BF2S Forums Psychology of anti gunners.

Bubbalo wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.

So, we need to keep firearms normal so that kids can learn that firearms are normal?  Circular logic.

Bubbalo wrote:

phnxfrhwk wrote:

until I joined the military in which case I was forced into defending myself and others

You weren't forced to do anything.  You chose to joing the army, knowing full well what your job would involve.

As to children handling guns:  If guns are legal, then the handling of them by minors under supervised conditions ought be allowed to ensure that by the time they are unsupervised they have appropriate skills, same as driving.  Having said that, 8 is probably a little young IMHO.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Recoil555 wrote:

Ive been reading up on this so i feel that I'm not just giving unbacked  opinion so I consulted the FBI database to what was what in gun crime in USA and then compared it our own murder rate in UK and what cross section or that is gun related and what is knife or other weapons related.

(USA)

Year Number of Murder offenses Rate per 100,000 inhabitants Deemed unjustifiable by law (including attempted murder)
2003 16,528
2004 16,137


Weapons
Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)

Justifiable Homicide
Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable, or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter classification.

During 2004, law enforcement agencies provided supplemental data for 666 justifiable homicides. A breakdown of those figures revealed that law enforcement officers justifiably killed 437 felons and private citizens justifiably killed 229 felons. Tables 2.15 and 2.16 provide additional information about justifiable homicides.

So thats .... less than 1000 murders that were justifiable by people protecting themselves from a felon and thats 70 % of the 16000 odd murders that were deemed unjustifiable where using firearm of some sort and only 14% used knives and even less with blunt objects.

Those figures off your government at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses … urder.html

Here are the figures for Murder in UK
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/fac … factsheets

These figures are comparable because both are how much murder / attempted murder per 100.000 people so difference in population is not an issue here because we are looking at the ratio of murder per 100.000 people not the over all amount of murder is comparable.


How much gun crime is there ? (in the UK)
[The figures cited throughout this factsheet come from the Home Office and police organisations].

In less serious incidents of violence against the person, firearms were involved in 4,568 offences – a 31% increase from 2003/04.
Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year.
March 2003 - March 2004  Total murders per 100.000 inhabitant =  853 (including attempted murder)

One thing I have found out is the FBI is much better or at least give perception they can count crime better because to find the UK statistics was slightly harder because we have surveys of perception of crime and survey of reported crime i tried to stick to reported crime. Now as for what the figure say I'm not saying that guns simply being there is the reason why the rates are higher its America's attitude to them and they way the media portrays guns on top of the general perception that the right to have arms makes you safer. I'm not saying that you dont have the right to protect your families all I'm saying is that making it a balanced playing field doesn't mean your come out on top or even anyone will if you both have guns one person illegally and the other legally how does it make it safer you can both shoot each other ? people have argued about logical argument when you give both people guns i can tell you it hardly ever stops people getting shot. 

The argument that people will kill each with or without guns is true yet for a few simple things guns are designed for range killing and you must be

A) A lot closer and determined to give someone with knife or blunt object therefore making people think harder about killing when you have to physically drive the knife through someones heart which i can probably guess is alot more personal and you can feel the the life drain away from them than simply picking up a gun and shooting someone from anything from 3 metre to 2 miles away with modern sniper rifle.

B) crazy if you think that training helps win you the firefight because what if the person shooting at you gets a lucky shot and it just happens to hit you in head no amount of training is going to save you it may help you be more skillful at shooting but as many police officers will testify that has been wounded in the line of duty that the fact they could shoot well didn't increase their chances of not getting shot maybe it increases your chances of shooting someone but there will always be a time where the odds are not in you favour.

