BF2S Forums Gun laws

DesertFox423 wrote:

Mortifed_Kangaroo wrote:

Lets compare the UK and USA
USA HAND GUN DEATHS 4500
UK (Where not even the cops carry guns) HAND GUN DEATHS 15

No crap. That's like comparing the automobile crash deaths of the US to that of Vatican City.

Last edited by krazed (2006-10-30 05:35:46)

krazed wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Phantom2828 wrote:

THINK FFS!!!
There is a law preventing fucking felons from buying handguns dumb fuck!
There is also a waiting period on handguns along with a background check!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!
A gun is an equalizer, would YOU want to fight toe to toe with a criminal with a crowbar? Or would you rather just shoot him.
THINK FFS!! YOU AREN'T SUPER MEN!!!

You also have to remember that in the UK if you shot or in any other way injured a criminal breaking into your house your would probably be prosecuted for it (something I am quite against). There have been many cases of criminals being shot by legitimate gun owners in the UK when breaking in and the shooters have been sentenced to several years of jail time.

gotta love a law where defending your home gets you arrested and the criminal set free

CameronPoe wrote:

Can someone explain why crime, particularly murder and gun crime in general, is generally far far higher in countries where guns are legal than in countries where they aren't?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-10-30 09:49:42)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Can someone explain why crime, particularly murder and gun crime in general, is generally far far higher in countries where guns are legal than in countries where they aren't?

It has nothing to do with those laws Cam, it has everything to do with population, ratio of illegal aliens (which really doesn't account for that much, but it still does!), and CULTURE.  You can't just blanket cover your country and say oh well we don't have crime here because its less legal, so bah.  Well there are countries where it is massively MORE legal and MORE LAX than the USA and they have barely ANY crime related to what you said.  So your point is moot.  The question is not the laws it is the PEOPLE.  Get your head out of the sand.

Oh Cam can you explain this? or anyone else, why does the U.S. have the most crimes PREVENTED by lawful civilians using firearms, in part due to the higher ratio of gun ownership yes, but it far outweighs the number of deaths, sorry.

Edit: also nice dodge on my previous question to you cam, good job.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So who knows, maybe it is just something to do with Americans not being able to exercise self restraint?

Oh yeah, because we are all just gun toting crazies.  Yep, there aren't millions of crimes prevented every year by lawful citizens, there aren't thousands of lives saved.  Nope, let's just look at ONE side of the issue, good job.

Yes, of course it works, but at what cost, how would the people ever be able to overcome a corrupt government? Ala V for Vendetta (which is a ridicolous movie BTW), they would have all been slaughtered, anyways, at what cost have you lost your guns.  Sorry, guns are not just for killing champ, there are many other useful and fun activities that they are associated with.  The majority of gun owners in America do EXERCISE self constraint, you just see fit to OVER GENERALIZE us by the actions of FEW.  Good job.

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Vigilantism is quite different than self protection Cam, you should know that.  It has been proven time and time again and ask most police, at least here in the U.S., and they will flat out tell you that you can't always rely on the police, why,

Bad guy busts in your house:

Cam: oh BG please wait, I'm calling the police, can you put down that knife/gun and wait for them to get here, thanks.

BG: Sure, NP

Cam: Thanks.

Yeah well glad it works that way in Ireland my friend, but that is just not the case.  You can NOT rely on the police, and that is NOT vigilantism, vigilantism is PROACTIVELY INTENTIONALLY searching for criminals, defending yourself is REACTIVE is action and Proactive in PLANNING alone.  Good day.

Ah - I didn't see this post. I wasn't dodging.

How often does someone decide to break into your house with you still in it?
If I'm not very much mistaken if you shoot an intruder it's still murder, no?
The likelihood in Ireland is that no intruder is ever likely to be carrying a gun. Why? Because gun offences are a taboo due to our 'illegal guns' culture. The gravity of gun crime is far far more serious than any other type of crime here (hence the 'taboo' status). It is something a criminal is far less likely to engage in especially for a petty burglary or a mugging, as the crime is deemed far more severe and reprehensible, the punishments are accordingly severe and the weapons are hard to procure in the first place. You're right - it's a culture thing. It's similar to the way that Japanese culture is conducive to there being hardly any crime - all because they have strict codes of conduct and honour that are distilled in everyone at childhood. Alas it is too late for America now.

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Vigilantism is quite different than self protection Cam, you should know that.  It has been proven time and time again and ask most police, at least here in the U.S., and they will flat out tell you that you can't always rely on the police, why,

Bad guy busts in your house:

Cam: oh BG please wait, I'm calling the police, can you put down that knife/gun and wait for them to get here, thanks.

BG: Sure, NP

Cam: Thanks.

Yeah well glad it works that way in Ireland my friend, but that is just not the case.  You can NOT rely on the police, and that is NOT vigilantism, vigilantism is PROACTIVELY INTENTIONALLY searching for criminals, defending yourself is REACTIVE is action and Proactive in PLANNING alone.  Good day.

Ah - I didn't see this post. I wasn't dodging.

