Guns, for em or against em?

Hmm that might make a fun little experiment in false advertisement at my home .

Seriously though, I plan to steal that argument the next time I am attacked by the Clan of Rosie regarding my choice to be a responsible gun owner.

I would have no problem placing that sign on my front yard.

I bet it would make me the safest house on the block.

It probably would. Anyone thinking about breaking in would wonder what you have that could prevent someone using a gun... and go somewhere easier...

That sign would be very effective if you had a few unmarked graves in the yard. Graves, and a pit bull. A pitbull fed on a diet of mountain oysters and trained to only eat or bite things that are similar to mountain oysters. Without accessories, that sign would be an open invitation.

I'm already in a social movement, it's called the Police Force, & in case you failed to notice I'm also English & we have gun control.Some criminals in this country are armed while the majority of the Police are not & 90% of the civilian population do not own a firearm.

You argue against policies that are in effect and work in countries all over the world, the US gun lobby argument isnt large enough to fill the back of an ordinary postage stamp and you should ban guns NOW.

Then I feel sorry for you. You live in a country with rising violent crime and they wont even arm the cops with a sidearm. For shame.

Odd how the violent crime in England has RISEN since the gun bans.

Prolly just a coincidence.



SO the criminals have guns, but the cops and citizens do not. Sounds like a great idea.

Well we have a 70% lower rate (per person) on violent crime than the US so you work it out.Come back when you have an argument.

Unfortunately, the offical figures do not support your statement. Perhaps you could cite your sources?

Here are mine:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cnscj.txt


That said, none of these show much correlation bewteen gun ownership & crime. Look for example at Canada, which has a level of gun ownership on par with the US but less crime.

Also, none of these take into account the number of crimes PREVENTED by guns and never reported.

At any rate, the fact that criminals in the UK have guns while citizens & police do not goes to show that, as surprising as it is, criminals do not care about gun laws.

You may enjoy being a citizen and police officer in a country where only criminals carry guns ... but something about that just doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

-AP

and if we all care to remember Zardoz... The gun is good! The penis is evil!

The 2nd Amendment was designed to keep free people free. God created man but Sam Colt, Oliver Winchester, John Moses Browning, John Garand, William B. Ruger Jr., and several others made Men equal. Without the ability for "the people to protect against tyranny in the government" we as Americans are not citizens, we are subjects.What part of "...shall not be infringed" dont people understand?

Guns don't kill... bullets too... DOWN WITH BULLETS!!!

Men don't need firearms or God to be equal. They need mutual respect, tolerance, and rational minds, none of which you'll ever find on the receiving end of a gun.

ITS TARSON!!!SON!!
what the hel lare you talkign about? i didnt say i was agaisnt guns..BUT I DIDNT SAY I WAS FOR THEM EITHER!<were does he stand?is he insanse?or so sane that he makes the sane people make crazy people loo ksane! but in truth theyre all PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>

And the one holding the gun obviously has little respect for life and is ignorant of consequence.

The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:

Utopian Idealists - Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.

Routine Bigots - Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don't know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance -- frequent anecdotes of such folks "converting" after their first time at a range. Quite common.

Hoplophobes -- Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grevious social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigotry. Too common.

Power Mongers - Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and "disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace" as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrannts who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.

LOL

In what situation would a crime 'prevented' by using a gun not be reported? If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him... you'd report it. If someone tried to mug you, and you shot him... you would report it. Even if you didn't shoot them but only threatened, you would still report that someone broke into your house, or tried to mug you.

But if someone is averted from commiting a crime because I have a weapon, I may not report it. Last time someone shook my door handle at 2am and I opened the door with gun in hand, I didn't call the police. Why because every time I have nothing has been done.

A few years ago I was standing in my kitchen at around 1 in the morning watching a bunch of bums steal cases of soda from the front of the circle K. I called the cops, told them what I witnessed and they asked me to leave my home, walk across the street and id the perps. Now why the hell would I walk out of my house where they can see me and cross the street and say yeah those are the guys. The police let them all go because they could not take an ID over the phone.

I prefer to protect myself and word of mouth gets around pretty quick that a person's home is protected.

So you'd let them get away and not even tell the police, so they can try their crime again on someone who may not have a weapon?

In my experience, police tend to pick their battles.

On my block 2-6 of them choose to spend a few hours almost every weekday in my back alley protecting the city from the evil forces of illegal left turners. It's illegal to make a left turn into this alley between 3 and 6pm. It's perfectly legal to make a left turn across the same busy street into the Esso station, the entrance to which is 6 feet away from the alley entrance and of course the police don't bother busy consumers who rightfully need to buy gas or doughnuts. That's right doughnuts. Did I mention that the Esso station contains a Tim Hortons?

Last month the very nice lady who runs a corner store a block away from this hotspot of rush hour traffic crime was almost in tears as she gave me my change. It turns out that she was robbed earlier that day, three hours later the police had not bothered to show up to take a statement.

A guy in my building was mugged and beaten up, the police didn't show until the next day.

The other cornerstore near my house has a sign on the door saying 'closed due to arson'.

So when I see three police cruisers parked in my alley, officers leaning against them with coffee cups and ticket books in hand, do I wonder if this activity is taking man hours away from time that could possibly be spent working on cases of violent and harmful crime in my neighborhood? Do I wonder if the priorities of the people who have sworn to serve and protect are perhaps a little misguided? Well no, I don't, I think I've kinda figured it out by now.

Do I wonder how much cash the city is raking in with the cops handing out those tickets for hours every day at $35 a pop? Well yeah, sometimes.

Whew, don't know where that rant came from, but now I kinda want to go budge in front of a cop in line a Tim Hortons.

The only problem I have with that is this... statistically speaking, you're far more likely to accidentaly shoot yourself or someone you love than to save yourself from a crime. If someone tried to sell me a burgalar alarm by telling me "well, it's more likely to electrocute you than keep someone out of your house, but..." I don't think I'd buy it

Most of the time, simply displaying a gun is sufficient. No one wants to get shot. There seems to be some myth that gun owners are a trigger happy bunch who drool in anticipation of shooting a would be burglar. Thats far from the truth.

Lots of crime is deterred by the presence of a firearm. Even the *suspected* presence of a firearm is enough to cause many would be criminals to pick another target. An easier, softer target.

As the UK demonstrates, when guns are banned, only the criminals carry them. No thanks.

-AP

That is due to improper training and/or horsing around. Which is what happens when you let Hollywood teach people how to use a firearm.

I'll just get a german shepherd. One that likes kids, but can be nasty when a stranger sneaks in.

Let me know when Scott Bakula is coming over to give me handgun training!

mmmmmmm....

Thats cool, but I prefer a shotgun. It doesn't crap on the floor or chew up the furniture

-AP