You can't have my guns.

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Report from the OECD

Compare this to countries that speak English and probably culturally the closest to us

Ireland 1.2
Australia 1.2
New Zealand 1.5
United Kingdom 1.2
Canada 1.8

You cherry pick a few countries with less crime. While ignoring 107 countries with more crime. Ireland's makeup and culture is not like the US. African-Americans commit the most homicides in the US, and you don't list a single African country. None of the countries you listed have a high Latino population either.

All 107 countries with more crime than the US have fewer guns than the US.

Homicide rate per 100,000 people:
1. Honduras 91.6
2. El Salvador 69.2
3. Côte d'Ivoire 56.9
4. Jamaica 52.2
5. Venezuela 45.1
6. Belize 41.4
7. U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2
8. Guatemala 38.5
9. Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2
10. Zambia 38.0
11. Uganda 36.3
12. Malawi 36.0
13. Lesotho 35.2
14. Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
15. Colombia 33.4
16. South Africa 31.8
17. Congo 30.8
18. Central African Republic 29.3
19. Bahamas 27.4
20. Puerto Rico 26.2
21. Saint Lucia 25.2
22. Dominican Republic 25.0
23. Tanzania 24.5
24. Sudan 24.2
25. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
26. Ethiopia 22.5
27. Guinea 22.5
28. Dominica 22.1
29. Burundi 21.7
30. Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
31. Panama 21.6
32. Brazil 21.0
33. Equatorial Guinea 20.7
34. Guinea-Bissau 20.2
35. Kenya 20.1
36. Kyrgyzstan 20.1
37. Cameroon 19.7
38. Montserrat 19.7
39. Greenland 19.2
40. Angola 19.0
41. Guyana 18.6
42. Burkina Faso 18.0
43. Eritrea 17.8
44. Namibia 17.2
45. Rwanda 17.1
46. Mexico 16.9
47. Chad 15.8
48. Ghana 15.7
49. Ecuador 15.2
50. North Korea 15.2
51. Benin 15.1
52. Sierra Leone 14.9
53. Mauritania 14.7
54. Botswana 14.5
55. Zimbabwe 14.3
56. Gabon 13.8
57. Nicaragua 13.6
58. French Guiana 13.3
59. Papua New Guinea 13.0
60. Swaziland 12.9
61. Bermuda 12.3
62. Comoros 12.2
63. Nigeria 12.2
64. Cape Verde 11.6
65. Grenada 11.5
66. Paraguay 11.5
67. Barbados 11.3
68. Togo 10.9
69. Gambia 10.8
70. Peru 10.3
71. Myanmar 10.2
72. Russia 10.2
73. Liberia 10.1
74. Costa Rica 10.0
75. Nauru 9.8
76. Bolivia 8.9
77. Mozambique 8.8
78. Kazakhstan 8.8
79. Senegal 8.7
80. Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
81. Mongolia 8.7
82. British Virgin Islands 8.6
83. Cayman Islands 8.4
84. Seychelles 8.3
85. Madagascar 8.1
86. Indonesia 8.1
87. Mali 8.0
88. Pakistan 7.8
89. Moldova 7.5
90. Kiribati 7.3
91. Guadeloupe 7.0
92. Haiti 6.9
93. Timor-Leste 6.9
94. Anguilla 6.8
95. Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
96. Lithuania 6.6
97. Uruguay 5.9
98. Philippines 5.4
99. Ukraine 5.2
100. Estonia 5.2
101. Cuba 5.0
102. Belarus 4.9
103. Thailand 4.8
104. Suriname 4.6
105. Laos 4.6
106. Georgia 4.3
107. Martinique 4.2
108. United States 4.2
 

James3shin

Diamond Member
Apr 5, 2004
4,426
0
76
It isn't opinion, it is fact. The easiest way to explain it is that in order to properly defend yourself, you need to escalate your use of force to a higher Level than your attacker. If I'm in immediate fear of my life, the only way to defend myself is to show that I'm ready to use deadly force (draw the weapon) and then use deadly force until the threat is stopped.

Using any of those personal defense weapons in a non life threatening situation us a terrible idea as well. If someone is threatening to punch your head in, pepper spraying him could make him pull out a weapon or enrage him further to escalate the situation.

