I don't like Mondays

RE: No guns needed…

Ban everything… that’ll make the world safe…

(Start with banning people first I think…)

RE: No guns needed…

TOKYO (Reuters) – A middle-aged man stabbed to death with an umbrella may have been killed in an argument over a parking space, Japanese media reported on Thursday.

Toshimi Kuwabara, 55, staggered into his 77-year-old mother’s house in Hiroshima, western Japan, with several stab wounds in his face and throat early on Thursday, they said.

Witnesses had heard a car drawing up and a loud argument in the street.

Police said a young man in a navy suit holding a black umbrella was seen fleeing the scene.

Kuwabara was taken to hospital but died an hour later.

RE: Mr. Lott’s article

“Russia has a murder rate about 3 times higher than the US and their murders are overwhelmingly by knives and clubs.”

The laws regarding the private ownership of guns is very strict. Last time I looked it was ilegal to own any firearm for self defence. All that was allowed was a chemical sprayer and those electric lightning gun things. With a murder rate three times higher than the US perhaps the urge to kill is not limited to firearms and in their absence the criminals will commit the crime anyway using something else?

“what you imply is that thoese who kill with guns would switch to machetes if guns were banned. i’ld say that isn’t so”

What I am implying is if someone wants to kill someone else they are hardly going to not do it just because they haven’t been able to steal a gun. Bombs are quite easily made if you know what to do, and if you don’t even a kitchen knife in the back will kill the strongest opponent.

“thurther step from the pub fight into the accidental killing. “

Someone angry enough to kill will not stop just because they are not armed (though they probably would if the other person was…). A broken bottle will kill just as effectively as a pistol at very close range.

“also if you have a gun and a burgler come into your house you are more likley to use it on the burgler when if you didn’t ahve a gun you’ld leave the burgler alone and not risk the fight or maybe jsut nock him out with your hockey stick “

I have several guns and as I have said I wouldn’t be able to get the gun and ammo and bolt in time to do anything with it. If a burglar was climbing over the fence with my video recorder then the only thing I’d shoot him with is a camera. If he was attacking a member of my family either in the form of an attempted rape or as a home invasion he had better be faster than me or I’ll beat his head down into his chest… and although our police force would frown on it I doubt a jury of my peers would convict me.

“Garry, I don’t know about the situation in New Zealand, but here in the UK the Police advise us not to ‘hurt’ a burglar because in our upside down, back to front legal system, it’s highly likely that the house owner will end up receiving a far harsher sentence for assault than the burglar would for the burglary! Needless to say, most people here would defend theirselves and their families and worry about the consequences later.”

Yes, we have the same types of laws here… we inherited them from you guys… 🙂
As I have said above if I feel there is no threat to myself or my family then I wouldn’t go out of my way to hurt the burglar… after all that is what insurance is for. I certainly don’t agree with home owners dealing out the death penalty for a crime that would only get them their wrist slapped in court.

There have been a few robberies here recently where after receiving the money from first a pizza place and then a bank the robber shot the guy who handed him the money in the head and killed them… in the more recent case of the bank teller getting shot he was kept on life support so that his children could say goodbye before it was turned off and he died. In both cases the victims complied with the robbers demands… they were shot anyway.

RE: Mr. Lott’s article

(BTW if you think beating them to death is a little harsh do you expect me to let them take control of the situation… “Yes, mister burglar, my guns are over there but you’d better hurry, I’ve called the police… they should be here in 10 minutes.”)

Garry, I don’t know about the situation in New Zealand, but here in the UK the Police advise us not to ‘hurt’ a burglar because in our upside down, back to front legal system, it’s highly likely that the house owner will end up receiving a far harsher sentence for assault than the burglar would for the burglary! Needless to say, most people here would defend theirselves and their families and worry about the consequences later.

As regarding the keeping and usage of guns, it is appropriate providing they are kept in the manner you describe. I’m not sure how you could ensure licensed gun owners are checked satisfactorily regarding their state of mind, after all, it only takes moments for someone to ‘snap’. It’s okay to say they would just find another weapon such as a knife, sword or club and that may be true. The problem with a gun is it is far more impersonal and unless you’re quite close to your victim you’re not going to get splattered with blood and brains. You just pull your trigger and move on to your next victim. The other problem with guns is that they are effective from a distance, you keep your hands nice and clean and you are not going to have to struggle with your victim. Sadly, this makes it all so much easier.