On top of all that the criminals that rob houses don't usually intend to kill you so therefore threatening them with a gun if they have an illegally obtained gun will only further serve to make the situation worst. I know someones going to say but what if they re coming to kill you whole family ? well for a start they probably know you someone close to you and will have prior knowledge of what the best way to get into your house when and will do it when there is least resistance so night time for most people when they re asleep so when they shoot you where you lie what difference does it make if you have a gun ? surely a really good lock on you door if you that paranoid would be a better choice. That said that happens less than a drive by from a gang you more likely to get shot in the crossfire than in you house by a total stranger and having a gun then like someone has already said is pretty useless considering you would have to be quick draw McGraw to even get a shot off never mind an excellent shot to hit anyone in the fast moving car.

My point is more times having gun when your being attacked only serves to either make things worse or does nothing at all and when it does it only balances the playing field. So you see the problem cannot be thought of in such simple terms as if someone has a gun i better have gun to fight back because it just doesn't work like that. I do think that not have having guns decreases the amount of murder simply due how easy it is to kill someone with a gun but with USA now they have had the right to own guns for so long means that its a deeply seeded in their culture and banning gun in USA probably wouldn't work straight away because its not as simple as taking the guns away but once they get used to it then it they might realise that being able to defend yourself doesn't always mean you can, i don't think it will ever happen in my life time though.

These are my views only I'm not saying they are the truth wholeheartedly 10 times out 10 but the figures don't lie and FBI have no reason to lie about this and neither do BCS (British crime survey) because non of the figures help the UK and USA in anyway so their is no reason to make them up.

MAybe true facts, But lets see, The UK is the size of what state here? Hmmmmm Size DOES matter.

Bubbalo wrote:

phnxfrhwk wrote:

until I joined the military in which case I was forced into defending myself and others

You weren't forced to do anything.  You chose to joing the army, knowing full well what your job would involve.

As to children handling guns:  If guns are legal, then the handling of them by minors under supervised conditions ought be allowed to ensure that by the time they are unsupervised they have appropriate skills, same as driving.  Having said that, 8 is probably a little young IMHO.

Last edited by phnxfrhwk (2006-09-02 11:30:46)

ts-pulsar wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

ts-pulsar wrote:

This had a lot to do with the fact that a majority of the population in Iraq wanted Sadam gone...  there's also the fact that the Iraqi's don't aim when they shoot.  I'm not joking about that, I know a couple of vet's from Iraq and they've all told me the Iraqi's don't know how to shoot, they usually shoot from the hip and rarely hit there target.

If the majority of Iraqi's wanted Saddam gone, and had access to guns.... then why would they want or need America to intervene if legal gun ownership means that the population can keep the government in line? 

Gun ownership categorically does not guarantee a population can keep a government in line.  Gun ownership categorically does not guarantee a population can save their government from revolutionaries/invaders.

A militia or standing army does not mean a load of civilians who own guns, it means an organised, trained, government sanctioned group who will be prepared for regular military service should their government require it of them.  It doesn't mean every Tom, Dick and Harry needs a gun in the house/street/bar.

When Sadam was in power weapons weren't allowed in every household, pretty much only baath party members were allowed weapons, so your argument isn't exactly a good example.  When the US invaded and the borders were left open is when all the guns flooded into Iraq, and since the new Iraqi constitution actually has something similar to the 2nd Ammendment I'm not really sure if letting those guns in was intentional or not.

Diray wrote:

Yeah because people break into random houses all the day, just in chance there's a housewife waiting to be raped.

Bubbalo wrote:

There are also less people to make money.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-03 23:52:29)

Diray wrote:

And actually, there are quite a lot of people to support.
Students, retiree's, jobless people, handicapped, homeless, immigrants, etc, etc.
Not to mention free hospitals, schools, highschool, universities, nursing homes, and so fooooorth.

And since those are two completely different cultures(mostly) and continents, maybe both sides are right, for their respective country.

Additionally, I don't think police officers and military personnel, ex or not, can really discuss this thing unbiased.
That would be like... Er... *Tries to think of an example without prejudice*... Like asking an asian wheter rice is good or bad?

Bubbalo wrote:

But if they make more money then it has to do with a strong economy.