumb as people calling them fags...lol i once saw a british guy in toronto ask his friend if he could "bum a fag" hahaha

[Dr. Shoe]

On 2002-06-01 01:38, hoverfly wrote:

Geeeeeeee..... Did I not say it is not the gun that is the cause of societies problems? In Britain you removed the gun out of the hands of the common man. Then why did the police shoot a common man because he had a gun?

It was probably because he refused to hand it in when they passed the law, or he had obtained it from an illegal source. The fact remains that he had originally obtained it for "self-defence" and was aggrieved by the way he had been kicked out of a pub for threatening and abusive behavior. When he was surrounded by armed police he lifted it as if he was going to shoot. If you were an armed policeman, would you wait to see if he was going to shoot or not?

If so, this raises the point that if you were threatened by a burglar who was threatening to shoot you, would you wait to see if he was going to do it? Would you shoot if it was a teenage girl who was threatening you? If your home was being burglarized would you be able to find the gun in time? Do you know where it is precisely? If you were in your kitchen and your gun in a bedside cabinet and someone burst in to rob you what would you do? Or do you carry a gun at all times even in your own home?

[Dr. Shoe]

On 2002-06-01 01:37, azraelle wrote:

Statistics in this country show that you have somewhere between a 1 in 4 chance and a 1 in 3 chance to get mugged, robbed, raped, or burglarized while you are still at home, at least once in your lifetime, by someone armed and willing to kill. My point was that if push came to shove, most people would rather get shot to death than get stabbed to death, if for no other reason than you will (usually) die faster with less suffering.

Personally, I would rather be stabbed because there would be a better chance that paramedics would be able to keep me alive long enough to get to theatre. Also, I would have a much better chance of disarming someone with a knife with the aid of a tea-towel or a saucepan because someone with a knife would have to get close enough to harm me which means that I am close enough to harm him!

[Dr. Shoe]

On 2002-06-01 03:26, azraelle wrote:

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up!" seems to describe most of the posters from the other side of the pond. Consequently my posting on this topic ceases as of now on this topic. Had I realized what a war zone it would create I never would have asked the original question.

Actually, sometime ago I had my mind changed on the subject, I used to feel that everyone should be able to defend themselves with arms until a friend was shot dead in his own home with his own gun. If he hadn't had the gun he would still be alive today. About two years later, Dunblaine happened and I along with thousands of other people gave up our guns (I had a Browning 9mm for target shooting which was kept in a floor safe with two locks and separate keys kept in separate locations). The guy who shot those kids was a gun enthusiast just like myself. He had had some emotional problems and the shootings were the result of a nervous breakdown. I like to think that I am a stable, sane person but who's to say it will stay that way? And that is at the core of my point. I miss not being able to shoot but I feel that that is a small price for the peace of mind of knowing that i am not going to go crazy and shoot some poor shmuck that doesn't deserve it.

Don't worry about your post Azraelle, debate is good for the soul (or should I say sole!!!)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dr. Shoe on 2002-06-02 18:49 ]</font>

[hoverfly]

On 2002-06-02 18:25, Dr. Shoe wrote:

It was probably because he refused to hand it in when they passed the law, or he had obtained it from an illegal source. The fact remains that he had originally obtained it for "self-defence" and was aggrieved by the way he had been kicked out of a pub for threatening and abusive behavior. When he was surrounded by armed police he lifted it as if he was going to shoot. If you were an armed policeman, would you wait to see if he was going to shoot or not?

If so, this raises the point that if you were threatened by a burglar who was threatening to shoot you, would you wait to see if he was going to do it? Would you shoot if it was a teenage girl who was threatening you? If your home was being burglarizing would you be able to find the gun in time? Do you know where it is precisely? If you were in your kitchen and your gun in a bedside cabinet and someone burst in to rob you what would you do? Or do you carry a gun at all times even in your own home?