Regards,

kev35

PS There was a drug dealer shot to death in his car in a busy street where I live with a police station no more than 500 yards away. The response time for that incident was a magnificent 25 minutes. And the responding officer came from a town 5 miles away.

RE: i think this is a disagrement

What’s with the fixation with inanimate objects rather than evil humans? When you see a computer, do you think ‘hacker’. If you see matches, do you think ‘arsonist’. If you see a butter knife, do you think ‘slasher’?

The highest murder rates in the world are in Africa (especially Botswana, South Africa and Mozambique), where the killings are done by machete, knives and clubs. South and Central America (especially Columbia and Venezuela) murder rates follow closely, also with machete, knives and clubs. Russia has a murder rate about 3 times higher than the US and their murders are overwhelmingly by knives and clubs.

Evil exists in the hearts of men. They will use any tool available to commit crimes. Blame the men not the tool they use.

RE: i think this is a disagrement

off the top of my head ive herd of only 1 machete attack in the alst ten years.

what you imply is that thoese who kill with guns would switch to machetes if guns were banned. i’ld say that isn’t so

i do think that on a whole the general possesion of guns makes those violent members of the population go that one thurther step from the pub fight into the accidental killing.

also if you have a gun and a burgler come into your house you are more likley to use it on the burgler when if you didn’t ahve a gun you’ld leave the burgler alone and not risk the fight or maybe jsut nock him out with your hockey stick }>.

rabie :9

RE: i think this is a disagrement

“ahh but over here with very very few guns we don’t have machete or otherwise attacks on the smae level they do in america.”

So what you are saying is banning guns will stop machete attacks?

Possesion of guns makes people more violent?

I think it shows that violence is a cultural thing and has nothing to do with firearms. There were violent rampages with weapons long before guns existed. Words like rampage and “to run Amok” are not new nor were they originally a description of gun use in a massacre.

The fact that guns are “clean” in the sense they are easy to use and you don’t have to get blood on your hands means they will always be the weapon of choice… except when bombs are used.

Do you really think taking away access to guns will make these people more stable?
Or will it just penalise those of us who abide by the laws and are sensible, safe, and responsible with our firearms?

i think this is a disagrement

“Removing guns without changing the way the world is would just mean some other weapon would be substituted… whether that is a machete or a length of wood or metal.“

ahh but over here with very very few guns we don’t have machete or otherwise attacks on the smae level they do in america.

yes there is the odd case but its rare, it is not as if there is a certain level of people who comit crime in soceity and if they are america they use a gun and in in the uk they use a …. (hokey stick? :-)).

rabie :9

RE: Mr. Lott’s article

The problem is Rabie I don’t actually think we disagree.

I just think your focus is in the wrong place.

You say the world would be a better place if there were no guns.

I suggest to you that what you really mean is that the world would be a better place if there were no need for guns.

Removing guns without changing the way the world is would just mean some other weapon would be substituted… whether that is a machete or a length of wood or metal.

By your calulations don’t you think the US should be Noon at the OK coral? It shouldn’t be safe to step out the door… yet in most places it probably is. Does that suggest that not all legally owned guns and legitimate gun owners are the problem… or is it just luck.

Perhaps you do see a gun as a piece of metal and wood or plastic specially designed to Kill. Some are, but that doesn’t effect how they will be used. Many spend their entire lives just punching holes in paper… even the ones bought for self protection.
As I have said before I have my guns locked away with ammo and bolts stored seperately.
If someone broke in here I’d be beating them to death with a hockey stick… not shooting them, yet people like you think guns are the problem…
(BTW if you think beating them to death is a little harsh do you expect me to let them take control of the situation… “Yes, mister burglar, my guns are over there but you’d better hurry, I’ve called the police… they should be here in 10 minutes.”)

RE: Mr. Lott’s article

im really not up to going back over this ground but with sucha title that IMHO it speaks for iteslf.

but this caught my eye this time “it’s getting like in America, and we don’t want to see that here.” – my point entirley, aprat form lack of health care, and the death penalty, the vast numbers of guns (was it 30% ? – sorry not viewing the whole thread) held by both ‘normal’ citizens and crminals makes america appear to be a land of gun mad nutters to some one like me who lives wiht the odd farmer with a shotgun. if it is 30% thats still one gun in every household (assume avearge family is around 4 people).

rabie :9

Mr. Lott’s article

Rabie,
Mr. John R. Lott’s research on gun control is widely respected. His article is definitely not biased at all. His research involves facts and figures without any fictitious claims whatsoever.

