Stopping Murders in the USA ?

[Trip]

BF,

they'll eventually scrap the Constitution and write another.

[laserred]

BF,

they'll eventually scrap the Constitution

[walle]

My sincerest apologies especially since I should have known your particular stances by now after so many responses back and forth over the years.

No problem Trip, I guess I did word myself somewhat poorly on that one.

Peace mate.

There's no substantial difference between telling a government agency "if you come into my house, I will shoot you" and "if you come into my house, I will attack you with anthrax."

There’s no difference in intent (protecting oneself), I’ll grant you that qviri; but the outcome sure is, kind of contra productive using Anthrax and having a nuke silo in the yard at standby unless one would go kamikaze of course. A sidearm is a good enough balance me thinks.



Cheers

[andyb]

I am as objected to Iran and N Korea having nuclear weapons as I am the average USA citizen "bearing arms", or should that be the other way round either way, the average USA citizen is no more likely to sensible with said weaponary and wont keep it any safer from bad people than the Axis of evil - so what does that make your government to its own people.?

If I was a neighbour to an average USA citizen with weaponary I would be as scared as Israel is of Iran getting nukes, or terrorists getting nuclear material from N Korea, the only difference is scale. As someone has already pointed out, N Korea and Iran have just as much right to have Nukes as the USA does, in exactly the same respect that your mad neighbour has the same right to own guns as you do.

To put this simply, everyone in the USA can get a gun if they want to, most can just ask, others will buy one from the guy down the pub and others will be stolen. The fact that they are in existance makes for a very dangerous place. The more nukes this planet has the more likely one is going to fall into the wrong hands, the only difference between people doing mass murder via guns and mass murder via nukes is avalability, if nukes were easy to get hold of the planet would be a big glassy puddle.

I hope that some of the above and my analogy's sink in to some people, less guns = less gun murders, its just that simple.

Some more for you - mostly for the fun of mockery.

Fewer cows = less milk, burgers and Steak.
Fewer cars = more healthy individuals, less polution, fewer car deaths.
Less bacon rind = fewer crabs caught at the dockside.

I am sure you get the idea, things affect each other, if you have less/more of something, things will be different. I am sure that if you gun toting cowboys thought about this from a totally neutral viewpoint you would understand that it might not be easy, it sure wont be quick but you can reduce the number of guns in the USA to a minimal amount, and over time you will reap the rewards and enter modern civilisation, you never know your country might even reduce its murder rate to that of the UK in just 30 years time. But I doubt that will happen, you are more likely to get a national health service to pick up all of the bodies with bullet holes than preventing the torrent of corpes flooding into your hospitals.


Andy

[Trip]

Take away the guns from the governments and criminals first, and I'll gladly give you mine.

Otherwise, the purpose of taking away guns is to use force against the newly defenseless people.

[djkest]

Wow, you're really off your rocker now. Guns are much different than nuclear bombs, I can't shoot you from my house 1/2 way across the world. I also can't whipe out an entire metro area with one bullet. I also don't think you should liken the average American citizen to 3rd world dictators. But hey, you did. What about cops, can they have guns at their home? Would you be scared to live next to one? How about highly trained current or former military members? Would you be frightened to live next to one of them? Either one may be armed. The idea that N Korea or Iran with nukes capable of hitting targets 1000 miles away is a far cry from the average american having a gun. Not to you, I guess.

Comparing cows to crime? All cows are for burgers, milk, and steak, (not pets!) not all guns are for crime. Only a very small portion of them. If there was a black market for beef, and it was being stolen all the time, it might be applicable. But it isn't, and it's not. I think I'm done here, because I'm tired of reading all these irrational comparisons, and we really aren't getting anywhere.

I get it. You think all Americans are stupid, ugly, fat, lazy, gun-crazy, simple minded, murderous, a bad driver, and a drain on the environment. You've made that abundantly clear time and time again, post after post. Nothing we can say or do will change your mind about that.

[djkest]

Sorry, I broke my own rule and I'm posting again in this thread, but it's just too good to pass up. Really.

A little history lesson about how bad guns are. Between the world wars, England had implemented some significant gun controls. By that time, the vast majority of Brits did not own or have any access to firearms. When WW2 broke out, there was a real threat of German invasion and a very significant shortage of guns in England. They simply did not have enough to go around and did not have the manufacturing capacity to make enough fast enough. They turned to us for help. Savage Arms and others made Enfields for them. They begged American gun owners to donate a rifle for England' home guard. Many did send an extra rifle or two to the Brits. They armed home guard volunteers so the enfields could go to the front. That's right. Private American citizens sent private guns to England.

Rather than return the borrowed rifles, the ungreatful Brits melted them down when the war was over.

[qviri]

BF,

they'll eventually scrap the Constitution and write another.

Wait, why is this shocking?

[Trip]

BF,

they'll eventually scrap the Constitution and write another.

Wait, why is this shocking?

It's not so much shocking as it is scary. The Constitution is about the only thing keeping the fed at bay, and Americans have currently been brainwashed into believing that it doesn't matter who moves here, laws and rights will always remain the same - we're bound by ideological (as opposed to blood, soil, and tradition) nationalism which is supposed to hold things together. Though of course it won't hold, and such shouldn't be a surprise.

The Constitution protects our rights of speech and the bearing of arms without which things would be far worse. Bush can wire tap us and declare us unlawful combatants, removing all rights, but he can't as of yet take away our guns, unless of course he declares us all unlawful combatants though he'd never get away with it.

But to a crazed big government worshiper this might sound good... (power! muahahaha glorious power! they have no guns, they're defenseless!) for the rest of us, it's frightening. We've read of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot... we know what powerful tyrants are capable of.

[Erssa]

less guns = less gun murders, its just that simple.

I am sure you get the idea, things affect each other, if you have less/more of something, things will be different. I am sure that if you gun toting cowboys thought about this from a totally neutral viewpoint you would understand that it might not be easy, it sure wont be quick but you can reduce the number of guns in the USA to a minimal amount, and over time you will reap the rewards and enter modern civilisation, you never know your country might even reduce its murder rate to that of the UK in just 30 years time.

This is so true. And the reason why I am arguing against handguns is, that I believe many impulse homicides can be prevented by turning up handguns. I guess it's hard for Americans to distinctively notice which or their numerous homicides were done by criminals and which were impulse homicides done by normal people. And when I say criminals here, I mean those with rap sheets and criminal lifestyle.

According to some statistics, Finland has one of highest murder rates in Europe. Only some former Warsaw pact countries top us. Finland also has 3rd most guns per capita in the world. But crime related firearms homicides are rare. Most of our firearm homicides are impulse homicide. I can only imagine how much more we would have, if people were allowed to carry handguns.

I don't have the exact statistics, but most of the homicides here are done at someones home and not on the streets, usually it involves friends or family, probably drunk, arguing until someone snaps and stabs with a knife, or in some cases shoots. Occasionally we get to read how someone snapped and killed his wife with a hammer, or how a woman got upset and hit a man with a billhook and there was even a case where somebody hit someone in the head with an axe. Nothing special in that, expect it happened in the metro. These killers aren't your lifestyle criminals, they were just too wasted, mentally ill or otherwise lost control of themselves. I call them impulse homicides, because there isn't any premeditation, everything happens in the heat of the moment, usually with improvised weapons. I'm sure most of our non-lethal stabbing incidents would be fatal shootings instead, if we had handguns "for protection". Either the attacker would shoot the victim, or the victim would kill in self defense.

I'm sure all of this applies to USA as well, at least to some degree. Without knowing any statistics, I'm willing to bet, that many homicides done in USA, are done impulsively just like here. And these homicides can be mostly prevented by banning handguns.

Last November we had a school shooting, that shocked our nation. A guy killed 9 people. It's possible, but unlikely, that if every kid had been strapping, there might have been less victims. But I highly doubt it. When shit hits the fan, survival mode kicks in, and most people turn into animals. Like in this case, most of the injured people were injured as a result of their panicking behavior, when they attempted to flee the building. It would take incredible amount of guts for a 16 year old teenager to put himself on the line in order to save others and challenge a determined cold-blooded killer in a shoot out. Most kids would just flee the building like a heard of stampeding wildebeasts, while others would curl into a ball and whimper. When a 16 year old sees her best friends brains blown out, I don't think she's going to be drawing her gun like a lightning, taking her time aiming with steady hands before dropping the killer with a clean headshot. Most likely guns will be pointing everywhere but towards the killer and there could be more accidental victims from stray bullets. But let's presume the killer would have been able to kill only half of his total before someone got him. It wouldn't still be a good reason to allow handguns, because even the number of people saved just wouldn't be able to offshoot the increased number of victims from other shootings that would take place as a result of the increased number of handguns. I think this applies to USA.

Now I think our gun laws are just fine. Hunting is an important part of our culture and banning hunting weapons would be just plain idiocy, especially since it wouldn't save that many people from impulse homicides. But I believe handguns are a whole different matter. They are good only for threatening and killing people. They might protect your wallet, but they won't save lives, because more handguns will inevitably result in more impulse homicides and more brutal robberies. If every law abiding citizen in USA would destroy their handguns tomorrow, there would an instant drop in gun related deaths in next years statistics. But it would come at a price. Some people would now have to hand over their wallets instead of pointing back with a gun.

Erssa....others. You seem to forget St Louis has been judged the most dangerous city in the US last year, second worst this year. This is no media hype....it's the truth.

I know St Louis is statistically a dangerous city. Last year there were 138 homicides according to wikipedia. I just don't believe I fit the profile of homicide victim very well. I'm sure most of the victims are black. I also believe most victims knew the killer. Most victims probably had rap sheets. FBI might have good statistics, that would confirm, that there aren't that many victims fitting my profile.

Sorry, I broke my own rule and I'm posting again in this thread, but it's just too good to pass up. Really.

A little history lesson about how bad guns are. Between the world wars, England had implemented some significant gun controls. By that time, the vast majority of Brits did not own or have any access to firearms. When WW2 broke out, there was a real threat of German invasion and a very significant shortage of guns in England. They simply did not have enough to go around and did not have the manufacturing capacity to make enough fast enough. They turned to us for help. Savage Arms and others made Enfields for them. They begged American gun owners to donate a rifle for England' home guard. Many did send an extra rifle or two to the Brits. They armed home guard volunteers so the enfields could go to the front. That's right. Private American citizens sent private guns to England.

Rather than return the borrowed rifles, the ungreatful Brits melted them down when the war was over.

So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?

[djkest]

So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?

You are the only one who keeps continuing with the handguns are bad due to your guesses about statistics. You're showing your ignorance once again. First it was "shotguns are the best thing for home defense". Now it's "handguns aren't useful in war". So you know this, because you've been in a war, right? Oh, you haven't? Look at soldiers in Iraq, afganistan. Many of them have a rifle AND a handgun. Many officers only carry a handgun. This statement is pure unadulterated ignorance. Many service handguns are perfectly effective out to 50 yards. Engagements can happen at very close ranges, or longer ranges, depending on the situation. You dont' clear houses with a 40" long rifle, that's for sure. Even an M-4 with a 14.5" barrel seems like a long weapon.

[Erssa]

So what exactly is your point? USA needs handguns, because you might get invaded? Even if Brits had had handguns, they would have still needed rifles. Because when it comes to war, handguns are useless. How is this any defense for handguns?

You are the only one who keeps continuing with the handguns are bad due to your guesses about statistics.

And this is making you upset because? Feel free to correct my guesses, if they have been blatantly wrong. When I am guessing, I'm not claiming to state any facts.

A little more searching brought me to the *actual* House of Commons research paper (available here), and it appears that in England & Wales 1997 there were 14.1 homicides per million, not per 100,000 as per your lying "Gun Facts" graph.

A minor matter of overstating England & Wales homicides by a factor of 10, but who needs the truth when it gets in the way of your argument?

But I suppose copy-pasting "facts" and lies from propaganda site is better then guessing...

You're showing your ignorance once again. First it was "shotguns are the best thing for home defense".

Why the need to twist my words? I said shotgun is more practical against a burglar than a handgun. Claiming something would be best would be a whole different matter, now would it? Especially since home defense is a much larger concept then just guns. It involves security locks, surveillance cameras, alarms, etc...

Now it's "handguns aren't useful in war". So you know this, because you've been in a war, right? Oh, you haven't?

Superb argument and a brilliant guess. I served for a year in the army, but Finland hasn't been in a war in almost 65 years, so even finnish generals haven't been in a war. And I was mostly referring to WWII and to how you implied Brits would have been better off had they had handguns.

Look at soldiers in Iraq, afganistan. Many of them have a rifle AND a handgun. Many officers only carry a handgun. This statement is pure unadulterated ignorance. Many service handguns are perfectly effective out to 50 yards. Engagements can happen at very close ranges, or longer ranges, depending on the situation. You dont' clear houses with a 40" long rifle, that's for sure. Even an M-4 with a 14.5" barrel seems like a long weapon.

Crappy range, poor accuracy and low fire power. Hardly a replacement for a rifle. Our troops use RK 95 TP rifles. Those are 26,5" when stock is folded. Not even close to a 40", but neither is M-4. Hell, even some sniper rifles are shorter then 40". I'm sure handguns aren't the primary weapon of choice for US troops storming houses in Iraq. As for your officers carrying only handguns, they carry only these ornaments because they know, they won't end up in firefight.

[Bluefront]

Gun control equals Murder........ read that one and then tell me what those kids did wrong. They were doing what thousands of people were doing all the time....walking out on an old bridge to get a good view of the Mississippi river.

This was one of the saddest stories I ever remember from the St Louis area. The article doesn't go into much detail. The real story was much worse. The murderers were the same sort of people shooting each other in the city of St Louis...... but this time showed they don't need guns or knives to become murderers.

