Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Thoran: My belief is that the presence or lack of firearms really doesn't change the death toll much. If a society is violent then it will show in the statistics, but statistics are funny things, for instance, Europe has much lower rates of Homocide than the US, but makes up for it by much higher suicide rates (weird...) ...

Why is that weird? It makes sense to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Neb]

Probably all of the people who're so frustrated about not being able to have a gun to kill people with that they commit suicide [img]tongue.gif[/img] It would never have happened if everyone was allowed guns in Europe. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(This post was a joke.)

[Azred]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Azred: re: guns and personal safety. These numbers come directly from the National Vital Statistics Report released on 9 October 2001 for the calendar year 2000. Of course, these numbers are US statistics only. Total number of deaths due to injury by a firearm: 28,117

Total number of firearm related deaths in the UK for 1998/99 was 49. In the vernacular - do the Math![/QUOTE]Let me brush the dust off my math degree and I will. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Would that we could all live somewhere with such a low instance of gun-related deaths.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Thoran: yes exactly... they're a less violent group of people. My belief is that the presence or lack of firearms really doesn't change the death toll much. If a society is violent then it will show in the statistics, but statistics are funny things, for instance, Europe has much lower rates of Homocide than the US, but makes up for it by much higher suicide rates (weird...)

I did a little search on how many homicides / suicides were in Slovenia last year (where I'm from - though I'm in Sweden right now). I got the info off the official police page (their report for 2001).
Last year there were 13 murders, and more than 500 (!!!) suicides.
So, yep, there's a lot more suicides in Europe than murders. I think it's like that in almost all European countries.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Thoran: If there is a statistical deduction to be made regarding gun control, it would be that states and countries where gun ownership is allowed have LOWER rates of homicide than those with strict gun control laws than their gun control neighbors. In europe for instance, Switzerland requires firearm ownership of it's citizens, and has a homicide rate that's HALF that of handgun banning Luxembourg. I think the idea that disarming the public will make the country safer is simply not supported by ANY data... domestic or foreign. I believe representing gun owners as trigger happy hicks does a disservice to the pro-gun control community, becuse it's an obvious ploy to artificially dismiss the valid arguments of that community... without having to actually respond to their arguments. That sort of tactic appears evasive to me... so of course I wonder why a group who feels so strongly has to evade simple debate points. I respect the right of anyone to choose not to own firearms (as I have chosen not to own a handgun). But I simply can't support the idea of taking a right away from someone simply because you THINK it will somehow improve society. Beyond that, I see people continuing to blindly push this concept, with not a shred of evidence to support their position... and significant evidence to the contrary. If I've ever seen a more head in the sand, hands over the ears screaming "I can't hear you" group of people I sincerely can't think of where.

Perhaps I can introduce some facts and statistics to support the gun control viewpoint.

Firstly debunking the 'Switzerland myth'. Switzerland has extremely strict gun control laws. Yes it does require males to keep firearms. (I note you didn't use the word handgun here. If you had used the word rifle people might have seen that it is quite difficult to conceal a rifle for criminal activity). The guns must be kept in a locked cabinet. Only 72 rounds of ammunition are issued and these must be kept in a sealed container. Regular checks are made that the ammunition has not been used and it isn't possible to buy extra ammunition.

Handguns for civilian use are permitted but they must be licensed in most cantons. Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership in the industrialised world after the USA and the second highest handgun murder rate in the industrialised world after (oh well you know the answer to this [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-switzerland.htm

I'm not sure where you get your evidence for the Luxembourg quote - there are only 3 or 4 murders there every year of any kind.

These are staistics provided by the UK Government.

I can't get my head around one thing. If a man needs a gun in case someone breaks into his house. How quickly will he be able to retrieve his gun from the locked cabinet?

As you probably know British Police are not routinely armed and I can't remember the last time there was a policeman injured by a firearm.

I know that these debates never change people's point of view and I know that there isn't a cats chance in hell that gun control will ever be introduced in the US. But at least we should get our facts right.

[ 05-02-2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[dragonwolf]

all through this tread we have all read good points on ether side and have really gotten nowhere.i am not trying to convince anyone but i will tell you what i see everyday at work ppl who have guns and use them properally dont have to worry about criminals coming into there homes and beat them up or steal ANYTHING from them because the criminal doesnt want a new hole placed squarley into there forhead by a 9mm or .45 cal

those who think that by taking away guns from the law abidding ppl will solve the problem is wrong!all we will do is make it to where the bad guys will have free run of our contry and the police will not be able to keep up at all

the problems we have can be solved very easaly........education!
if we teach ppl how to safly handle guns and teach children in proper use and safty of firearms then we will go a long way to being safe

i have taken my children and younger cousins out and toght them how to shoot and gun safty because if you teach them about things you will take away there curiosity and they will be less likly to play with guns and hurt themselves

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Neb: The problem with locking up or hiding a gun in such a way that a child cannot possibly get to it is that if someone then breaks into your home it'll probably be too difficult to get to it for you to be able to find it before the burglar has found you. People with children should simply not be allowed to own guns.

I don't understand that either... They have guns to protect their homes. But if they have children the gun should be safely locked, so it would be impossible to get to it quickly enough. So what's the point of having a gun then? [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I've said it before, and I'll say it again with the hopes someone will want to hear it. YOU CARRY THE GUN ON YOUR PERSON AT ALL TIMES! When it is not possible to carry the gun for any reason, THEN it is locked up. IF THE GPUN IS IN YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTROL THEN KIDS CAN'T GET IT AND YOU CAN USE IT IN A PINCH!

Is the concept understood now?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Alexander: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Another thought. Should a bad turn occur in our government, does the army take orders from you and your neighbors? The occurance is unlikely, I agree. But who should be there to stop it if they render the populus impotent by disarmament and the removing of the constitutional rights? Bad regimes ALWAYS start with actions of this sort. The first thing Hitler did was collect up all the guns!

Sir Kenyth, that is the biggest myth that the gun lovers like to tell. Hitler never confiscated everyone's weapons, and I would like to see you back up your claim.

Second, if the government does decide to suddenly take over, with help from the military, what good is your pea-shooter or shotgun going to do against helicopters, tanks, cruise missiles, etc.? Not a bit of good.[/QUOTE]He didn't disarm the common populus? They confiscated and burned books but not weapons? Are you serious? I'm sure the upper crust still had weapons but the oppressed peoples were unarmed I'm sure. I read testomonials from surviving Jews from unbiased sites. Where did you get your myth info? The pea shooters can impede a lot more than you think. The Viet Cong used them and simple bombs quite effectively. Don't you think?

[Neb]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I've said it before, and I'll say it again with the hopes someone will want to hear it. YOU CARRY THE GUN ON YOUR PERSON AT ALL TIMES! When it is not possible to carry the gun for any reason, THEN it is locked up. IF THE GUN IS IN YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTROL THEN KIDS CAN'T GET IT AND YOU CAN USE IT IN A PINCH! Is the concept understood now?

So, that means that if you're asleep and someone breaks into your house you've slept with the gun in your hand? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Sorry Sir K, but in that case your idea doesn't work.

[ 05-02-2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Neb ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Neb: Actually owning a gun can endanger the owner too, what if someone breaks into their house and gets their hands on the gun? They might use it against the owner of the house if he/she interrupts them.

They can't get it if it's on you. Which is where it should be if it's not locked up anyway.