BF2S Forums Ted Nugent, how does this not make sense to you?? (self defense)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fucked if I know.

I'd imagine the trends of who's killing who are fairly similar on both sides of the Atlantic - but I have no evidence whatsoever to back that up with.

I dunno either, but I tend to lean toward a law abiding citizen has a better odds of growing old than a drug dealer or a gang banger, whatcha think?

Well, I'd certainly agree that a life of crime and violence is more likely to end in a violent way.

and to that point, someone has got to be killing the criminals be it law abiding citizens or other criminals, either way, I like it.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bottom line is I feel perfectly safe in my country.

Thats why you need a gun for protection?

It's called planning ahead.  Best to have one and know how to use it rather than wish I had, right?  Gun owners own them for other reasons besides protection.  Sport shooting and hunting are good fun and collecting valuable weapons is a good investment.

you have got to watch the link with Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" playing in the background.



gotta love Utah's conceal carry laws. i tried carrying my 357 but i got harrased to much, by my wife and every other woman i know . . .

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The knife homicide rate in the UK is actually about the same as the knife homicide rate in the US.

link please, ( per capita)

US 2005 there were 2,147 knife homicides
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t … onstab.htm
England and Wales 2007-2008 there were 277 knife homicides.
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-k … -stats.htm
Difference in populations - US 303 million  England & Wales - 53 million
The US has 303/53 = 5.7 times the populace

277 * 5.7 = 1579 if we had the same populace as the US vs 2,147 that the US has.

The US has a WORSE knife homicide rate and we consider our rate to be unacceptable.

Last edited by PureFodder (2009-07-14 01:54:50)

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Isn't it strange the way there's a fairly linear correlation between gun ownership and the rate of gun related homicides (except for the US, which is far, far worse).

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4564/i … ionald.jpg

I suppose all those deaths can be accounted for by the number of criminals shot in self defence....

A lot of things work in contingency to produce our high homicide rates.

For one thing, most of those other countries don't have a racial minority with a legacy of being oppressed.  If you subtracted all black-on-black murder from our statistics, our homicide rate would be comparable to Canada.

I don't believe that to be true. Any data to back that up? What about if Canada also subtracted black-on-black murder? 'Cos you can't be comparing stuff like that. You need like for like comparison as far as is possible.

There are a comparable number of minority immigrants in England (it's about 85% white here (not where I live though, maybe 60%, tops - I was quite surprised the figure was so low), compared to 80% in the US).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.

There are a bunch of stats on that page listed above, all of which match what I've been saying.

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, it's not guns alone that cause murder.  It's poverty in combination with drugs, guns, and a self-destructing minority group that does.

Those are all potential factors. The sort of factors I've already mentioned at length. They are all a part of the system (education, social programs etc.). If a by-product of the system is to produce that much homicide, clearly it is flawed. That's been my point all along. I certainly don't think gun ownership rates are all there is to the problem, but all the evidence suggests they are a factor - disregarding the US completely when looking at that graph you still see the same pattern, more gun ownership leads to a higher gun homicide rate, it's pretty clear.

And if we juxtapose the gun homicide rates with homicides via knives and other methods, I think you'll find the same pattern among these countries.  Your chart probably just demonstrates where violence is more of a problem instead of anything significant about guns.

oug wrote:

The vid won't load but here's my two cents

I personally would love to have a gun. I trust myself with it. I've never been in a fight, I consider myself a logical and calm person able to make the right decision when the shit hits the fan. In other words I'd probably never use it
Problem is, I can't say the same about others. In fact, come to think of it, all I see around me is people making the wrong decisions. Clumsy, violent idiots who shouldn't even be allowed to drive and vote - let alone carry a fucking gun. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 10 close friends who could become very dangerous for others and themselves with a gun in their hands.

I honestly believe that if old ladies (which were mentioned in some posts - I gather Ted said sth about them being victims?) carried guns they'd become public danger number one. Accidental shootings would rise to unprecedented heights. At least now all I have to worry about when I go out is a few bad apples who - if nothing else - are easily recognizable and thus avoidable. If every moron in this country carried a gun I'd be scared shitless.

Interestingly, those who legally carry guns in the US are exceptionally good, statistically speaking.  For example, people with concealed carry permits are 5 times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a violent crime (hint: that's better than some major  police departments).  Those stats are from the state of Texas.  People with concealed carry permits are a self-selecting group that is by-and-large exceptionally trustworthy (from the government's view).

Drunkface wrote:

Do you plan or have counter measures for:
A car runs off the road into while you are a pedestrian.
Lethal gas.
Volcanoes
Earthquakes
Wild animal attacks
Coconuts falling on your head
A sniper taking pot shots at the public
Ruptured gas mains
Lightning strikes
Meteorites
Aliens attacking
Someone driving an armoured bulldozer through your house.