How often does someone decide to break into your house with you still in it?
If I'm not very much mistaken if you shoot an intruder it's still murder, no?
The likelihood in Ireland is that no intruder is ever likely to be carrying a gun. Why? Because gun offences are a taboo due to our 'illegal guns' culture. The gravity of gun crime is far far more serious than any other type of crime here (hence the 'taboo' status). It is something a criminal is far less likely to engage in especially for a petty burglary or a mugging, as the crime is deemed far more severe and reprehensible, the punishments are accordingly severe and the weapons are hard to procure in the first place. You're right - it's a culture thing. It's similar to the way that Japanese culture is conducive to there being hardly any crime - all because they have strict codes of conduct and honour that are distilled in everyone at childhood. Alas it is too late for America now.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

How often, it happened twice in the last 2 years.  No if you shoot an intruder and  your in fear of your life its called self defense....I study law, if you have any more questions feel free to ask.

I agree the likelihood in Ireland is lower, I'm not disputing that at all...I'm saying you dont' understand Americans because your not one and i'm sick and tired of you Europeans OVER GENERALIZING us.  I completely agree, GUNS have nothing to do with it, CULTURE has EVERYTHING to do with it, thanks for responding BTW.

Vilham wrote:

Well as you said earlier then, its all about your Culture. For a culture to be like that there must be something fundamentally wrong with your country and its views of what is acceptable and not.

As to the facts speak for themselves... GUNS DONT SAVE MORE LIVES! Ok, all the facts are counter to them saving lives, why do you think your homocide rate is so high in America compared to non gun legal countries eg England.

NCPA wrote:

Over the years, police and other experts have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In the early and middle 1970s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, some who gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguided. They now urge resistance in selected instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.28


Why Guns Deter Criminals

Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as weapons of defense.29 This is one reason why 88 percent of the nation's command-rank police officials disagree with the statement, " The banning of private ownership of firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms."30

In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its members to post on their homes, "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE." But the signs came down and the organization withered after a large number of those homes were robbed or burglarized.31 On the other hand, during a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque, N. M., armed citizens patrolled the streets - and felonies dropped sharply.32

Americans use firearms for protection an estimated one million times each year. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.33 But not always34

    * Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.

    * They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.

   

"Criminals are three times more likely to be killed bytheir victims than by the police."
   
Criminals may not read statistical studies, but they are generally aware of the large number of firearms in existence and of the fact that law-abiding citizens own most of them. Although violent crime and total crime reported to the police is much higher in the United States than in Western Europe, U.S. burglary rates are about the same, or lower, probably because of the deterrent effect of civilian firearms.35 Burglars say they spend an average of two hours "casing" a house to establish that no one is at home.36 They avoid late-night burglaries because " that's the way to get shot."37 Interviews with convicted felons are especially revealing:38

    * As Figure II shows, a survey of 1,874 felons in 10 states found that most worry more about meeting an armed victim than about running into the police.

    * 42 percent reported they had encountered a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.

    * A majority agreed that " a store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very often."

Adverse Results are Rare.

Despite stories of gun owners who mistake family members for intruders and shoot them, and of criminals harming victims with the victims' guns, the fact is that defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives:39

    * The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2 percent of all fatal firearms incidents.

    * At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1 percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns).

    * Interestingly, 70 percent of defensive gun uses are against criminals who do not have a gun.

   

"Defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives."
   
A nationwide comparative study conducted by Don B. Kates, Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law found that armed citizens were quite responsible in using handguns.40 The vast majority of people are not violent and use firearms only as a last resort. When they do use them, firearms can be effective:41

• As noted above, private citizens kill about three times as many criminals as do law enforcement officials.

• And although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.
Of course, police must enter situations in which they are not personally involved, while the private citizen is likely to be under attack and unlikely to mistake the target, so there is a greater likelihood that police might make a misidentification.

NCPA wrote:

Advocates of gun control frequently argue that there is no defensible reason for innocent people to own handguns, since the only function of such weapons is to kill other people. Actually, there are a number of legitimate reasons to own a handgun - not the least of which is self defense. Pistol shooting (at inanimate targets) is a sport, and some professionals in the sport have million-dollar contracts.42 And, contrary to antigun propaganda, pistol hunting is also a sport.43 More important, as noted above, firearms are used one million times a year to ward off criminals and most of the time they are not discharged.


Who Owns Guns.

Surveys show that owning a gun is associated with peace of mind. Those who own guns are less fearful of walking in their neighborhoods. They are less apt to be afraid at night in their homes, less likely to have been burglarized or robbed within the last year. They also are more likely to be political conservatives and hunters. The overall pattern of gun ownership has been relatively stable over the past 30 years. The biggest single predictor of whether a householder owns a gun is whether he or she grew up in a household with a gun. This helps to explain the deep-seated cultural conflict between those who find gun ownership wholesome and judicious and those who find it abhorrent and in need of control.44

Guns for Self-Protection.

   

"Firearms are used a million times a year to ward off criminals."
   
Higher crime in an area sometimes stimulates more people to buy firearms for protection. Twenty-seven percent of gun owners say they have a gun mainly for protection. Another 62 percent say that protection from crime is at least one of the reasons they own guns.45 Of households with guns, those with no adult male are twice as likely as others to keep a loaded gun. Black gun owners are four times as likely as white gun owners to keep a loaded handgun.46

Criminals vs. Noncriminals.

Survey data show that gun ownership among people who are arrested is moderately higher than in the general population, but the difference is modest for handguns, the type most frequently involved in violence.47 Scattered evidence suggests that during the period of fastest increase in violent crime, from 1964 to 1974, gun possession grew more rapidly among criminals than among law-abiding citizens.48 Perhaps the sturdiest evidence is that the fraction of homicides, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns increased from 1964 to 1974.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-10-30 10:28:44)