BF2S Forums Psychology of anti gunners.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Ok Then TRUCE!!  Point accepted.

High five for both using rationale and logic!  You'd be one of the people who I often disagree with but often uses rationale and logic.

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

More like: You don't need to have a gun; FUCK THE POLICE

and

ts-pulsar wrote:

Published by
    Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

Wtf??

No this is not biased fucking propaganda at all, just the facts.

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.

Last edited by Recoil555 (2006-09-01 12:28:20)

ts-pulsar wrote:

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

Ohohoh, indeed!

I find it SO amusing that wildly pro-gun activists are so easily able to ignore HARD STATISTICAL EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THESE 'misguided' VIEWS.

Find me a study that has proof that guns make old ladies safer, and I'll laugh, because you wrote it just now.

Published by
    Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

lol.


And you know what else was funny?

The only numbers in there aside from some hypothetical 6'10 basketball players age and height were FOOT NOTES.


WHAT INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE?  WHERE?  WHAT EVIDENCE AT ALL?

Last edited by Noobzorz (2006-09-01 10:10:54)

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

well guns are for defensive purposes if sum1 robs into your house and threaten to kill you, you pull out a desert eagle that fucker will never want to come back

guns are weapons and knives are a tool. yes knives can be used as weapons, but a gun cannot be used as a tool.

My guns are tools for Putting food on the table. So you are wrong when referring to guns as Non tools. If you have money to put meat on the table every day congrats, Im not so fortunate.

fuck read back to the original posts about this. maybe if you could do that, you could get a job that pays well enough to put food on the table. by the way how do you go about buying a computer that is good enough to play bf2 but not put food on the table for your family, you are one selfish person and should be left.

Last edited by Nicholas Langdon (2006-09-01 11:45:35)

Simple fact:

It is a lot easier to shot someone then stab them.  99% of the pop. does not have the balls or consitution to stab/beat someone to death.... it's just "To gross".

No guns does equal less murders.  Period.

Debate it all you want, it is a fact.  Look at all the countries with no firearms murder rates compared to this country.

Fact. period.

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Recoil555 wrote:

Ive been reading up on this so... ...help the UK and USA in anyway so their is no reason to make them up.

QFE Great post.

id like to see the per capita numbers there, uk has less population than the states so they shouldn't be compared with the straight numbers. good work though.

If you read my post i was not comparing the overall amount of murder i was comparing the ratio of murder per 100.000 people i saying that the ratio of murder was higher so therefore was not directly comparing the two total figures just the ratio's. I don't think i could compare them if I didn't even state the total for USA murder at all because I didn't think it relevant enough to warrant calculating it from the figures i already had because i could already make a better comparison with them.

Its all right ))

Just for the record, I am a gunsmith, so my views on guns should be quite obvious.  I collect a lot of guns for historical value, I own several that I have never shot, and plan to never shoot.  I don't hunt, and I rarely carry my concealed carry weapon, only time I carry it is when I'm transporting firearms, or when I'm out in the wilderness hiking or biking.

To the guy on page two who said "gun's kill instantly" you've watched way too many movies, just check youtube for police shootings, it often takes several shots to incapacitate someone, especially someone who is high.

To the other person who said you can buy deactivated guns in the UK and restore them to functionality, I'm not gonna argue that point, I don't know what the UK classifies as a deactivated weapon, but in the states a deactivated weapon means the reciever is cut on a rifle, or the frame is cut on a pistol.  It's almost impossible to restore a deactivated firearm in such a way.  And when you said that a revolver is even easier to get fixed back up, you showed ignorance on the subject.  Revolver's often have more moving parts than an automatic, especially when the revolver is a double action, and all those parts have to sync up perfectly, if you don't know what your doing you can mess up a revolver very easily.  Conversely the 1911 (THE .45) which is an automatic is rather simple.  I can have one completly disasembled in about 30 seconds, and put back together in about a minute.


And jsut so everyone knows, I never posted this article claming it was unbiased, I know it's anything but.  I posted it to see if I could get people thinking about it.  I find it rather funny how many of you refuse to read it because it's so biased.  Maybe I'm different, but I enjoy ready opposing views to my own, and I would happily read an article that was the complete opposite of this one if someone posted it.

ts-pulsar wrote:

Just for the record, I am a gunsmith, so my views on guns should be quite obvious.  I collect a lot of guns for historical value, I own several that I have never shot, and plan to never shoot.  I don't hunt, and I rarely carry my concealed carry weapon, only time I carry it is when I'm transporting firearms, or when I'm out in the wilderness hiking or biking.

To the guy on page two who said "gun's kill instantly" you've watched way too many movies, just check youtube for police shootings, it often takes several shots to incapacitate someone, especially someone who is high.

To the other person who said you can buy deactivated guns in the UK and restore them to functionality, I'm not gonna argue that point, I don't know what the UK classifies as a deactivated weapon, but in the states a deactivated weapon means the reciever is cut on a rifle, or the frame is cut on a pistol.  It's almost impossible to restore a deactivated firearm in such a way.  And when you said that a revolver is even easier to get fixed back up, you showed ignorance on the subject.  Revolver's often have more moving parts than an automatic, especially when the revolver is a double action, and all those parts have to sync up perfectly, if you don't know what your doing you can mess up a revolver very easily.  Conversely the 1911 (THE .45) which is an automatic is rather simple.  I can have one completly disasembled in about 30 seconds, and put back together in about a minute.

Okay, I'll be honest, I've met people who owned crudely reactivated working guns.  Not saying where, when or why.  The simplest form of deactivated revolver you can buy in the UK are sold with fully functional action, including the hammerfall (like this one http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/detai … ley.38.htm) which can be dry fired but have a steel pin welded into the barrel and each chamber (as shown here http://www.nfa.ca/for-journalists/deact … earms.html).  I agree some decent machinery skills are required to drill, file and smooth the pins correctly, but it can be done.  Would you question that?

And the fact is that there are reactivated guns circulating the the UK, and they are being used.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/uc95/uc9508.htm wrote:

For example, of the firearms involved in the recent series of London shootings, some 30 per cent have been firearms which had been made inoperable through a process of de-activation but had subsequently been restored illegally to working order.

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

WTF? I can't say I've heard that anywhere.

I'm indifferent on the gun thing. Guns don't cause any more or any less crime in my opinion. However, a few of the I'm-registered-to-own-and-carry-a-gun types do seem a bit eager to use them to me.

Question for all you "Constitutional Rights" arguers:

If your right to bear arms was taken away, I know most of you say that you would feel vulnerable and unable to defend yourself. Is this because you know that criminals carry guns on them, or because you feel that a gun is the only way for protection?