"Yes" to the majority.
1. I watch nearby cars.  I'm usually prepared to move away from any fast-moving car within 200ft from me. 
2. I would leave.  Military gas masks are not sufficient against chemical spills (Chlorine gas, etc).  Carrying a hazmat suit with O2 would be impractical, so my plan is to go upwind and far away...quickly.
3. Pretty much the same.  Leave the area.  I always have enough gas in my 4WD to get 150 miles away.
4. ...carry a gun?  Actually, there is bear mace in the van outside.
5. I don't walk under coconut trees.  They aren't a big problem in my area.
6. I know how to take cover pretty well.  Escape and evade, and/or...carry a gun...?
7. Again, leave quickly.
8. I don't walk on the main quad during storms.  We have a lightning warning system, at school.
9. Not much you can do about meteorites...don't really have an answer.
10. Really?!
11. Insurance.


EDIT: my utility knife would make me a criminal in the UK.  No Gerber Evo for you...sorry dude, they're nice tools!

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-07-14 22:15:21)

I recently changed from glock 26 to a walter PPS, I carry & my wife carries

RAIMIUS wrote:

Drunkface wrote:

Do you plan or have counter measures for:
A car runs off the road into while you are a pedestrian.
Lethal gas.
Volcanoes
Earthquakes
Wild animal attacks
Coconuts falling on your head
A sniper taking pot shots at the public
Ruptured gas mains
Lightning strikes
Meteorites
Aliens attacking
Someone driving an armoured bulldozer through your house.

"Yes" to the majority.
1. I watch nearby cars.  I'm usually prepared to move away from any fast-moving car within 200ft from me. 
2. I would leave.  Military gas masks are not sufficient against chemical spills (Chlorine gas, etc).  Carrying a hazmat suit with O2 would be impractical, so my plan is to go upwind and far away...quickly.
3. Pretty much the same.  Leave the area.  I always have enough gas in my 4WD to get 150 miles away.
4. ...carry a gun?  Actually, there is bear mace in the van outside.
5. I don't walk under coconut trees.  They aren't a big problem in my area.
6. I know how to take cover pretty well.  Escape and evade, and/or...carry a gun...?
7. Again, leave quickly.
8. I don't walk on the main quad during storms.  We have a lightning warning system, at school.
9. Not much you can do about meteorites...don't really have an answer.
10. Really?!
11. Insurance.

1. Bullshit.
2. So, in other words you'd die.
3. Almost a totally useless plan without prior warning.
4. And a pack of wild dogs, crocodile or alligator, sharks, tiger, elephant... your guns not going to stop half of them, and neither is your mace.
5. Never been on holidays? And I'm just sure if you saw a coconut tree you'd cross the road to avoid walking under it... Again Bullshit.
6. Hmmm, despite the fact you could be dead before you even heard the gunshot.
7. Again too late, you're already dead.
8. Again, a response to situation not a 'proactive' solution. You get caught in a sudden storm you could be dead before you get to any shelter.
9. Live underground... And never venture to the surface ever for anything.
10. Yes really. Unlikely but still possible, sort of like getting mugged, or having a home invasion.
11. Yep that'll help you from the tones of brick, wood and steel falling on your head.

Stingray24 wrote:

@drunkface:
Guess you’ll have to take me at my word that I’m not paranoid.  Violent crime is almost non-existent in the city of approx 70k population that I live in.  I bought my shotgun for hunting and trap shooting and my pistol for target shooting.  They happen to double as home protection if needed.  WI does not allow concealed carry … one of the few states that do not in the US … and even if it was allowed I would not feel the need to.  If I lived in a major city I would probably go through the licensing and training process to obtain a license to carry.

My suburb has about 20k, my council well over 100k and my city has a population of 4.5 million and I don't know 1 person who wants or needs a firearm for home protection let alone to carry around. What is so difference about you and the US?

DrunkFace wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

@drunkface:
Guess you’ll have to take me at my word that I’m not paranoid.  Violent crime is almost non-existent in the city of approx 70k population that I live in.  I bought my shotgun for hunting and trap shooting and my pistol for target shooting.  They happen to double as home protection if needed.  WI does not allow concealed carry … one of the few states that do not in the US … and even if it was allowed I would not feel the need to.  If I lived in a major city I would probably go through the licensing and training process to obtain a license to carry.

My suburb has about 20k, my council well over 100k and my city has a population of 4.5 million and I don't know 1 person who wants or needs a firearm for home protection let alone to carry around. What is so difference about you and the US?

I've never lived in a large city that has violent crime, so it's hard to say.  The larger cities seem to have more issues with gangs and the crime and violence that goes along with them.  Why this isn't addressed more aggressively I have no idea.  It's likely the police do not do more because the media and minority attention whores like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would label a focused crackdown on gangs as racist because of racial profiling or some bs.  If I lived anywhere near that reality you can bet I'd have a means to defend myself.