Hay, you missed my point.... You can try remove all the guns but they still are going to show up one way or another. We can debate whether a gun for self defense in the home is effective or not, but it does increases the odds of survival. Now for accidental shootings, mental problems and, suicidal deaths. With the exception of accidental shootings, it's going to happen, with or with out the gun. Can any one debate that? Simply removing the gun does not make it any more harder when some one has made up their mind. Accidental shootings is just like a car. You are in control of the machine, you are responsible for it and how it responds. If you are irresponsible "reckless" than some one is going to die. If we ban guns, maybe we should ban cars?

_________________

Hello, my name is Hoverfly. I am a high heel addict…. Weeeeeeeeeee!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hoverfly on 2002-06-02 22:40 ]</font>

[terayon]

giving up your guns because your afraid you will have a nervous breakdown and hurt someone is the sytupidest thing ive ever heard, how can you possibly even get out of bed in the morning?!?! are you gunna give up your car because you COULD get into an accident, or what about your scissors because you COULD fall and hurt yourself....all day, every day for the rest of your life is a risk, as a wise person once said, the only two things you can count on are death and taxes...everything else happens by chance....another excellent quote: "why you could wake up dead tommorow" -homer simpsons life is made up of risks and chances, and you cannot prevent anything from happening, its all up to fate...you COULD have a nervous breakdown and shoot people, you COULD get killed on your way home from work, dont like it?....die (sorry, but its the truth)

[Trolldeg]

almost as dumb as people calling them fags...lol

i once saw a british guy in toronto ask his friend if he could "bum a fag"

hahaha

yes, let's all laugh at those stupid people who don't possess your marvellous grasp of the english language.

[terayon]

yea, lets laugh indeed, unless you do enjoy bumming fags

[hoverfly]

I see how it can be funny when you don't understand the old English language.

[Trolldeg]

On 2002-06-03 21:24, terayon wrote:

yea, lets laugh indeed, unless you do enjoy bumming fags

I guess you believe 'irony' means 'kind of like iron' too..

[Dr. Shoe]

Hay, you missed my point.... You can try remove all the guns but they still are going to show up one way or another. We can debate whether a gun for self defense in the home is effective or not, but it does increases the odds of survival.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hoverfly on 2002-06-02 22:40 ]</font>

But does it increase your chance of survival? I doubt that this is anything that can be statistically verified. If you have a gun at hand, all this does is make you more confident when facing someone with a knife- so yes in this case you might be quite safe, unless he manages to disarm you and shoot you with your own gun as happened to my friend. On the other hand, if your gun is upstairs and you are being robbed in your kitchen are you going to comply with his demands or are you going to defy them? I think that you would (if you had sense) do the former in which case it's a bit like pointing a gun at someone and saying: "it's not loaded but I know how to use it!" I don't think that you are genuinely safer in either scenario.

BTW I note that the state of Florida are considering repealling the concealed weapons legislation because too many people were walking into liquor stores and pulling a concealed gun. Then there was the case of some guy who shot a neighbour dead then trying to say it was self-defence when the victim wasn't even armed.

[hoverfly]

Like I said before, don't blame the gun. Blame your self.

[pieman3141]

How about let's avoid the slippery slope argument, k? (hammer-->knife-->sword-->machete etc.) guns are just another tool, with the purpose of killing or causing some destruction. So are hammers, knives, swords, and machetes. You can use them for good or for bad. That's why gun control is useless. And don't get me started on drug control...

[pieman3141]

btw, guys, cut it out with making fun of our lack of understanding of your weird dialect of "English" ok? We don't live in Engerland. We have never lived in Engerland. We probably never will because Canada is the greatest country in the world. Just because we don't understand brit-talk doesn't mean we're illiterate pigs. "I'se the by that builds the built and I'se the by that sails." You guys understood that? I doubt it. Nova Scotian English fyi.

[azraelle]

Pieman wrote:

"I'se the by that builds the built and I'se the by that sails." You guys understood that? I doubt it. Nova Scotian English fyi.

Me'sa made 'da boat, and Me'sa 'da Cap'n tooo??

(My caricature of "Jar Jar Binks")

[hoverfly]

Ugh!!! It's all greek to me!!!