There are more factors as well, but this is a simple explanation.

I do agree that if you are in fear of your life than you must do whatever is necessary to survive. However, in a non-life threatening situation can't you just run to find help or pepper spray/taser and then run to help? Tasers are quite effective from a physiological standpoint, can people shake the effects off?
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
I do agree that if you are in fear of your life than you must do whatever is necessary to survive. However, in a non-life threatening situation can't you just run to find help or pepper spray/taser and then run to help? Tasers are quite effective from a physiological standpoint, can people shake the effects off?

Running is certainly the best option when it is available. If you can get out of a situation before it really escalates, it is your best bet. As soon as you stop hitting someone with current, all pain is gone. Civilian models are contact weapons as well, putting you right in the criminals reach. Danger Will Robinson!
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Running is certainly the best option when it is available. If you can get out of a situation before it really escalates, it is your best bet. As soon as you stop hitting someone with current, all pain is gone. Civilian models are contact weapons as well, putting you right in the criminals reach. Danger Will Robinson!

They also work for police because they are trained to hold a suspect on the ground, have backup officers, can place the individual in handcuffs and a locked squad car to control them, and they carry appropriate weapons to react if the individual does continue to fight back. Plus they have training with the teaser itself, most private citizens just throw it in their purse and feel safe. Maybe pull it out when walking in a bad neighborhood that they really should just be avoiding anyways.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
There are more reasons too, honestly there are only three viable self defense tools for regular citizens.

1. Avoiding situations or fleeing. The most recommended but shit happens.
2. Hand to hand self defense training. This can work, even possibly in life threatening situations. Its a LOT of work and obviously a good compliment even to legal firearm carriers.
3. Carry a firearm, train with it. Not a ton of work, go to the range every so often.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool, and obviously plenty of citizens don't feel the need to defend themselves which is 100% absolutely fine. But they have the choice and ability to.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,544
924
126
I wonder what the founding fathers would think about all this. Remember back when all this was drafted and amended, the world only had muskets which were pretty useless for anything not standing still.

Now any nutjob bubba retard can walk into a shop and buy a Bushman with a fire rate and accuracy superior to that of an entire regiment of 18th century militia.

I somehow don't think they had all this in mind at the time...

They'd probably think we're a nation of raving lunatics.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
What are your guns protecting you from though? The government? BWAHAHAHA!!! That's a laugh. Crime? I can't legally carry a gun in my state so the only place my guns could possibly be used to prevent crime is in my own home and the chance of a crime being committed there is pretty low.

Hopefully, they aren't protecting me from anything. But if that time ever comes, I won't be a helpless victim.

Well, I wasn't asking you genius. I wanted to see what sixone had to say since his post seemed to point to the fact that guns should be used for protection from the tyranny of government. It made me wonder what he would do if the police showed up at his door unlawfully detained him.

You should read up on your history. As the old saying goes, those who don't learn from it are destined to repeat it.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,544
924
126
You should read up on your history. As the old saying goes, those who don't learn from it are destined to repeat it.

So, you really think you're going to overthrow the government with your guns then? Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Which is why I asked the question.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
So, you really think you're going to overthrow the government with your guns then? Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Which is why I asked the question.

Where did I ever say anything about overthrowing the government? Oh yeah...didn't.

If your argument is so weak that you have to make stuff up to argue with, it might be time to take a break.
 

fixxor

Member
Aug 15, 2010
128
0
71
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.

In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Thank you for posting that.

But the most damaging effect of gun control is not teaching kids to respect the damage they can do.

We're not supposed to make sex taboo, because it makes kids want it more. The same is true for guns. We should be spending as much school time educating kids about weapons as we do about sex.
I doubt that normal kids, who would actually take those lessons to heart, would bother to shoot up a school anyway.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,211
9,815
136
I don't want your guns. Good luck with your guns, you're going to need it.
 

Larnz

Senior member
Dec 15, 2010
247
1
76
The simple fact is, if cops & general population is armed then of course the criminals will be armed. Armed people means things can and do escalate to using those weapons.

If its really hard to get guns and no-one else is armed then the criminals aren't armed with guns either, so the maximum fallout is generally less. this is how it works here in NZ, gun crimes are very very low as they are hard to get.