Sam.

RE: Murders per 100,000

well djcros the numbers were something like 230 million gun i amercia in a newsweek specail and the us pollation on my ten year old map of the world is down as 258 million. now i know why elp dosen’t like newsweek.

i understand the need for rifles in rural area garry and i acept that in the uk you are likley to come across farmers with shotguns, but fundmentally gun ownership is nowhere the same levels.

for the third time lets agree to disagree (we are getting nowhere)

rabie :9

RE: Murders per 100,000

Assault rifles have been identified by the press as “the problem”.

This is rubbish.

Criminals don’t rob shops and banks from 200m… they do it from 2m.
A small concealable pistol or sawn off shotgun is what the want and use… something that will fit under a coat.
Wandering down the street with an SLR would attract too much attention from too many people… especially now with the widespread existance of cell phones.

I think the best example is that attack on a politicans car recently in Europe… by a handgrenade.

By all means ban guns.

The healthy Black market that you create will not just bring in sporting rifles and ammo… I look forward to buying hand grenades, full auto belt fed machineguns… even the odd anti material rifle in say 50 calibre… it should be fun… maybe even get a few blocks of C4…

Of course I wouldn’t buy these things… I actually take pride in the fact that I am a law abiding citizen. Right now in New Zealand there are checks and restrictions on firearms. I think they are a good idea. There are age restrictions on who can get a licence for firearms. Pistols are very strictly controlled.
Ban them and any 14 year old with a paper run could afford buy an Uzi if he or she saves up long enough (which is also ilegal here but I doubt those black marketeers will abide by the law).

Rabs
If you mean that the world would be a better place without firearms I don’t think you have thought about this properly.
Do you think firearms are the problem or are people the problem?
How many died in Rwanda?
Is being hacked to death by Machete fun?
Did the lack of firearms in that country help?

I am old enough to have lost many friends and family. I don’t like death. While I am in favour of the death penalty in some cases (mainly to prevent someone who is likely to continue to kill from doing just that.) I think that saving a life is important, but I also know we can’t save everyone. Making all firearms disappear will prevent the deaths of those who make mistakes with their guns… ie allow children access to them without direct adult supervision. It will also prevent many from protecting themselves. It will also deny many the pleasure they enjoy from the various sports that require firearms. Compared to the value of a life what value can you put on someone enjoying target shooting or hunting?
I don’t like big dogs very much.
I do realise that others really appreciate big dogs and see them as parts of their family.
Big dogs can be unpredictible.
Big dogs can kill.
Not just the types bred for fighting either… I once knew a Golden Labrador that would take the hand off anyone but his owner… when he bit he drew blood… I know of many other owners of the same breed that would more likely lick you to death… should Labs be banned? Should large dogs be banned?
I don’t think so because I recognise that the odd aberation gets in the news but what doesn’t make he news are the millions of families that have no problems at all and to ban for a few would upset too many.
Cars are a tool used by many. They are a toy for others. As long as they are not misused they only have a positive effect on society (though their effect on the environment is something else).

Equally guns and in particular gun owners also serve a purpose.
We don’t all baracade ourselves in our houses loaded and ready for WWIII or a robber we can shoot. As part of our sport we actually help preserve wetland areas, remove pests that would otherwise become a problem not just for farmers but for other wildlife. At worst we offer an income via hunting to farmers during hard times… and the option of hunting for cheap meat means low income families can eat well and save a little money at the same time.
Here in New Zealand there are areas of Department of Conservation land that anyone with a permit can hunt on… the permit is free. So if you don’t have a large amount of money you could spend 100 dollars and buy a old .303 Lee Enfield or something, get a permit and go out and shoot a couple of deer to fill the freezer for 4-5 weeks… 5-10 shots equates to $7-$15 in ammo for zeroing the rifle and shooting 2-3 deer. Not only that it is something to do for a weekend that will only cost you what you eat and petrol money.

RE: Murders per 100,000

I am interested in where you got your numbers about firearm ownership in the US (seriously, no flame intended). There is a lot of mis-information floating around the media anout the US and ‘wild-west cowboy mentality’.

The numbers by the US Department of Justice put firearms ownership at 80 million out of 270 million (or about 30%). This is way down from the 1930s and 40s where ownership was between 55 and 60% of total population.

