Good Samaritan Gun Use

Good Samaritan Gun Use
Friday, March 04, 2005
By John Lott, Jr.
source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.html)
A multiple victim public shooting last week outside the court house in Tyler, Texas, stemming from a custody dispute, resulted in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others.

Killings like this frequently make the news, and this story was carried by all the television networks and most major newspapers. ABC and NBC evening news coverage was fairly typical; they noted, respectively, that “David Hernandez Arroyo (search) fired off more than 50 rounds. He killed two people before police shot him dead” and “A gunman killed his ex-wife and a bystander and wounded four others between--before being shot to death by police.”

Of the 71 unique news stories found by a computerized Nexis search of stories in the four days after the attack, 38 percent mention that an AK-47 (search) or high-powered rifle was used by the attacker. As usual, gun control groups called for more gun control.

Eric Howard, with the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence (search), said “These are military-style weapons that pose a significant risk to civilians and the police officers trying to protect the public.”

Only two stories mentioned that the AK-47 was a semi-automatic, not a machine gun, and, while it is understandable, none of the articles provided context by explaining that Arroyo’s weapon functioned the same as deer hunting rifles, firing the same caliber bullets, at the same rapidity, and doing the same damage.

Seems like pretty standard media coverage. But what makes this case different is that 21 percent of the news stories actually mentioned that a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon used his gun to try and help stop the attack.

The citizen, 50 year old Mark Wilson, was one of the two people murdered. As CNN reported, “Everyone here agrees, Wilson saved lives.” Fox News' website quoted the sheriff as saying "if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson, [Arroyo's son] would be dead."

Wilson, a licensed concealed handgun permit holder, heard Arroyo’s shots and saw the commotion from his apartment window. He grabbed a handgun and headed toward the attacker. Arroyo had already wounded several police officers and there was no one left to prevent his rampage.

Arroyo had also shot his 22-year-old son and was about ready to shoot him again from very close range when Wilson fired his gun, hitting Arroyo several times in the chest. Arroyo was wearing a bullet resistant vest and flak jacket and Wilson's shots did not seriously wound him. Yet, Wilson’s shots forced Arroyo to come after him, and it used up a couple of minutes of his time. Unfortunately, in the exchange of gunfire, Arroyo eventually fatally shot Wilson. With police arriving, Arroyo fled the scene and was later shot to death by police as they pursued him.

Neighbors described Wilson as “one of the nicest, sweetest guys I've ever known.” Others pointed out that “He's not going to sit back and -- when he could do something about it, and just let it happen” and called him a hero.

It is not remarkable that someone such as Mark Wilson was there at the scene to stop the attack before police arrived. For example, in about 30 percent of the multiple victim public school shootings that have captivated Americans’ attention starting in 1997, people used guns to stop the attacks before uniformed police were able to arrive on the scene. Few people know about these cases because only about one percent of the news stories on these cases mention how the attacks were stopped.

What is remarkable is that this heroism--an act of defensive gun use (search)--did receive some national attention. Undoubtedly, much of the coverage came from the fact that Mark Wilson was killed by Arroyo, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that many stories admitted that he had saved at least one life and a few stories quoted police saying that he had probably saved multiple lives.

Of course, gun control advocates draw their usual conclusion from all this. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center (search) in Washington, D.C., claims the Tyler shooting last Thursday shows that criminals are undeterred by people potentially carrying concealed weapons. But, in fact, more nearly the opposite is true. When Arroyo faced the choice of continuing to shoot others or defending himself, he was forced to defend himself. Making Arroyo's attacks more risky caused him to change his behavior.

More generally, though, it is strange that Rand points to one case as evidence that deterrence doesn't work. In the book, The Bias Against Guns, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and I examine multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and find that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

Many people find it hard to believe that 18 national surveys by academics as well as national polling organizations show that there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Yet when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using a gun to stop a crime? ABC’s and NBC’s news coverage continued this pattern, but at least some CBS and CNN news reports provided some balance and Fox News’ website also gave the full story.

This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one that merely says "police shot him dead," the media give misleading impressions of what actions saved the lives of people confronted by violence. As Wilson's case demonstrates, defensive gun use is not a guns-rights myth. Guns have been and are used by law abiding citizens to protect and save their own lives and the lives of others.

Feel good stories about a crime being prevented are rarely told. They don't sell.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Pity they don't. The reality of the situation is that there are a great number of crimes that are thwarted by law abiding citizens using their weapons.

Feel good stories about a crime being prevented are rarely told. They don't sell.


But often the story is told... well, most of it, anyway. ;) If you're going to carry a story about a shooting, and that shooting was stopped or in some way the carnage was limited by the actions of by-standers, then that should be part of the story.

I don't know that I would call them "feel good" stories. They are just the news. They are things that happen all the time. I understand the news media is a business and they do want ratings, but they also have a journalistic duty to provide all the news, and let us decide for ourselves. When the media always shows the bad news, but ignores the good news (which there is far more of than bad news), they present us with a view on our situation that is not honest. The media would have you believe that shootings, abductions, and school killings are all serious problems that are getting out of control- the truth is that these occurence are happening less than ever.

Besides, I think a few stories about our heros is a good thing. And I don't think it will hurt ratings either- "feel good" stories like Batman, or Superman, or Spiderman, seem to sell just fine. ;) And who wants to turn on the news everyday to see "feel bad" stories being told? Don't you think it's depressing to turn on the news to see bad shit happening every day?

Mark Wilson is a hero. He left the safety of his apartment and put his life on the line to help others. He should be rewarded, and people should know his story and the stories of people like him.

(on a slightly different note, I also hope this story teaches people who carry handguns that if the first two to the chest don't stop him, it's time to aim a little higher)

(on a slightly different note, I also hope this story teaches people who carry handguns that if the first two to the chest don't stop him, it's time to aim a little higher)


You got that right!!!!

Hmmm, I didn't shoot anybody. Thus saving lives, when are they going to write a story in the news about me?
Unfortunately, Wilson didn't kill the pyscho, and what he did accomplish could have very well by attracting the gunmans attention in any way, with or without the use of a gun.
So in the end, a man with a gun kills some people, and then a man with a gun doesn't kill anybody, but get's killed, and we're supposed to appreciate the use of firearms?
Don't get me wrong, the media does like to make it sound like guns and gun owners are all bad news - but this is hardly a story that proves guns are used for good, nor am I saying that Wilson's actions didn't actually do anything good, I'm just saying that the fact he used a firearm doesn't really add up to any importance in the whole scheme of the story.

So..the guy distracted the nut job with the semi-automatic and a flak jacket for long enough forr the nut job's son to escape death, and then got killed himself?
What a dumbass.
First rule of any emergency situation, don't put yourself in danger.

And let's not focus on this idiot's ineffective use of his licenced plaything,let's focus on how easy it is for a deranged psycho to get hold of an AK 47 and shoot up the public outside a courthouse.

The excuses for this kind of crime, that repeats itself over and over again across America are getting slimmer and slimmer.saying that it's somehow unreasonable not to mention that this guy could have easily caused the same carnage with a hunting rifle has no relevance to any of the arguments, and only highlights the laxity of US gun laws.
No amount of glossing over will change the fact that a guy took a semi-automatic weapon into the heart of a city and killed two people and wounded 4 others.No amount of fancy editorials will change the fact that he fired off over50 rounds,and that the police had to risk their liveds to contain the situation.

I'll happily go the whole hog on the issue of private gun ownership.It's not neccesary, does far more harm than good, and was wtitten into the constitution at a time before adequate policing was available, and before civilised behaviour was the norm.Private gun ownership is a relic from the 1700's,America would be a much safer place if it were abolished.

The article isn't so much about who shot who but the fact that somebody took responsibility in an attempt to do something since the cops weren't there.

My Dad was in law enforcement a long time and basically said "it usually takes at least 10 minutes in a fast response to a call. What are you going to do in those 10 minutes. Think about it."

Armed citizens deter crime every day. This is not the text book article for it but it happens often that no one gets killed- good guy or bad guy- when the would-be victim is armed.

Most of the media is worthless in every respect by their filtering and distorting and re-writing of copy.

The antis aren't going to get it ever. They're faced with obvious ignoring of "gun laws" by criminals who continue to buy weapons illegally yet rally for more laws. Factor in the elitist attitude that the more rich and powerful of them have armed guards and their own firearms but you and I should be afforded the same advantage and the hipocracy just blows their house of cards away.

I don't care if anti don't, or say they don't want to own guns. Leave the people that LEGALLY own LEGAL firearms alone. And when they're accosted and in need of assistance we'll mind our own business and ignore their crties for help. Fair enough?
http://members.aol.com/browrob549/emo/violent018.gif

Just seems a shame that it has to work that waty in just one country in thte civilised world.Criminals don't have such ready access access to firearms here, because,

A/firearms ownership is not seen as a neccesity here

B/those who do own firearms privately are obliged under law to secure them properly and transport them responsibly.

C/People who want to own flak jackets and AK47's are assumed to be of antisocial tendency.

I think of this man as a hero, not a "dumbass" as some of you care calling him. He saw an injustice and decided to do what was morally right, and help.