TBH I don't think its realistic for the US to ever go back from where they are now, its been to long and guns are way to prolific to be removed now, you would never get rid of them from the criminals etc that already have them.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
how easily would he have driven the car into a classroom and continue murdering kids?

well...can't believe I'm entertaining this sad, cliche'd, completely useless argument that gun nuts continue to make, but honestly: think about your idiotic comparisons for but 3 seconds before you repeat them again.

it's sad, and every one one of you sounds like a drooling idiot when you make such baseless analogies.

Your point that cars are not "weapons per se" is well taken. But the fact of the matter is that they can be every bit as deadly as firearms. The chariot came before the flintlock, remember?

I'm not a gun nut. My wife owns a gun because she is a federal police officer. I do not own a personal firearm, though I have shot pistols, semiautomatics, shotguns, etc. Like a car, a gun is perfectly safe when used responsibly.

The analogy I offered is NOT baseless. People can and have used cars to commit senseless acts of violence. Google the Isla Vista Massacre, which was a 2001 incident where a perp used a car to kill 5 people. Its the same thing. Someone used an OBJECT to commit a terrible act. The blame is on the PERSON, not the object.

Regardless, I think we are talking past one another, mainly because the argument has not been adequately framed on either side. If you are proposing to ban guns outright, I'm against that, plain and simple. If you are proposing some form of legislation to improve the safety of firearms (e.g., a "smart gun" similar to that seen in the recent bond movie), make your point and lets discuss.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
The simple fact is, if cops & general population is armed then of course the criminals will be armed. Armed people means things can and do escalate to using those weapons.

If its really hard to get guns and no-one else is armed then the criminals aren't armed with guns either, so the maximum fallout is generally less. this is how it works here in NZ, gun crimes are very very low as they are hard to get.

TBH I don't think its realistic for the US to ever go back from where they are now, its been to long and guns are way to prolific to be removed now, you would never get rid of them from the criminals etc that already have them.

NZ doesn't have an open border, where guns and drugs flow freely from another continent. Doesn't NZ also have very strict immigrant policies, too?
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
The simple fact is, if cops & general population is armed then of course the criminals will be armed. Armed people means things can and do escalate to using those weapons.

If its really hard to get guns and no-one else is armed then the criminals aren't armed with guns either, so the maximum fallout is generally less. this is how it works here in NZ, gun crimes are very very low as they are hard to get.

But there is a significant difference between NZ and the US, in that guns have been a part of U.S. history for a long, long time. There are literally millions of legally owned firearms in the U.S. Even if you were to ban the sale of new firearms today, there would still be a huge number of them available.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
Guns make it exponentially easier to carry out mass homicide.
No one really believes that a car is as deadly as an assault rifle with a 30rd magazine... do you?

For the record, I never said that it was. My point was, and is, that a gun (like a car) is as deadly as the intent with which it is operated.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,544
924
126
Where did I ever say anything about overthrowing the government? Oh yeah...didn't.

If your argument is so weak that you have to make stuff up to argue with, it might be time to take a break.

What stuff am I making up? Gun owners say this all the time, "we need guns to protect us from the tyranny of government." I thought that was where you were going with the comment I quoted. Apologies if I'm wrong. I was just asking a question. What purpose do guns serve in that respect?

I'm really curious because I've been a law abiding gun owner for more than 20 years and that has never been a reason for me personally.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,544
924
126
For the record, I never said that it was. My point was, and is, that a gun (like a car) is as deadly as the intent with which it is operated.

The primary purpose of a car is not to kill though. Passenger airliners are not designed to kill either but they do so when operated poorly or when parts fail on them which is why they are heavily regulated. Military planes are designed as weapons and you can buy them on a limited basis but not the armaments and they are also heavily regulated.

Your point is moot... and stupid.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
What stuff am I making up? Gun owners say this all the time, "we need guns to protect us from the tyranny of government." I thought that was where you were going with the comment I quoted. Apologies if I'm wrong. I was just asking a question. What purpose do guns serve in that respect?

I'm really curious because I've been a law abiding gun owner for more than 20 years and that has never been a reason for me personally.

Okay...but how did you get from protection to overthrowing the government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |