Here is a reason to own a gun

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the danger is grossly exaggerated

And no, being "armed" is not your only option. Nor is it a guarantee of personal safety.

If you think you can sit there and tell me that every single event is over exaggerated you are an idiot.

Go back at take a few more valiums and put on your rose colored glasses...

And precisely what are the 'other options' to use when your life is in imminent danger??

[natty bumppo 297]

actually, it's designed to fire a projectile, unless you want to claim target shooters are misusing their firearms....

and if the firearm is currently in secure storage ... is this misuse too?

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

and if the firearm is currently in secure storage ... is this misuse too?

absolutely! they are not meant to be stored, but used in a shooting rampage, given the way some posters in here portray things.

[justashooter 430]

Forgot to add slim, such results are something that is quite common when comparing most other first world countries to the US. All good an well - your right actually - to beat on about rights or any other indoctrinated propaganda but a legitimate comparison is how you know (gauge) where you stand versus the rest of the first world.

you continue to ignore the fact that europe does not have 15 million illegal mexican and central americans in country, and that the violent crime rate is largely a product of their presence. you ignore the FBI UCS documented evidence that hispanics are 18 times as likely to commit violent crime as whites.

wanna dramatically reduce violent crime in the USA? deport all hispanic males 17-35.

actually, it's designed to fire a projectile, unless you want to claim target shooters are misusing their firearms....

actaully, the first use of firearms was in reduction of seige walls. handguns came hundreds of years later.

[Peikko 1,575]

The UK has less homicides, and far less gun related crimes.

We have more petty crimes in the UK (drunken assaults, burglaries etc.). The US has more murders and crimes involving the use of guns.

I don't think even that's actually true. What we have is more reported crime in government statistics. I expect the crimes that are reported in the UK as crimes, are so mundane for the police in the US who have to deal with a lot more violence, they simply don't write it up or act on it. That's the reality - if like for like crimes were reported, the US would be snowed under, and with even more than the highest rate of criminal incarceration on the planet. The cost of crime would be worse than the cost of health care, and that's saying something.

[Peikko 1,575]

As to all the gun nuts that want me to be a victim of violent crime just so you can have your 'gotcha' moment, despite the fact that the possibility of that is far less than my getting run over or involved in a car accident, I'll make sure the last thing I think before I die is how right you were.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

actually, it's designed to fire a projectile, unless you want to claim target shooters are misusing their firearms....

...it

is...

...a

weapon...

...it

doesn't...

...matter

how...

...you

use...

...it

[CDAgirlMI 51]

I didn't suggest that it was "ok", but clearly if you are going to be a victim of crime, the petty variety is preferable to the kind that puts your life in danger.

Short of that, you don't have the right to kill someone in "self defense". The law (at least where I am from), agrees with me on that.

"A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger".

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

...it

is...

...a

weapon...

...it

doesn't...

...matter

how...

...you

use...

...it

you were talking about what it was designed to do. just like cars were not designed with the intent for people to drive drunk, firearms aren't designed with the intent for people to shoot up schools.

face it - it's in the intent of the holder of the firearm. whether it's aimed at paper, game, or people, the one pulling the trigger is accountable, not the firearm. or maybe you are suggesting we put pistols on trial for being "natural born killers"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you think you can sit there and tell me that every single event is over exaggerated you are an idiot.

Go back at take a few more valiums and put on your rose colored glasses...

And precisely what are the 'other options' to use when your life is in imminent danger??

I believe I said earlier that the fear of crime is greatly exaggerated (in no small part, due to media reporting) in comparison with the actual likelihood of being victimized.

As for the rest, you avoid getting into a dangerous situation to begin with. It's not that hard to do...

you were talking about what it was designed to do. just like cars were not designed with the intent for people to drive drunk, firearms aren't designed with the intent for people to shoot up schools.

face it - it's in the intent of the holder of the firearm. whether it's aimed at paper, game, or people, the one pulling the trigger is accountable, not the firearm. or maybe you are suggesting we put pistols on trial for being "natural born killers"

A gun is a weapon Charles - that is the fundamental purpose of its design. Stop playing semantics - its a waste of time.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

I believe I said earlier that the fear of crime is greatly exaggerated (in no small part, due to media reporting) in comparison with the actual likelihood of being victimized.

As for the rest, you avoid getting into a dangerous situation to begin with. It's not that hard to do...

There is no such thing as " avoid getting yourself into a dangerous situation".

If you're in public (anywhere, anytime), you could be in a dangerous situation.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

A gun is a weapon Charles - that is the fundamental purpose of its design. Stop playing semantics - its a waste of time.

so is a hammer - see the medival version to get the idea of how today's hammer came into being.

Edited March 22, 2010 by charles!

[Peikko 1,575]

There is no such thing as " avoid getting yourself into a dangerous situation".

If you're in public (anywhere, anytime), you could be in a dangerous situation.

Do you plan every outing as if it might be your last? That just tells me you suffer from paranoia.

[Ali G. 37]

Yeah, our overall homicide rate per-capita doesn't add up, does it? You would think with all these guns there'd be a lot more homicides... but there just aren't. When you post it as 600 vs. 14,000 it looks pretty bad. I'll even agree with you. Gosh, that's a lot of homicides.

But when you look at it from a different angle - .014/1000 vs. .042/1000, it doesn't look so bad, does it? It's almost as if it grows right along our population difference. Another thing you're failing to account for is the crime rate. UK actually has a higher crime rate than the US. How can that be?

We have more murders but we have less crime. Are we simply more efficient?

You have less crime now? That's a new one. ".014/1000 vs. .042/1000" Where did you get this from? Dude you are confusing the UK for Russia.

Based on the 2008 stats. The United States rate would be 4.7 per 100,000 (per capita). The UK would be 1.06 per capita. In other words, the UK has 22% of the United States homicide rate. Yet we are apparently led to believe that guns should make society safer. Once again, the actual stats don't support your argument.

Do a quick google search of "per-capita" and see if you can use that college education of yours to grasp the meaning. I'm not arguing that we have significantly more gun deaths (never have argued that) what I've been consistently arguing is by your rationale it should be much higher and it's not. You still haven't supported why you think that is. I've posted on numerous occasions that humans are creative creatures by nature and find a way to kill each other. Disprove me and I'll shut up.

Refer above..

Why are we not discussing that? Is it because it doesn't support your agenda? Say for instance we were to discuss it and say for instance I was right (even had data to back it up) would you be willing to post "slim was right. Handguns don't directly contribute to murder rates."? Could you do that?

You keep saying less people are killed by guns and you've always been right about that. However, what you keep failing to agree on is the fact that less people haven't died as a result of the handgun bans. Can we at least agree on that point?

Actually Slim it is you and every other gun-toting individual that goes off topic. When discussing guns stats, you guys like to bring in hammers, seat-belts, biro pens etc.

Even when you factor in the overall homicide rate, less people do die as a result of restrictions. Furthermore, their homicide rate per capita is actually many times lower than the United States. To the contrary, those with out any gun restriction whatsoever have the opposite crime stats. Coincidentally enough, AUS also has 22% of the United States overall homicide rate when comparing per capita.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is no such thing as " avoid getting yourself into a dangerous situation".

If you're in public (anywhere, anytime), you could be in a dangerous situation.

Have you never heard of being "Streetwise"?