He placed two shots, centermass. they don't say from what distance, but I bet ya, he had really good control, since I bet his pulse, heart, and adrenaline were racing like mad.

too bad he wasnt aware that the guy had a vest on.

this man should be honored accordingly for his selflessness act, and be seen for the honorable hero that he is.

I see no reason to tarnish his name by calling him stupid or dumb for what he did.

I think of this man as a hero, not a "dumbass" as some of you care calling him. He saw an injustice and decided to do what was morally right, and help.

He placed two shots, centermass. they don't say from what distance, but I bet ya, he had really good control, since I bet his pulse, heart, and adrenaline were racing like mad.

too bad he wasnt aware that the guy had a vest on.

this man should be honored accordingly for his selflessness act, and be seen for the honorable hero that he is.

I see no reason to tarnish his name by calling him stupid or dumb for what he did.

I see no reason to call him a hero. He tried to kill someone and ended up dead. And he's a handgun owner. Handguns and assault rifles serve no purpose in a civilised society.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=995922&tw=wn_wire_story

Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest.

"He definitely came well-armed and prepared," police Chief Gary Swindle said. "We do understand there had been some threats made by him the previous week."

This guy should never have been allowed a weapon.Such a shame that America practically hands them out like lollipops.

Oh well....Darwin wins again.Two firearms owners less for the civilised among us to worry about.

Naki, you have to admit that the intentions of Mr.Wilson were good, the way he went about it may not have been the most rational but he most likely acted upon instinct. And yes it remains that a deranged man with a history of firearm abuse was allowed to carry an AK-47 and have nothing about it.

This guy should never have been allowed a weapon.Such a shame that America practically hands them out like lollipops.


No, this asshole was NOT allowed a weapon. But somehow the law didn't stop him. Criminals will always find the tools to do their work, whether it's legal or not. Shit, all you have to do is look at Iraq. Sure, there are a lot of guns there. But the first thing we did when we got there was take them all away!. Further, the majority of the killing is done with improvised munitions.

Outlawing guns serves no purpose but to disarm law abiding citizens. Unless you have some magical spell to cast, which will un-invent guns, they will always be available. You can look at the UK, where crime involving firearms is higher now than it was before they tightened the restrictions. Or consider another thing which has been rendered illegal, like marijauna, or Mexicans... neither of them have trouble crossing the border. Even if every American who owned guns turned them in, all you would have to do to get more guns into the country would be to hide them in a bail of marijauna or a truck-load of Mexicans.

Futher, this guy didn't use an AK47, he used a MAK90.

The excuses for this kind of crime, that repeats itself over and over again across America are getting slimmer and slimmer
There is no excuse for crime, only criminals and the bleeding-hearts looking for excuses to protect them. As far the crime that "repeats itself over and over again," well you are correct in the fact the occurences are "slimmer and slimmer."

It's not neccesary, does far more harm than good, and was wtitten into the constitution at a time before adequate policing was available, and before civilised behaviour was the norm

Well I'm not sure what you define as "harm" and "good." I'm havnig computer problems tonight so I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional). Even if you count all 46k, it's quite a bit smaller than the two million defensive uses of guns. To me, that looks like good>harm.

As for "adequate policing," that's exactly the reaon we have the second amendment.

Taranaki, I can tell you're very serious about your goal of revoking my right to self defense, and I think it's awesome that you are so passionate- unfortunately I don't know if I should laugh or cry when I read your posts. Delusion is the word that comes to mind, although I think it may be a bit of an understatement.

Taranaki, I can tell you're very serious about your goal of revoking my right to self defense, and I think it's awesome that you are so passionate- unfortunately I don't know if I should laugh or cry when I read your posts. Delusion is the word that comes to mind, although I think it may be a bit of an understatement.

I'm quite serious about revoking your right to die in a hail of bullets.
Your argument about the weapon involved is irrelevant, but for the sake of argument, I read several reports of this incident, and they all reported it as an AK47.
When you come back with some stats on gun deaths that are anywhere near as low as any other developed country,and stop trying to turn this into a flame war with stupid comments about dellusional behaviour, I might just take you seriously.

I'm quite serious about revoking your right to die in a hail of bullets.
Your argument about the weapon involved is irrelevant, but for the sake of argument, I read several reports of this incident, and they all reported it as an AK47.
When you come back with some stats on gun deaths that are anywhere near as low as any other developed country,and stop trying to turn this into a flame war with stupid comments about dellusional behaviour, I might just take you seriously.


I won't be comparing gun deaths because the tools used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is crime in general, and murder in general. If someone gets raped by a man with a gun, or a knife, I could care less what the weapon was- the problem is the criminal and the rape he commits.

In addition, comparing different countries is not very accurate, because there are a lot more factors playing into it than just the fact that one country has one law and another has a different law. There are a lot of cultural and societal differences, different histories, etc., that affect crime rates. The only logical way to compare would be to look at each country individually, and see what happened to their crime rates after firearms restrictions were passed or removed. I have yet to see anything that shows an overall reduction in crime after anti self-defense laws were passed. The general trend after passing these laws is no change, or slight increase in crime. And I have never heard of the removal of such restrictions leading to an increase in crime.

And if you look within the United States, the areas with the most strict "gun control" laws are the places with the highest crime. I'm not saying the high crime has anything to do with these laws, because that's hard to verify either way. The only thing we do know is that there is still a lot of crime in these places(like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC). The only effect these laws have had is to keep people like you and I from defending ourselves in a place that is known to be dangerous.

And I don't think my comment on delusion was a flame at all. From Webster's, delusion is defined as "a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence..." and that's exactly what I see when I read your posts.

edit: I forgot to add, the MAK90 is a sporting rifle based on the AK47.

Law enforcement exists for a reason. We can't have every yahoo cowboy wanna-be with a shiny new handgun and a tiny penis out there playing Justice League and looking to be the hero, regardless of his intentions. Guns kill and guns get people killed. Leave it to the trained professionals. We have enough problems keeping them reigned in without civilian "help". We are trying to have a society here, this is not the American Revolution, this is not the Wild West. Lose the guns and work on your self-esteem instead.

How are your morals RSX? Are you the type of person who would run and protect yourself over your fellow man, or one who would jump in and help out a wrong doing that you are witness too? If you saw a person getting beat down with a ball bat, and had no way to defend themselves, would you just walk on, pretend you didn't notice, or try to help regardless of the fact that you might get hurt?? Yes, this case is a bit different because the other side had a firearm, but so did the other team. This man, used his weapon, and he went to help out people who were unable to help themselves, and I bet he did it with no thought of reward, he did it with total disregard for his own safety, because he saw people who needed help when no one was there to give it. He saw a injustice and decided to help his fellow man. like I said, the signs of a true hero.



Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you have to have a "small penis" This guy showed that he had one helluva pair of cajones.

I won't be comparing gun deaths because the tools used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is crime in general, and murder in general. If someone gets raped by a man with a gun, or a knife, I could care less what the weapon was- the problem is the criminal and the rape he commits.

In addition, comparing different countries is not very accurate, because there are a lot more factors playing into it than just the fact that one country has one law and another has a different law. There are a lot of cultural and societal differences, different histories, etc., that affect crime rates. The only logical way to compare would be to look at each country individually, and see what happened to their crime rates after firearms restrictions were passed or removed. I have yet to see anything that shows an overall reduction in crime after anti self-defense laws were passed. The general trend after passing these laws is no change, or slight increase in crime. And I have never heard of the removal of such restrictions leading to an increase in crime.

And if you look within the United States, the areas with the most strict "gun control" laws are the places with the highest crime. I'm not saying the high crime has anything to do with these laws, because that's hard to verify either way. The only thing we do know is that there is still a lot of crime in these places(like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC). The only effect these laws have had is to keep people like you and I from defending ourselves in a place that is known to be dangerous.

And I don't think my comment on delusion was a flame at all. From Webster's, delusion is defined as "a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence..." and that's exactly what I see when I read your posts.

edit: I forgot to add, the MAK90 is a sporting rifle based on the AK47.


Splitting hairs about the brand of weapon isn't going to win you this argument,and nor is becoming offensive.If I choose to take issue with your use of the term delusional,it is ignorant and rude of you to persist with such a term.

Take a quick look at the 'high crime' areas of the States,and their gun laws.In all cases you will find that the tighter gun lsaws came as a result of the high gun crime rate, not vice versa.

you stated earlier that "Well I'm not sure what you define as "harm" and "good." I'm havnig computer problems tonight so I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional). Even if you count all 46k, it's quite a bit smaller than the two million defensive uses of guns. To me, that looks like good>harm.

now you refuse to back up your claims.Your excuse?

I won't be comparing gun deaths because the tools used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is crime in general, and murder in general.If someone gets raped by a man with a gun, or a knife, I could care less what the weapon was- the problem is the criminal and the rape he commits.

What a load of bunk.This killer,the Columbine killers,and countless other like them would not have been able to perpetrate the same crimes with a knife.IT NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT WITHOUT THE GUNS.Rape is an entirely seperate issue, and I'd wager that for every woman raped at knifepoint there's a dozen raped at gunpoint.

Your refusal to look at the statistics is very telling.Your bragging about 46000 dead shows that you have absolutely no idea how normal society operates. 46,000 gun deaths is weak to say the least.

I'll help you out with the figures shall I?..

The best New Zealand figures that I can come up with are from the anti-gun lobby, so they won't be under-reporting.

http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Oceania/Nzd_OR01.html

Estimated Number of Firearms: 700,000 – 1,000,000; Estimated Number of Illegal Guns: 10,000 – 25,000

In an average year, 100 New Zealanders are shot to death: more than one very four days. Of these, 75% are suicides, 12% accidents, 11% homicides, while in 2% causes are indeterminate.


So....lets compare. Multiply the New Zealand figures by 75 to get a reasonable population comparison...

you claim 46,000 deaths.My figure works to 7,500.

you claim 2/3 are criminals killing criminals.Nice try, but I'm not buying it without some stats to back it up.Either way, THEY'RE STILL MURDERS.I'm so glad that we dont have anything like the gang problems that you do.

Suicides? your rate claimed is about 25% ,mine is 75%.Even so, you are looking at 11,500 deaths a year and I'm still only looking at 5600.

that leaves 34,000 non suicide firearms deaths in the States EVERY year.If NZ had a comparable population we'd be looking at 1,875, of which half were accidental. lets say 1000 homicides compared to your 34,000.

No wonder you don't want to back your figures up..Your figures are a damnation of your own position.According to your statistics, the crims are running riot,the population are killing themselves in droves, and the cops are killing hundreds if not thousands every year.Here's a figure for you to consider.....the last controversial firearms death against the new zealand police happened in september 2000.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/nz-s07.shtml

Hopw many people have the US police shot and killed since then?
well they can better that figure in just one city in just 4 days

http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=2768&category_id=13

You must be so proud.


As to your suggestion that guns are responsible for preventing 2 million crimes a year in the States, I'm still laughing at that one.If you are going to pluck such figures out of thin air to try to justify alegislation that is ffailing at every turn,I'll consider this argument comprehensively won by the good sense of the anti-gun lobby. Unless of course you can come up with something more concrete.

Splitting hairs about the brand of weapon isn't going to win you this argument
I wasn't trying to split hairs, just trying to let you know the facts. If someone was run over by a guy driving a Skoda Octavia, and I said it was a VW Jetta, I would be incorrect. The same is true for this story.

Take a quick look at the 'high crime' areas of the States,and their gun laws.In all cases you will find that the tighter gun lsaws came as a result of the high gun crime rate
I neither claimed nor implied anything to the contrary. I just stated that the the crime rate has remained high even after the gun laws were created.

you stated earlier that "Well I'm not sure what you define as "harm" and "good." I'm havnig computer problems tonight so I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional). Even if you count all 46k, it's quite a bit smaller than the two million defensive uses of guns. To me, that looks like good>harm.

now you refuse to back up your claims.Your excuse?

I'm not sure what you mean by refusal to back up my claims. If you're referring to not having a source, I'm having a hell of a time with the CDC website, and that's all there is to it. I've tried at home and at work, and I keep getting "Service unavailable."

IT NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT WITHOUT THE GUNS.

Did you know the same night as the shooting at the mall in NY(where one man was shot, in the leg), a lone knifeman in Manhattan stabbed three people, killing two of them? You probably didn't hear too much about that. And don't forget, 19 man killed nearly 3000 with knives in a single morning.

Rape is an entirely seperate issue, and I'd wager that for every woman raped at knifepoint there's a dozen raped at gunpoint.
And I'd wager that women on the receiving end of an attempted rape are 4 times more likely to be raped if they are unarmed.

Your refusal to look at the statistics is very telling.
It sure is. I've seen statistics from both sides of the fence, and they both prove each other wrong- some even based on the same data!

Ok, I actually got something on the CDC site to come up. I need to get back to work, so I haven't read it yet. But here ya go:
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

Did you know the same night as the shooting at the mall in NY(where one man was shot, in the leg), a lone knifeman in Manhattan stabbed three people, killing two of them? You probably didn't hear too much about that. And don't forget, 19 man killed nearly 3000 with knives in a single morning.
So gimme some reliable stats here. How many multiple homicides are committed in the US per year with assault rifles or their derivatives, and how many are committed with knives?

Do explain more about your last sentence in this paragraph, because I haven't a clue what you mean.




Ok, I actually got something on the CDC site to come up. I need to get back to work, so I haven't read it yet. But here ya go:
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

So, you're going to your government's site for strategy on reducing gun deaths? Frankly that's like going to the Marlboro Man for advice on quitting smoking.It's time to front up to the ugly truth that your country's firearms management strategies are not working. Any twenty-first century strategy based on 18th century ideals is going to fail.Tell me, are you so scared of your government that you intend to raise an armed militia?And if you tried to, do you think you would get far enough to make one iota of difference?OK so you were given a constitutional right to protect yourself against your government.So What? it's obsolete.

One final point.

58,000 men died in Vietnam.That war is almost universally accepted as a failed campaign.Fought over ten years thats an average of less than 6000 deaths per year for a failed cause.You are holding up 46,000 gun deaths as an acceptable figure.With the same success as Vietnam.

46,000 killed by guns every year. Worst percentage figures in the developed world. Allowing civilians to carry handguns and get themselves killed in wild west style shootouts with the people that you allow to own semi-automatic combat weapons[or their derivatives]is not going to make a damn of difference.The figures prove that handguns and large-magazine weapons are not condusive to a peaceful society.

If you take out Wayne, Ingham and Genesee county gun deaths out of Michigan then not only would our population match New Zealands, our gun deaths would be lower. Those counties contain the largest cities in the state (especially Detroit) and it says something for the perponderance of violence in the big cities. (Firefox is freaking out on me so I''ve lost the links for the time being).

If I were to take the same example of a county with 1/75 the size of New Zealand - Marquette is the closest http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26103.html (though it is 1/62) and the number of gun related deaths is 1 - thats right - ONE. What does Marquette county have in common with New Zealand? About the same as New Zealand does with the USA in terms of population, nothing. New Zealand is more comparable to Finland.

There has been only anicdotal evidence of crime reduction simply because firearms were elminated. There is also the same type of evidence that crime decreases when more firearms are introduced into society (Michigan is one of those examples). My wife and I are amont the 95 million legal gun owners who hurt noone today.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

If you take out Wayne, Ingham and Genesee county gun deaths out of Michigan then not only would our population match New Zealands, our gun deaths would be lower. Those counties contain the largest cities in the state (especially Detroit) and it says something for the perponderance of violence in the big cities. (Firefox is freaking out on me so I''ve lost the links for the time being).


Hmmm...what a good idea, take out the problem areas and the figure drops.Of course it's a skewed argument,but never mind, it gives Yogs figures that he needn't be embarrassed about.

Curiously, if you took out new zealands 3 biggest urban areas, the percentage of gun deaths would rise. It's no good simply classifying it as a 'city' problem, and therefore unimportant. the gun-owning fraternity in New Zealand accounts for an average of 11 murders per year. Total. city and country. Eleven. and that from an estimated total gun supply of around about 1 MILLION.

So for one for million guns in NZ,[25% of population] we have 11 murders per annum.

to be comparable by population, the US should have about 825 murders per annum.

To be comparable by number of firearms held[considering that the us boasts roughly 85 guns for every 100 people] we can boost that figure to about 2800 murders per annum.

Using snoop's rather vague percentages,over 34,000 people are murdered in the US with firearm.

So to summarise

The US has more guns than NZ.
The US has more guns per head of population than NZ
The US has a higher rate of murder per gun than NZ.
We're comparing 46000 with 11. If we compare a representative proportion of the American population with the entire NZ population[85% of whom are city dwellers], we end up with over 600 deaths.

Bottom line, you are sixty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the US.

Thanks guys, but at those odds, I'll waive my right to own a gun.

So gimme some reliable stats here. How many multiple homicides are committed in the US per year with assault rifles or their derivatives, and how many are committed with knives?

There are more homicides and murders committed with knives, baseball bats, pipes, bare hands, brass knuckles, and other common objects than guns. I think the numbers are double, maybe triple, than what is done with guns. True, when somebody goes crazy with a gun they kill more people but when looking at the big numbers guns aren't as bad as they seem. Also homicides and other murders involving guns has been on the decline ever since 1990 but that information was back in 2002.

True, when somebody goes crazy with a gun they kill more people but when looking at the big numbers guns aren't as bad as they seem.

46,000 isn't a bad number?..........sheesh.

How are your morals RSX? Are you the type of person who would run and protect yourself over your fellow man, or one who would jump in and help out a wrong doing that you are witness too? If you saw a person getting beat down with a ball bat, and had no way to defend themselves, would you just walk on, pretend you didn't notice, or try to help regardless of the fact that you might get hurt?? Yes, this case is a bit different because the other side had a firearm, but so did the other team. This man, used his weapon, and he went to help out people who were unable to help themselves, and I bet he did it with no thought of reward, he did it with total disregard for his own safety, because he saw people who needed help when no one was there to give it. He saw a injustice and decided to help his fellow man. like I said, the signs of a true hero. Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you have to have a "small penis" This guy showed that he had one helluva pair of cajones.

I fail to understand how my integrity has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of gun control. Challenging my personal sense of honor and decency will not a solid case make. Guns don't make a man brave, and gun ownership does not give one the right to enforce the law, unless you are a police officer.

I am sorry if you feel I was challenging your honor, I was trying to guage what type of person you were, not trying imply anything, or attack you personally.

no one said the gun made him brave, he himself was brave already to make up his mind to go and help. the firearm was mearly a tool to assist.

but with the comment of "not his (our) job to enforce the law, leave it to the professionals, I guess that answers my question of stopping to help out someone who needs help and can't help themselves.

I can tell you this from personal knowledge. Let's go to any city of say 100,000 or so and I will find someone willing to sell me both dope and an unregistered firearm within an hour. All you gotta do in a strange town is ask someone where the bad part of town that you should stay away from is, then go there.


I've been to places like that dressed in business suit- I look like a cop anyway- and driving Ford sedan company car that screams "cop." I always got a hit of "wanna buy dope?" or "I got a .38 for sale $50." And where I could find dope a question of where I could buy a gun went hand in hand.

Since this a car-oriented site folks should consider the same amount that die due to drunk driving every year. That is something far easier to address.

Nobody gives a flyin' fongulu about New Zealand or any other foreign country. Comparing apples with turds doesn't mean anything. Antis have always done this and it proves nothing since everything is different from geography to social mores and values and weather- all of which affect crime. And by the way- the way all comparitive crime statistical studies of US cities are done are via crimes per 100,000 population in relation to the population in any given year. It's the only equatable, rational way.

If certain law-abiding people choose not to own a firarm that's great. Other law-abiding folks do and that is their choice. That's what this country is all about- having personal freedom to make those choices guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This goes far beyond the 2nd Amendment in our society.

If anyone here talking about this is not living in the US please don't attempt to pretend you know all about us since you read some statistics somewhere. You have no more immersive knowledge of our culture than we do of the Jivaro tribe in the Amazon basin.
http://www.animationlibrary.com/Animation11/Transportation/Heavy_Machinery/Tank.gif

Aaah..the old 'you don't understand' card.

Heard that one before, not buying into it.

Argue the facts or go away.We know that America is 'different'.That's why it has a gun problem unique to the civilised world.It has very little to do with gun ownership percentages either, since countries like Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership.Strange how you don't hear sabout Swiss drive-by shootings every week.or Swiss serial killers...or Swiss kids going nuts and shooting up their schools.

Yes America is different.Problem is different is not always better.In this case, different only happened because the people of the US accepted it.Getting shot at is ok,apparently.

Gun related deaths are as easy to deal with as drunk driving.In other words, it's down to the collective will.Either you want to be part of the first world, or part of the third.

The second ammendement is a carbunkle on the Constitution.The sooner it is consigned to the dustbin, the better.

If you have any suggestions ads to how to reduce America's death rate due to firearms,twitch,I'd be interested to hear about them.But I really don't give a 'flyin' fongulu' if you'd rather lash out at the more successful countries instead of fixing your own.

Nobody gives a flyin' fongulu about New Zealand or any other foreign country. Comparing apples with turds doesn't mean anything. Antis have always done this and it proves nothing since everything is different from geography to social mores and values and weather- all of which affect crime. And by the way- the way all comparitive crime statistical studies of US cities are done are via crimes per 100,000 population in relation to the population in any given year. It's the only equatable, rational way.


:nono: Nice attitude.(<---yes that's sarcasm in case you missed it) I live in the US and your idiotic post pissed ME off. Calling the people of another country (that you have never and will never visit) turds only shows your ignorance. There happend to be LOTS of people that give a "flying fongulu" about other countries. Have you ever even been out of the US? I kinda think not. Why don't you try opening your mind?


I think the guy that used his pistol to go against the guy with the AK-47 variant was heroic. He went into a situation to help numerous people, many of which (according to the story) would have died had he not taken action. If the AK guy hadn't had a vest on, he would have been killed by the first 2 shots and it would have been over.

I think the statistics speak for themselves. The US has more deaths per gun/per person (per 100K people) than NZ does. Why is this? If we remove the criminals from this discussion, the US still leads NZ by a huge margin. Are we the gun toting cowboys that the world sees us as, or are the people of NZ more reasonable, not taking deathly offense in day to day life? Or are the big cities of the US too big, the overcrowding causing the problem? I don't think it's guns, it's the people and the situation.

Hmmm...what a good idea, take out the problem areas and the figure drops.Of course it's a skewed argument,but never mind, it gives Yogs figures that he needn't be embarrassed about.

Curiously, if you took out new zealands 3 biggest urban areas, the percentage of gun deaths would rise. It's no good simply classifying it as a 'city' problem, and therefore unimportant. the gun-owning fraternity in New Zealand accounts for an average of 11 murders per year. Total. city and country. Eleven. and that from an estimated total gun supply of around about 1 MILLION.

So for one for million guns in NZ,[25% of population] we have 11 murders per annum.

to be comparable by population, the US should have about 825 murders per annum.

To be comparable by number of firearms held[considering that the us boasts roughly 85 guns for every 100 people] we can boost that figure to about 2800 murders per annum.

Using snoop's rather vague percentages,over 34,000 people are murdered in the US with firearm.

So to summarise

The US has more guns than NZ.
The US has more guns per head of population than NZ
The US has a higher rate of murder per gun than NZ.
We're comparing 46000 with 11. If we compare a representative proportion of the American population with the entire NZ population[85% of whom are city dwellers], we end up with over 600 deaths.

Bottom line, you are sixty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the US.

Thanks guys, but at those odds, I'll waive my right to own a gun.

Interesting imagination you have there. In 2000 there were over 15,600 murders - nowhere near the 46,000 number you're lobbing around http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Its true that a significan portion (80% or so) were done using firearms http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html But, even then, there is no evidence that the crimes wouldn't have been committed even if there were no guns.

Its to bad that so many countries that have people who are so willing to give up our civil liberties.


To summarize. You're pulling imaginary numbers out of the air.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Its true that a significan portion (80% or so) were done using firearms http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html But, even then, there is no evidence that the crimes wouldn't have been committed even if there were no guns.

Yes, I'd say that 80% is a 'significant proportion' :lol2:.And if you can find an alternative weapon that can kill someone instantly from across a room, I'll agree that the criminals may have used an alternative,but the facts will remain unchanged. In 2000,over 12,000 people were killed with guns.And that's okay with the pro-gun lobby.Strange then that when 3000 get killed by a bunch of Arabs a year later,all the gun-loving control freaks get excitable.Seems that only selective problems get dealt with, and then only if the problem involves......mor guns.:rolleyes:



To summarize. You're pulling imaginary numbers out of the air.

Actually Yogs, I pulled nothing out of the air.The figures were supplied here.
I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional).

If people can't be bothered finding the correct figures to support their arguments, I'll use whatever they bring.Because no matter what they bring, the truth is that guns are killing far more Americans per head of population than any [u]civilised[/i] nation.Which is hardly surprising, because at the last estimate, the US had ownership of approximately half of the world's firearms.

I am sorry if you feel I was challenging your honor, I was trying to guage what type of person you were, not trying imply anything, or attack you personally.

no one said the gun made him brave, he himself was brave already to make up his mind to go and help. the firearm was mearly a tool to assist.

but with the comment of "not his (our) job to enforce the law, leave it to the professionals, I guess that answers my question of stopping to help out someone who needs help and can't help themselves.

I suppose there is a fine line, then, between bravery and stupidity. Where exactly does one stop in one's quest to "help" their fellow man? Perhaps we should all buy bigger guns to be better, more helpful citizens. I prefer a different, more civilized route. If that makes me somehow less human, less gallant, or less of a man in your estimation- so be it. Bottom line is, lax gun control is at the root of the problem, not people such as myself. Vigilante justice is not the cure for society's ills. At best, the man got himself killed. What if he himself had shot and killed an innocent bystander while trying to play hero? Would we be having this debate?

Now suddenly you seem to understand that it's a social problem rather than the inantimate object problem. That is the point. So what is it? Let's damn the object (since Swiss have full auto firearms in most households you are correct in that their firearm crime rate is lower per 100,000) or damn the society. So it's not the firearms that are bad, It's the people that use them! That is exactly the problem and always has been! The point also remains is that anyone with the desire can buy an illegal firearm on the street. I'll extend that to any city in the world not just the US. If you have the $$ you can easily find what you want.


The people that do that are criminals, plain and simple in any country. Everyone agrees on that. Someone outside of another sovereign nation can make fun of that country's governing laws. It's a cheap shot to throw stones at another society's values and constitution. It's truly the refuge of a coward.

And no you don't understand us if you do not live here. A visit is not the same and the population of rural areas have a vastly different point of view than the city folk do here as well on virtually every topic. There are more rural areas in the us than large cities.

It's is just sublime that on any given forum the foreign folks are the ones involved in some instigation of negative comments about some aspect of the US well beyond firearms. I have never seen an American carping, for example, about "the danged Norwegian government and their policy on ___" (fill in the blank)

We just don't care if you want to waive your right to own a gun or do anything outside the US frankly. Who appointed anyone outside the US to be our society's psychologist? The holier than thou attitude just doesn't cut it.

As an recon marine in country in 1970 I assisted in the defense of the weak from the fascist strong. Every country I've been in was the same. Whole peoples without liberties, rights and freedoms and governments foreign and domestic that always think they know whats best for them. That is some dead crap!

Do explain more about your last sentence in this paragraph, because I haven't a clue what you mean.
19 knives, 3000 people dead. 11 September 2001. That's the largest example of multiple homicide I can think of, by far. And guns were not used.

Here is some more information about gun laws and changes in crime in the following years: Just Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm)


So, you're going to your government's site for strategy on reducing gun deaths? Frankly that's like going to the Marlboro Man for advice on quitting smoking.
No, most of the government would love to get rid of the Bill of Rights, and most of them are starting with the 2nd Amendment. But they can't move too fast, because they value their job security more than anything.

Since you're not going to talk about what the report said, I won't bother talking about it. But I will point out(from the report), for the year 2000, there were 28,663 firearms related deaths(57.9% suicides, 37.7% homicides, 2.7% unintentional, 1.7% legal interventions or undetermined), not the 46,000 I mentioned earlier. Sorry, that's my fault for bringing it up instead of waiting until I could get the right number.

And I've looked for some information on murderers and their vitcims: Who Kills Whom? (http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eama96/eama96k.html)

From another :
"MYTH: 'Most murders are argument-related 'crimes of passion' against
a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance.'

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long
established patterns of violent criminal behavior. According to
analyses of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, by
the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police
departments, about 70 percent of suspected murder- ers have criminal
careers of long-standing - as do nearly half their victims. FBI data,
indeed, shows that roughly 55% of the murders were known to their
victims."




Tell me, are you so scared of your government that you intend to raise an armed militia?
No, I'm not, and I don't. But who's to say things will never change? To say we will never fear our government is to laugh at centuries of history.

But, if I may quote you from the Maximum Pain thread:
How many times have you seen footage of police or armed forces in riot gear intervening in lawful and peaceful protests?How many times have you seen technology abused to torture dissidents? Do you really believe that if they develop this weapon that it will be used soley by the US military, and soley with discretion to break up riots?

I've also read some of your posts about the Patriot Act- you talk about Americans getting hauled off to Guantanamo, you talk about lack of faith in our intelligence and law enforcement using it appropriately, you even said "[url=http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=331131&page=2&pp=20&highlight=patriot+act]Rights are like oxygen.You don't notice them until you come to excercise them and they're not there.
(]source[/url)

It sounds to me like you don't trust them, but I should. You don't trust them, yet you want me to give up any means of self defense. You don't trust the government with a wire-tap or video camera, or a list of books you have read at the library- but you do trust them to be the only people with guns?


And if you tried to, do you think you would get far enough to make one iota of difference?
Damn right. American citizens have more small arms than any military in the world. A lot of people think the terrorists in Iraq are giving us a hard time- well they aint seen nothing yet. Wait til someone tries to disarm me and mine. Sans the beheadings of innocents, of course.

To be honest I don't think it would ever happen. People are too comfortable, and no one knows what the end result would be. But I'm not going to give them the chance.


Over a million people in Turkey trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in 1915-1917. 20,000,000 people in the Soviet Union trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in 1929-1945. The Germans(namely the Jews) trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" before WWII- which spread to the lives of 20,000,000 between 1929-1945. 10,000,000 people in Nationalist China trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in 1927-1949. Estimates vary between 20,000,000 and 35,000,000 people in Red China trusting their government enough to accept "gun control" between the years of 1949-1952, 1957-1960, and 1966-1976. Over 100,000(some estimate 200,000) in Guatemala trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" between 1960 and 1981. 300,000 Christians trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in Uganda between 1971-1979. 2,000,000 in Cambodia trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in 1975-1979. 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda trusted their government enough to accept "gun control" in 1994.

These people were all murdered by their government. That's about 74,000,000 in the 20th century alone- suckered into death by gun control. Not I.

Oh, and none of this includes however many minorities were killed in lynchings because our government, in the USA, implemented gun control copied from the Nazis in order to keep them(mostly blacks) from defending themselves.


OK so you were given a constitutional right to protect yourself against your government.
No, we weren't given anything. We made the constitution, not the government. The constitution is a limit on the government. Rights aren't "given." You're born with them. The Bill of Rights merely lists a few of these rights which the government has no power over.
So What? it's obsolete
Freedom isn't obsolete. I hope you don't have a problem with that.


One final point.

58,000 men died in Vietnam.That war is almost universally accepted as a failed campaign.Fought over ten years thats an average of less than 6000 deaths per year for a failed cause.You are holding up 46,000 gun deaths as an acceptable figure.With the same success as Vietnam.


I disagree about Vietnam, but that's neither here nor there.

28,000 per year, IF that number were to stay the same for a century, would be 2,800,000 Americans(mainly suicides and criminals) killed with guns. Versus 74,000,000 innocent civilians and political dissidents killed by gun control.

Hmmm...what a good idea, take out the problem areas and the figure drops.Of course it's a skewed argument,but never mind, it gives Yogs figures that he needn't be embarrassed about.

Curiously, if you took out new zealands 3 biggest urban areas, the percentage of gun deaths would rise.

Another reason why I said it's useless to compare different countries. There are completely different situations, and a lot more circumstances affecting these numbers than just "gun control."

But if you want to compare, this link lists total homicide rates, firearm homicide, and non-firearm homicide for many countries: International Homicide Comparisons (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

Look at Mexico- they have very strict "gun control" laws, yet their firearm homicide and total homicide rates are about three times what they are in the US. Brazil also has relatively strict "gun control" laws, with even higher murder rates.

No, I'm not blaming this on "gun control," just making the point that there are many factors that affect crime and murder rates.

Taranaki, so far, all you have done is show evidence that a lot of criminals in America use guns to kill people... tell us something we dont' already know!

What I want to see is evidence that "gun control" works. Prove to me that a comparable country or state has implemented laws that would restrict would restrict my right to self defense, leading to a significant increase in public safety. Show me where gun control has worked. And prove to me that governments of the "civilized world" will never be less civilized. Prove to me that history no longer repeats itself. Prove that we will never elect another Hitler. Prove to me that our government will never do what the Sudanese government is doing to people in Darfur right now.



I realized this is a little old, but I haven't found anythign more recent yet. Here is a report from the Fraser Institute: Failed Experiment (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf). Before you discredit the source, read the report. Check out the data. Find some examples of a measurable increase in safety brought about by the "gun control" laws of these countries. Or show me where the relaxing of restrictions in America has lead to a measruable decrease in my safety.

This too is a little old, but check it out: Great Britain and Gun Control: With Neither Liberty nor Safety (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335). The whole thing is interesting, and it's pretty short, but the main point I'd like you to read is the last part, about women.

Back to England: England passes gun control, sees highest murder rate in 100 years (http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html).

A quick write-up from last summer here (http://www.tsra.com/Lott109.htm) mentions many rises in crime in the last few years in countries like England, Wales, Australia, and even Canada. Meanwhile, in America, where gun laws were not passed, crime is decreasing.

Again, I fail to see a trend of incrased safety from "gun control." The radical proponents of "gun control" are wrong.

To me, gun control is having 2 hands on your Smith & Wesson .357 Mag Long Barrel.

Snoopis you did your homework and raised some very good points. England banned all guns and now they're defenseless against criminals. Also, you people for gun control what do you think about this story.

A guy breaks into an English family's house. The guy takes the wife and children hostage and threatens to kill them. The man of the house had a shotgun hiden in his house so he got it and shot the guy, killing him. The man killed the guy that broke into his house but saved his family. He was arrested though for murder and breaking the law by owning a personal firearm.

YEAH! That sounds like justice and having problems "under control"! We better write our congressman and start passing those gun control laws right now!

I'm glad that I live in Oklahoma where we have the "Make my day" law. If somebody breaks into your house uninvited, you can shoot them and get away without charges being pressed. Anybody, who wants to take guns away so I can't defend my family, is no better than the guy who would break into my house.

Perhaps you should know something about British gun ownership before you quote isolated incidents.My whole family was born and raised in England.I lived there for 22 years, never once did I see a gun, nor did I know anyone who owned one.They're not as cowardly over there, they don't need a gun under their pillows to feel safe in their own house.

To talk of British gun crimes as having increased by 'x' percent since the correction of gun laws misses the point.even if they jumped 100%, 100percent of next to nothing is still next to nothing.Comparing the British situation to the ridiculous proliferation of cheap and nasty weapons in the US just doesn't cut it.The rise in gun crime is not a direct result of removing guns from circulation, as the majority of Brits will have nothing to do with guns.Even with the increase in gun crime, the comparison shows Britain to be far safer than the US.



Willful ignorance of better ways is your perogative guys. I can walk down any street in any city at any hour of the day or night in this country and feel perfectly safe.Without a gun. You keep your penis substitutes, and I will keep the kind of freedom that you can't even dream of.

I sure glad some of us get to live in a Utopian paradise that has no crimes, violent or otherwise.


The truth of it is no matter where you live here's what you're destined for:

You finally get over the youthful exuberance of some devoted cause. You start working some crappy job till you can get the good one that your education prepared you for. You get married and have a couple kids and figure out how the hell to pay the bills. You drag your ass outta bed before daylight and get into bumper to bumper traffic for an hour to get to work. You deal with a bunch of assholes all day and creep home after dark in traffic to take the kiddies to their activities, pay bills, look at why the car is leaking something and tons of other mundane crap. You don't have time for shit besides taking care of family and work.