Rural and small town firearm ownership is higher than big cities where firearm ownership is severely restricted or prohibited (Washington DC, Chicago, New York).

In those probibited cities, it’s mainly the criminal gangs that have guns and they are the ones who commit the majority of the murders. Funny how criminal gangs refuse to obey the laws prohibiting guns (I guess that’s why they are called criminals). The black market for guns thrives like the drug market.

Persons convicted of violent crimes (all felonies and misdemeanor assault and domestic violence) are prohibited from possessing a firearm (national law since 1994).

All persons wanting to purchase a firearm has to go through a background check (national law since 1994).

Sales between private parties requires a background check in 34 out of 50 states and more states are adopting similar restrictions every month.

Some states have passed laws that prohibit inheritance of firearms.

Ownership of machine guns has been severely restricted since 1934 – that’s right – nineteen thirty four (national law), imposing background checks, a healthy tax, storage safes/vaults, pre-approval to transport outside the home state and suprise inspections by the BATF. It has been illegal to manufacture machine guns for civilian sale since 1984 (national law).

It has been illegal to manufacture or import assault weapons (actually semi-automatic look alikes) since 1994 (national law).

RE: Murders per 100,000

wiht reference to bruce lle – my point is that 99% of the uk is unarmed bar a tiny ount of criminals and the ood shotgun in the country – it scares me that 23 out of 25 amercan have a gun of any sort including assult rifels and uzis.

fundmentally ii doubtt that even in the us that every woamn caries a gun andtherefore deers criminal and i dout that that could haapen here.

here i live witht eh treat that the ira or the russian could kill me (by bomb or nuke) sinc i was born and that dosen’t particualry bother me and i ahven’t felt the need that carrying a gun will stop tthat -neither have our police.

i can see this argument is going no where (i stand firm and so fo you) so i think we should agree to disagree.

rabie :9

RE: Murders per 100,000

10 years ago I’d say NZ coppers weren’t armed either. Now it is much more common… despite the still low level of criminal use of firearms here.
I guess they prefer to be prepared.

( A few years back a nutter called David Gray shot 13 people… including himself and one police officer… The “it won’t happen here” bubble has been burst and a little innocence is gone.)

“i also don’t think that a woman having a gun will be able to help herself from a rapist as how will the rapist knowshe has a gun, and will she be willing to fire it and even so i doubt it would be used effectivly (ie lack of traing, poor sight in a dark alley, etc)”

Yes… dumb stupid women… “which end goes bang again?”.
I agree that if they were able many would buy a gun and that alone would make them feel safer. The majority who buy one for self defence take more than just a passing interest in protecting themselves. Including training and most obviously how the damn things work… it is not rocket science by the way… just point the end with the hole at what you want to shoot at.

If you think any criminal is going to charge an armed person then you don’t really know criminals that well. The main reason women are preferred as attack victims is they are easier to control whether for robbery or rape… they tend to be smaller and weaker than the criminals and that is why they become targets. If during an attack one were to pull a gun your average crim would run as fast as they could and find someone weak and without a gun.

Certainly as I have said above there are situations where a gun is of no use, but I would rather take my chances with one than without one if I was smaller and female.

(I remember an amusing cartoon (dark humour) where a woman is attacked then goes to martial arts training to protect herself. In the last frame of the cartoon she is attacked again… by her martial arts teacher.)

Remember “Enter the Dragon”… Bruce Lee when told he was going to an Island to fight asked where the guns they would take were… he was an awesome fighter but he was also practical enough to know that a firearm can make even the weakest untrained person as dangerous as the best unarmed fighters in the world.

RE: Murders per 100,000

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 10-05-02 AT 09:27 AM (GMT)]our police over here are unarmed unless there is an armed incident and then a specail squad with guns (mp5s) come out and they have really harsh ROE.

unlike most other places in the world our coopers are unarmed and im very proud of that. it really does worry me people having guns at all, including your average cooper.

i also don’t think that a woman having a gun will be able to help herself from a rapist as how will the rapist knowshe has a gun, and will she be willing to fire it and even so i doubt it would be used effectivly (ie lack of traing, poor sight in a dark alley, etc)

rabie :9

RE: Murders per 100,000

“i remain unconvinced that firearms are a good idea and that i feel that they are preety useless in slef defence situation.”

Try telling that to a policeman… sure they often go into places noone else in their right mind would go and they deal with people most law abiding people would normally avoid… but do they wear pistols only then or all the time?
They wear them all the time because they don’t know when they might need them to deal with a problem. Most of the time they don’t even need to draw their weapons. But when they do need some lethal force available it is better to have it with you than have it in the boot (US Trunk) of the car.

I compare it to an asteroid hit on the earth… it might only happen once in your lifetime… it may never happen in your lifetime, or it might happen 3 times next week. When it does happen it will effect you for the rest of your life. If you don’t plan for it you will probably come out of it worse then if you had made some preparations. Of course there is no guarantee that any preparations will make any difference, but is it sensible not to?

Like Fire Insurance. It might save you a lot of money if your house burns down.
Of course:
If you and your family die in the fire the money might mean nothing. If it never burns it will be something that costs time and money with no return except a sense of security (that if your house burns down and you survive you are not completely financially destitute).

Buying fire insurance is like reducing the gamble that is life. For a cost of time and money you can make one possible bad occurance less bad.
Equally if you are fearful of your safety and especially if you are female (despite what feminists say they are physically the weaker sex) then a firearm can make you less of a target.
( I have a female friend who is proud to be a black belt at judo… I asked her to show me a few moves and she found several didn’t work because of my weight… she could certainly hurt me but if I surprised her I think I could beat her most times. She has trained to fight… most women have not… I have no fighting training… just size… (115kgs at the time))

RE: Murders per 100,000

i remain unconvinced that firearms are a good idea and that i feel that they are preety useless in slef defence situation.

but ill agree to disagree

rabie :9

RE: Murders per 100,000

“It’s the evil intent of the human at work, not the weapon.”

Yes.

What Pi$$e$ me off is when some dork goes and does something really stupid with a firearm it is somehow the firearms fault. Yet when there is a car accident there are no calls for cars to be banned. This is probably because most (I suspect urban) people see no legitimate reason for using firearms, whereas they understand the need for cars.
I would counter that argument by suggesting everyone take a bus and that would also solve the problem of unlicenced or disqualified drivers. A car is a ton of metal that can be and often is as lethal as any firearm yet they are so easy to aquire and use. They kill thousands of people a day yet no one except those about to lose another of their freedoms would consider banning them.

I blame lawyers.
They have made people who do bad things blameless… I was abused as a child… I had a tough time growing up… temporary insanity.

“everyone having a gun does not prevent crime at all, it just increases the cases where people make mistakes .”

I agree that owning a gun does not make you invulnerable to crime. Equally there are members of society who cannot handle the responsibility that goes with firearm ownership. Having said that if you were to approach a little old lady with the intention of robbing and raping her would you continue if she drew a pistol on you?
If she drew a cell phone instead and started to dial the police what would you do then?
If she just started screaming for help then what would you do.
I am assuming you would be incapable of attacking such an innocent woman but there are many who would have beaten and robbed her in two of those situations and run away in the other… which do you think is which and which result do you think would be better if it was your grandmother?
Now I realise if she keeps it loaded and sitting on her dresser drawer then you might have a few less grandkids… but then is that the fault of the gun or should your grandmother have locked the pistol and ammunition away?

Accidents will always happen but if you follow a few simple rules then there would be no problems.

I saw on TV some family is sueing a gun manufacturer over a design flaw where if the gun was being unloaded in a certain way it fired. It was on CNN recently.
The mother… poker faced blamed the gun manufacturer for the death of her son because the gun went off while she was emptying it. The reporter had an appropriately sombre look about him when he explained what happened.
I blame the mother.
Why was she pointing a firearm at her son?
Even if she was unloading it you should never point a firearm at anything you are not prepared to shoot.

“eg if i had a gun and got pissed off i might then use it instead of just having a normal fight with some one (which im more likley to survive from).”

Would you really?
Do you use knives and other weapons when you fight?

“im ok with hunting rifles and normal shotguns in rural areas but giun anywhere else should be left to trained porofessional.”

I know a few “trained professionals”… police and army. I wouldn’t trust them with a butter knife.

You don’t need SAS type training to use a firearm safely and properly. In many self defence situations simply presenting a firearm will result in a good outcome. I am not suggesting that everyone should be armed to the teeth and shoot anything on sight… that would be rediculous.

But if someone wants to rape or steal then I am going to try to stop them… if I consider deadly force is required then I want it to be an option.