Suddenly you wake up one day with high blood pressure and diabetes, or cancer, or emphasema and all this remembered youthful rhetoric seems a century ago. You never contributed anything about any one minor point of the passionate pleas for your "beliefs." And all these years later there's still the same dirge of reactionay bullshit being sung about insignificant intellectual formulas that some people think other should live by.

And that's the fascist element in it. Guys like me Yogs, Muscletang and Snoopis don't WANT anyone to conform to the ranks and goose step into a new order. Our motto is live and let live while the radicals motto is "you should do this and do that because we know what's best for you."

While we and our friends and families are going to the range or out in the country to have fun with our firearms this weekend the antis can sit red eyed from perusal of anti this and that website that have the one true message, seig heil.

One thing for sure is we're not losing any sleep over what a bunch of foreigners think about any aspect of our lives in the USA. We just don't care about them. Nuke 'em all till they glow in the dark.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Nuked.gif

In 2000,over 12,000 people were killed with guns.And that's okay with the pro-gun lobby.Strange then that when 3000 get killed by a bunch of Arabs a year later,all the gun-loving control freaks get excitable.Seems that only selective problems get dealt with, and then only if the problem involves......mor guns.:rolleyes:

Actually Yogs, I pulled nothing out of the air.The figures were supplied here.

If people can't be bothered finding the correct figures to support their arguments, I'll use whatever they bring.Because no matter what they bring, the truth is that guns are killing far more Americans per head of population than any [u]civilised[/i] nation.Which is hardly surprising, because at the last estimate, the US had ownership of approximately half of the world's firearms.

Where is it written that the number killed is ok with the pro-gun lobby? Thats the same as claiming you were ok with Saddam killing thousands of his own people.

You don't normally do some fact checking on your own when using those numbers to support your own position? hmmm....

Homicides per 100,000 http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#murd It stands to reason that someone who wants to commit murder would use the easiest tool for the job. What you've failed to do is offer any evidence that the absense of guns would reduce violent crime.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Willful ignorance of better ways is your perogative guys. I can walk down any street in any city at any hour of the day or night in this country and feel perfectly safe.Without a gun. You keep your penis substitutes, and I will keep the kind of freedom that you can't even dream of.

We do pity those of you wallowing in your own perceived paradise. Anyone proclaiming their freedoms by the things their government says they cannot have or what they can or cannot do has been landed hook line and sinker by the state. Such good little soldiers.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

To talk of British gun crimes as having increased by 'x' percent since the correction of gun laws misses the point.even if they jumped 100%, 100percent of next to nothing is still next to nothing.Comparing the British situation to the ridiculous proliferation of cheap and nasty weapons in the US just doesn't cut it.The rise in gun crime is not a direct result of removing guns from circulation, as the majority of Brits will have nothing to do with guns.Even with the increase in gun crime, the comparison shows Britain to be far safer than the US.

Let me clarify the point I was making in reference to Great Britain. I don't care about their gun crimes. You're right, they were next to nothing. And they still are. The only change is that crime(crime in general, not just gun crime) has risen after the passing of gun control laws. And I'm not even going to blame that on gun control, because as I said earlier, there are a lot of factors that affect crime. But now you have people in the situation of rising crime, and no right to defend themselves. That's the problem with gun control.

It's similar to places like Baltimore and Chicago. Firearm bans have not had any effect on crime rates. The only thing they have succeeded in doing is preventing people like you and I from defending ourselves.


Willful ignorance of better ways is your perogative guys. I can walk down any street in any city at any hour of the day or night in this country and feel perfectly safe.Without a gun.

I'm glad you can do that. And for the most part I feel the same here. There have been few places I've been to where I didn't feel safe, and none of them were places I normally visited.

But some people aren't so lucky. Some people live or work in areas where people are mugged, raped, beaten, stabbed, or shot, on a regular basis. It takes a lot of balls to tell them they don't have a right to defend themselves only because you, living thousands of miles away, feel safe.


I'll try to look at this from a different angle, becuase I just don't understand the people who support gun control. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I'd like to at least try to understand where you're coming from- right now, I don't get it, at all.

Some of it just seems to be a cultural difference in how we view guns. You mention your limited exposure to guns- you didn't see one of them in 22 years in England, and you probably haven't seen many since then. You've probably seen gangsters and bank robbers use them on tv(or maybe some people with small penis :naughty: ), or seen a few isolated incidents on the news.

This is contrary to many Americans. My grandfather always had a few rifles and a handgun(which he carried everywhere, even at my sister's wedding, and nobody ever knew, including myself until later), my uncles had rifles, my dad has a bow but no firearms. My mom is considering getting a handgun. I remember when I was probably 8 or 9 years old, going to visit my grandparents, and seeing my cousin(same age as myself) going rabbit hunting with my uncle and my grandfather. The first time I fired a gun was with my gandfather at the age of 12 or 13.
In college, a few roommates and friends had handguns, shotguns, and rifles. After working in the lab for a few hours on whatever project we happened to be working on, we'd run by the gun shop, get some ear plugs and a little ammo, drive out into the desert with a bunch of empty wine/beer bottles or some sporting clays and spend a couple hours shooting.
College is over, and I'm in the real world now. Last summer I overheard two guys at work talking about a shooting range in the area, so I start talking with them... next thing you know, it's Sunday afternoon and while most people are getting drunk watching Nascar, I'm at the range with a few friends, shooting their .50cal rifles and a couple "assault weapons." We bring a cooler with some snacks and gatorade, and have a good time. Once the sun starts to set, we pack everything up, and fire up the grill, have some steaks or bratwurst, and call it a day.

It's just normal activity, with normal people. None of these people are any different than the average American. Engineers, pilots, factory workers, former military, family members, etc. This is the rule, not the exception. The exception is the rare examples you see on tv.

It's like people from other places see just murderers, thugs, and deranged lunatics with guns. They can't possibly imagine their neighbor, or their son or daughter's math teacher, or the guy in the cubicle next to you at work owning a gun. They're not criminals, they don't have or need guns.

Most Americans don't see it like that at all. Normal people have guns. Our neighbors don't scare us. Our teachers don't scare us. My co-workers don't scare me. So why should I worry if they own guns? The only people that scare me are the people who will get guns regardless of any gun control laws.

But say your neighbor had a gun... would that scare you? What if your son or daughter's math teacher spent his sunday afternoon blasting holes in paper targets with his .45... would that scare you?

You keep your penis substitutes, and I will keep the kind of freedom that you can't even dream of.

When remarks are thrown around like this it's very clear who has won the debate.

Also, what freedom do you speak of? If a guy breaks into your house and holds your family hostage, you're helpless to stop him or save anybody. My freedom is if a guy breaks into my house I'm going to break him by sending a few rounds of double ot buck through his gut.

I'm sorry but you're living in a dream world if you think banning guns will make crime go away. Do you really think the criminals are going to turn in their fire arms if there ever is a nation wide ban? All the people would then be helpless to defend themselves and would be run over by the criminals who have the power.

http://www.getusout.org/images/materials/gun_poster.jpg

It's is just sublime that on any given forum the foreign folks are the ones involved in some instigation of negative comments about some aspect of the US well beyond firearms. I have never seen an American carping, for example, about "the danged Norwegian government and their policy on ___" (fill in the blank)

Then you've not read these forums very well at all.


It's full of halfwits carping on about Korea, Iran Iraq,France,Spain,Mexico...and most of those halfwits are American.

This forum may be unique. Who knows? Who cares? As stated, most forums have the European guys bitching about some obscure US policy or statement that may or may not be accurate after the international news services present it.

Like I said no one is going to do anything about anything. You're going to get wrapped up in life survival. You're not going to have time to go on marches and attend demonstrations cause you'll be taking care of kids and a household and trying to hold a decent job and perhaps facing medical problems. That's the reality of it. In 30 years Bubba, this will all be a dim memory that consumed a tiny fraction of your life. Utterly wasted time.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Buried.gif

Personally, my time here will have been very well spent if at least one non-American comes to acknowledge that at least one American is not a smug, arrogant, self-seeking, warmonger who lives to shoot his gun, shoot his mouth and shit on the world. But that's just me...and I am apparently in the minority.

RSX- there are people on these forums that are dedicated to continually attempting to debase and demean YOUR society(if you live in the US) and YOUR brother citizens in an ongoing effort to make you feel guilty about things of which you have no control as they point out every perceived flaw while they pretend to have none.

If that makes you feel good that go for it!

If you are speaking of folks like Taranaki- I would have to disagree with you. I believe he calls bullshit as he sees it. It just so happens our government shovels out more than a fair share of it. I do not take it as a personal attack, nor do I percieve it as an attack on the American public. Moreover, I'm quite convinced this is not his aim. Any guilt I feel in regard to the actions of my government is my own. I will never ally with someone based solely on the grounds that we happen to come from the same country, although it goes without saying that I do love my country. I value independent thought and I respect international opinion. What makes me feel good is to represent my country in a dignified and open manner, lest the world take us for a throng of impertinent jackasses.

Also, what freedom do you speak of? If a guy breaks into your house and holds your family hostage, you're helpless to stop him or save anybody. My freedom is if a guy breaks into my house I'm going to break him by sending a few rounds of double ot buck through his gut.

I'm sorry but you're living in a dream world if you think banning guns will make crime go away. Do you really think the criminals are going to turn in their fire arms if there ever is a nation wide ban? All the people would then be helpless to defend themselves and would be run over by the criminals who have the power.

Your version of 'freedom ' ain't worth a shit to me.


I live in a country without a violent crime problem.Sure, it exists, but it's largely confined to those who go looking for it.I have options.Ican either arm myself against an armed offender who will statistically almost certainly never come,and carry the very real risjk every day of having a dangerous piece of hardware in my house that serves no other purpose but harm, or I can rely on the authorities to maintain the status quo by restricting the distribution of firearms.The fact that you do not have the second option renders your 'freedom' meaningless.

Speaking of a dangerous piece of hardware (http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/)... :eek:

Snoopis- Now THAT'S funny.http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Funny-Above.gif

Your version of 'freedom ' ain't worth a shit to me.

Now if you could just feel the same way about my freedom to own and shoot and gun we could end this thread.


I live in a country without a violent crime problem.Sure, it exists, but it's largely confined to those who go looking for it.

Well good for you and your country. Mine is the same way though where I live. I have no fear to go walking around and only walk into trouble if I go looking for it.

I have options.Ican either arm myself against an armed offender who will statistically almost certainly never come,and carry the very real risjk every day of having a dangerous piece of hardware in my house that serves no other purpose but harm.

A steak knife is a dangerous piece of hardware which could carry a purpose to harm, a hammer could, an ice pick, a pack of matches and some hair spray could, do I need to go on? We all carry a risk of dangerous pieces of hardward in our house whether we like it or not.

I personally hope an armed offender never comes into my house or anybody elses but the thing is, I'm ready if he does come. You can go by statistics and say "it'll never happen" but in the end you NEVER know.

or I can rely on the authorities to maintain the status quo by restricting the distribution of firearms.The fact that you do not have the second option renders your 'freedom' meaningless.

The authorities meaning the government? Well, I'm glad I don't have that option and hope I never get it. Also, it making my freedom "meaningless" well, just keep telling yourself that.

...I can rely on the authorities to maintain the status quo by restricting the distribution of firearms.

I think that's probably the biggest difference in how we look at it. You don't "rely" on the authorities, you depend on them. We rely on the authorities, but we are not dependent. We can help ourselves. That is freedom, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I guess it's more of a difference in connotation than denotation.

Webster's has two definitions for rely:

Yours- To be dependent for support, help, or supply

Ours- To place or have faith or confidence

I think that's probably the biggest difference in how we look at it. You don't "rely" on the authorities, you depend on them. We rely on the authorities, but we are not dependent. We can help ourselves. That is freedom, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I guess it's more of a difference in connotation than denotation.

Webster's has two definitions for rely:

Yours- To be dependent for support, help, or supply

Ours- To place or have faith or confidence

Please don't put your own definions to my words.If you require clarification,I'll gladly give it but you seem hellbent on twisting things to suit yourself.

I rely on the authorities to do their job.Viz to serve me.If I thought that they weren't doing an adequate job of suppressing crime,I'd start talking more measures to prevent the criminal element from affecting my lifestyle.Some of the ways I would consider improving my security include
locking myself in at night
setting the car alarm wnen it's garaged for the night.
garaging the car at night
getting a lock fitted to the garage
getting an alarm fitted to the house
Getting a longer torch for beside the bed.
Keeping the phone beside the bed at night.

I would not consider buying a gun.I rely on the fact that they are reletively rare and even rarer in criminal hands to keep me safe.I am comfortable that in this town, the only common crime is burglary, and I don't consider any of my stuff to b e worth putting up a fight for.I pay the law to do that for me and my insurance company to back me up if the cops can't.

In this country at least, burglars are relatively harmless unless you try to tackle them head on.Yoou hear a noise outside at night,99 times out of a hundred they'll scarper like frightened rabbits if you turn lights on.I don't know of anyonre who has ever confronted a burglar face to face, let alone a snarling maniac with a knife or a gun.I don't depend on the government to protect me from crime that doesn't happen. I have confidence that if I ever need the cops in a hurry, they will show up.They probably won't be carrying firearms if they do, but then neither will the criminals.

You don't seem to comprehend what it is to be unarmed and not scared by the fact.That sir, is your loss.I don't need a gun to feel safe.I don't see that as a win, I see it as a basic right,on a par with the Constituion of your country.As is your right to carry firearms,I consider it my right to live safely without them.And my government does its job well enough that I feel that I can.

The last multiple shooting in this country was in 1990. 12 died at the hands of a nutter with a fetish for weapons and warfare.In a remote seaside village, he went on a spree killing everyone he saw,and held police and Armer Offenders specialists at bay for over 30 hours.To put some perspective on the nature of the crime, the local police did not have sufficient experience in dealing with armed offenders to detain the man any more quickly.When the extent of this lunatic's intentions became clear, it was neccessary to fly in armed offices from the largest city on the island.

Since that date, things have changed.It's harder to deal in assault weapons.The cops are more likely to be armed, and gun owners who are showing signs of poor mental health have their guns removed and their gun licenses revoked.

Also since that time, the worst crime that has been committed against me was the removal of a handful of CD's from an unlocked and unattended car.Because of these measures,I feel just as safe today as the day before one man whent nuts about 400 miles away from me.There's no reason for me to own a gun because Iknow that the chances of me ever having to use it to defend myself are so slim as to be laughable.Frankly I'd be better off protecting myself against being struck by lightning.

Also since that time, the worst crime that has been committed against me was the removal of a handful of CD's from an unlocked and unattended car.Because of these measures,I feel just as safe today as the day before one man whent nuts about 400 miles away from me.There's no reason for me to own a gun because Iknow that the chances of me ever having to use it to defend myself are so slim as to be laughable.Frankly I'd be better off protecting myself against being struck by lightning.

I'm nearly your age and I don't even have that much to report. I think once, someone called me names. Nothing stolen. Not attacked. No breakins. Gee - with the logic you've been using, I'd be fully justified in saying that my owning of guns was the reason I've experienced less crime then you have.

Its interesting that government provides for your paradise. Such blind faith is usually misplaced.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Lets put some perspective on who stretching the truth about crime in the utopia referred to as New Zealand. Seems all this woohaa about how the US being so bad is just a smokescreen to draw attention away from a nasty bunch of kiwi criminals.Violent crime there is UP!!! All you gotta do is pass Sweden and you'll be the per capita leader of violent crime. No wonder you speak of burglary half your friggin country are burglars and car thieves! And the disarmed UK is a cesspool of escalating violence. And, not shown here, New Zealand is 2nd only to South Africa in percentage of its population in prison. Hmm? Sounds like a land of degenerates to me.Anyone can and should do a search using "new zealand crime rate" for just one thing and you'll find dozens upon dozens of sites, including NZ government ones, that mirror these type of figures. You can also find the NZ newspapers online with the same type of crime stories and debased behavior as any country has like a young woman flushing babies down the toilet, etc.Nakanooki your tirade against the US is all smoke and mirrors. You're a paper tiger. A pot calling the kettle black.
Shooting More Holes in Gun Control
Jeff Dantre 05.19.01 <HR width="50%" SIZE=1>
The fallacies of gun control are continuing to reveal themselves in real life situations. Let's talk about a new study from the British Home Office. The report called "International Comparison of Criminal Justice Statistics 1999" was authored by Gordon Barclay, Cynthia Tavaras and Arsalaan Siddique and released earlier this month.

It has long been the perception of much of the public that the United States is the most crime-riddled country in the industrialized world. For many this is a common assumption, something we have learned since grade school. May I prove that assumption wrong?

Twenty-four countries were studied. Rates were reviewed for violent crime, homicide, domestic burglary and motor vehicle theft. For the year 1999, the following information was revealed:

For all crimes, the United States ranked 17th out of 24 (the worst would be #1) with an average overall crime rate of 4,222 incidents per 100,000 people. Sweden topped the list in this category followed by New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Finland and Norway.

For violent crime the United States ranked 12th out of 24. South Africa ranked number one with 1,771 violent crimes per 100,000 people followed by, yep, the United Kingdom with 1,263 violent crime per 100,000 people. Then New Zealand, Luxembourg, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and Finland. Amazing how the former Empire has fared in this study.

For domestic burglary, the U.S. ranked 6th out of 24. Denmark topped the list followed by Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom, then the U.S., South Africa, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Regarding auto theft, the U.S. ranks 12th of 24. Sweden top the list- it must be those nice Saabs and Volvos, followed by New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada and Italy.

Now to homicide. Yes, the U.S. still suffers from a high murder rate, about two-thirds accounted for by firearms. But the rate in the U.S. continues to plummet. The crime mad country of South Africa actually top the list with nearly 55 killings per 100,000 people. Russia is second with 21 per 100,000. Then the U.S. where the rate falls to 5.63 per 100,000. Finland, Spain and the Czech Republic follow with about half the rate of the U.S. Australia, Canada and the UK are at 7, 10, 14. Yes, 5.63 people killed per 100,000 is still embarrassingly high but again, progress is being made.

What can we take away from the statistics? First, we are not the most violent society among the industrialized countries of the world. Note that violent crime includes, in this case, rape, armed robbery, all types of assaults and homicide. The United Kingdom truly claims this mark since it is hard to classify South Africa in the same category with the other countries in the study. Maybe that's why they included it in the study. And the rest of the former British Empire suffers a nearly similar fate.

As we gun rights watchers know, Canada, the UK and Australia have taken extraordinary steps to impede the rights of their citizens to possess firearms. What are these poor countries to do? It seems that in response to the continual rise in crime rates, those countries only tighten the noose around the legal gun owner even more. I wonder, though, what's going to happen when no one, except police and the military, can legally possess a firearm? What else can they take?

As time passes, I have become more and more convinced that the push for disarmament is coming from the very, very top- from the folks who ultimately want a One World Government. Yes, gun control is being paraded about as this great social cause, "Ohhh, lets save all the children from the horrid guns...we can't live with this menace in our society, ohhh, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" I hope you see this for all it is. ONE BIG, VERY DANGEROUS LIE!

I remain convinced that we must preserve gun rights in this country AT ALL COST or what we have left of this once great nation will be no more. Our guns may be the only threat that eventually stands in the way of a One World Government which no longer recognizes our sovereignty as Americans in America. We will fight the good fight and I pray to God that we will succeed!

-Raleigh NC Times-

Here's an article from the New Zealand Herald last year:

CHUBBY POTHEADS WITH LOTS OF ROOMS
Diana McCurdy

Scared of walking in the dark, dedicated to smoking pot, poor and fat?

That's the picture of New Zealanders that has emerged from a new Australian book, How Australia Compares, which measures 18 developed democracies against the lucky country.

In a series of league tables, authors Rodney Tiffen and Ross Gittins deal the New Zealand ego a savage blow. Among other things, the book reveals New Zealanders are the most likely to fear burglary and the least likely to feel safe walking in the dark.

But we do have some justification for our anxiety. New Zealand's crime rate is second highest after Sweden ( although that could be partly because we are most likely to report crime to the police ). We also have the second-highest proportion of our population in prison, after the United States.

New Zealanders can't even take solace in a high standard of living. We fare worse than Australia in almost all economic statistics. When measured by income per capita, New Zealanders' material standard of living is lowest in the developed world.

Our main consolations, it seems, are drugs and food. New Zealand ranks top in the developed world for cannabis use and third for amphetamines. Our consumption of sugar is world-beating and our obesity rate is well above average.

Nevertheless, we remain the world's fourth-hardest workers. Only the Australians, the Americans and Japanese put in more hours.

As for the good news: we might be relatively poor, but we live in big houses. Seventy-four per cent of New Zealand homes have more than five rooms.

New Zealand also has the highest proportion of young people in the developed world, and one of the highest entry rates into university.

We may not be faring too well now, but as the rest of the world ages, there's still potential for improvement. Watch out Australia, there's life in your young cousin yet.

Let's do the way the kiwis do around here and cherry pick only the negative stuff about their country!
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/I-Am-Smiling.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/national/22shoot.html

Another triumph for American gun law.

Makes all your NRA bullshit excuses look as pathetic as they are. If you want to argue that your country is better than mine, come up with a few incidents where children have been murdered in their New Zealand schools, or shot at at random by a sniper while they fueled up with gas.

Until then, your country's gun laws blow, and you have no statistics relative to the argument.

Such a shame your 'good Samaritan' gun user couldn't prevent this tragedy.Could have something to do with the fact that he got shot dead at the last one.

Enjoy your guns gentlemen.I'll bet none of you would show up at these children's funerals spouting your ridiculous nonsense about how good it is to own one.

I'm not a NYT member, so all I could read was this:
Shooting Rampage by Student Leaves 10 Dead on Reservation
By JODI WILGOREN
Published: March 22, 2005
In northern Minnesota, a student killed his grandparents, five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard, as well as himself.


And that's about all I've heard on the news as well. Not many details available I guess. Oh, they did mention that he was kind of weird, the sterotypical "trench coat goth loner" guy. I doubt the reporters know what goth is, but that's the image they want to portray. They also mentioned that this was an extremely poor area.

Anyway, if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times. While crime rates drop(including crimes involving firearms), the media continues to make things look like they are getting worse. Just based on watching the news, you would think crime, especially gun crime, was up tenfold over the last decade or so. The truth?

Justice Department: Gun Violence Falls 63%
By Jim Kouri, CPP
MichNews.com
Mar 17, 2005




Firearms Violence 200% Higher for Blacks Than For Whites

In spite of all the hoopla regarding gun violence in America, a study by the US Department of Justice appears to dispel claims of rising gun deaths. The government study received minimal if any mainstream media attention.

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%, or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.



* For nonfatal violent crimes, offenders were more likely to have a firearm than a knife or club. From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4 per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics (6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per 1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3 years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.


* From 1994 through 1999, the years for which data are available, about 7 in 10 murders at school involved some type of firearm, and approximately 1 in 2 murders at school involved a handgun.


Source: US Department of Justice


Taranaki continues to ignore the overwhelming facts, while using rare incidents, selectively provided for him by the sensationalist mainstream media, as a basis for his radical attempt of revoking one of the themes that this country was founded on- the right to defend yourself and your family.

Over 4,000 Americans died in the Revolutionary War. Over 2,000 in the War of 1812. Over 12,000 in the Mexican War. Over 550,000 in our civil war. Over 2,000 in the Spanish American War. Over 110,000 in WWI. Over 400,000 in WWII. 33,000 for the Korean War. Nearly 60,000 in Vietnam. About 300 in the Gulf War. And right now there are men giving their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of these men died because they believed in the ideas that this country was founded on, and they were willing to go to any length to ensure that our way of living would survive. They believed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. And they died so that the rest of us could live by them.

If Taranaki has his way, it will all be in vain. What a waste. :disappoin

Another triumph for New Zealand's gun laws

Armed man forces officers to release prisoner

New Zealand Herald 22 March 2005

Corrections officers were forced to release an inmate from a prison vehicle in central Wellington today, after an accomplice appeared, pulled a firearm and threatened them, police say.


The gunman, believed to be carrying a pistol, was still on the loose tonight after his dramatic bid to free Arthur William Taylor.
Taylor, 48, on remand in Rimutaka Prison in Upper Hutt for serious firearms and drug offences, was being taken by three Corrections officers to a meeting in Manners Mall just after 2pm.
An unknown accomplice confronted the officers and presented the gun as they got out of the vehicle in a carpark at the back of the building, Wellington police said in a statement.
Taylor was released from his restraints and the two men fled into the Manners Mall area.

Taylor had a brief few minutes of freedom before he was recaptured after plunging through the roof of a building.
He was not injured and was taken into police custody.
The man who forced the escape was described as a male Caucasian in his 30s, who wore a beanie hat, glasses and a green fluorescent jacket.

"We're not sure of this man's identity but he's possibly still armed, so we are advising people to be cautious if they see him," Detective Inspector Gary Knowles said in the statement.
The Corrections officers involved were shaken but unhurt.
Police appealed for witness to contact them.
-----------------------------
So did the NRA send this criminal in your country weapons or are did he just do what criminals do everywhere and obtain them illegally?

Your rock is just sitting in the backwater of civilization while crime and violent crime escalates (note previous news story examples) You're led by a woman for crissake. Your socialist government is so 5 minutes ago! It's just unbelievable that you have the gall to comment on a story in the USA as you sit in Neverland intwined in some sanctamonious fantasy and paint bullshit pictures of your bogus utopia.

If you knew anything about the story you're spouting off about you'd have learned that the kid killed his grandfather who was a law enforcement officer with his own weapons and then used them ILLEGALLY to commit more crimes. Even a goofball in a 5th rate backwards fairyland like yours should be able to grasp that.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Get-A-Life-Sucker.gif

Statistics. Lots of them quoted here. Pertinent facts gleaned from them that have NOT been mentioned:

NZ and AUS classify burglary/break-ins as violent crime.

Difference between NZ and US is a few hundred (sue me if I'm a little off) per 100000; 1000 per 100,000 is, which is 1%. Big whup, not that much of a difference in reality.

Sure there's lots of gun violence, it's the easiest way for criminals to threaten/harm/get what they want.

Quoting isolated incidents such as a criminal escaping or a high school shooting doesn't make that sort of thing commonplace. Yes, Columbine, yes, now Minnesota. That's 30 people in mass high school shootings in what, 6 years? The problem isn't the gun, it's the people. And the NZ guy that got away because his buddy pointed a gun at police? Recaptured soon afterward. Same thing probably happens worldwide, daily, but hit the news in quiet NZ because it's out of the ordinary.

Gun control? Good in theory, perhaps good in a society that hasn't had a lot of guns since they are relatively difficult to find. But in the US, a bad idea, since guns have been around and common for so long; they're easily obtained by criminals.

I haven't been following this whole thing that closely but I have a question for people who are for gun control. How do you feel about guns that are for sport? Should those type of guns also be banned?