Crime is the problem once again....not guns. What sort of new gun law would have prevented those deaths? Obviously none. Whereas.... a single pistol in the pocket of one victim here, would have prevented the murders. Ironic....they were conducting a Rodney King-type "Lets all just get along" ceremony of sorts. Their Liberal attitudes brought about their deaths.

Isolated example....not really. Walk unarmed in the city at night, and tempt your fate. Many people do, and some survive.

Guns won't vanish in thirty years or so....as has been suggested, no matter what law is passed. Should every gun in the USA vanish tomorrow, by the end of the week there would be a new massive supply smuggled in from south of the border, and sold on the streets for high prices to the bad guys, along with more drugs.

So where are the anti-crime laws.....proposed by you Liberals?

[nick705]

I get it. You think all Americans are stupid, ugly, fat, lazy, gun-crazy, simple minded, murderous, a bad driver, and a drain on the environment. You've made that abundantly clear time and time again, post after post. Nothing we can say or do will change your mind about that.

I can't speak for Andy, but as far as I can tell, no, not all of you fit into that category, but some of you do (much as anywhere else). They're exactly the people who should *not* be able to get their hands on firearms under any circumstances (well, maybe being a fat Big Mac-eating salad dodger who can't handle a stick shift wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker).

Firearms fatalities in 2005 (all causes)

United States (population 297m): 30,694 Source

United Kingdom (population 60m): 185 Source

So after allowing for a five-times larger population, you're 33 times more likely to die by gunfire in the USA than in the UK.

Have a nice day.

Less bacon rind = fewer crabs caught at the dockside.

[seraphyn]

Crime is the problem once again....not guns.

Of course crime is the root of the problem, who said otherwise? Guns are just a tool to commit a crime. Handguns in every home and on every citizen make it easier to commit deadly first crimes. These crimes you often can't see coming clearly and are thus quite dangerous.

This whole agruement isn't as black and white as most people make it out to be. I'm anti gun for the simple reason that it will limit gun accidents, it will lower deadly first crimes (crimes of passion and such) and mostly because over here having a gun in your home or on you is just totally unnessecary as the amount of deadly burglaries / killing muggers etc is just too low. It can only rise if everyone would walk around armed.
If i was born and raised in a gun happy country where i would've gotten shotgun lessons at the age of 12 and where it was way more dangerous i would probably feel otherwise.
Problem is, is that I (and most non US people) don't have the US mentality nor experience with living there and thus cannot imagine the how and why of needing to arm yourself 24/7. Living standards, society, crime and the likes differ way too much for me to rightfully judge on your situation. Only thing i can do is look at statistics, read about your crime(fighting) and compare them to my situation, which is totally different.
The very thought of having a country that's apparently so dangerous that you need to walk around armed all the time does not allure to me much, I must say.


On another note, funny how you call everyone Liberals, such an odd label to give. Liberal over here is the right and extreme right wing of politics, who would actually have the most chance of agreeing with you.
You might want to add Socialists.

[laserred]

Bluefront, I see no need to keep arguing with the Europeans. They've made it clear that as a whole, but not totally individually (we've seen the Netherlands, UK, Finland, and Sweden represented here) that shows us Americans exactly why we've had to go bail their asses out twice in the past 100 years from tyranny. Some of you have called Bluefront and I and other gun owners "delusional", but look at the big picture: sure, it's all fine and dandy to imagine and want a world without a need for guns and killing machines. But who's the delusional one to voluntarily remove a form of personal protection? You guys from across the pond conveniently ignore the arguments of being placed in one of the US's ghettos unarmed with your family. THAT'S delusional.

[Sizzle]

There are not a ton of muders in my town, but a decent amount. I live in Michigan, where we have Flint and Detroit, very high murder areas.

My opinion is that we should ban hand guns. There is no reason for an individual to have a hand gun. Basically, any gun short enough to be hidden is banned. You can have all the riffles you want.

Next, we need to have the death penalty in all 50 states, if we can kill unborn babies, we can kill killers. No instant appeal, if the guilty want to appeal, they can though. Now, capital punishment should not be expensive lethal injection or the electric chair. We need to go back to cost effective hanging or firing squad. People say these ways are inhuman, well so is shooting someone several times or stabbing them 20 times.

I can't remember who it was, maybe George Carlin or Bill Hicks, but one of them had the idea of using death row inmates for real stunts in movies. That way they pay their debt to the public and help entertain them at the same time. This may be a bit over the top, even for America.

Next, no weights in jail, only treadmills and excersice bikes. Also, give inmates incentives for completing GED's and college degrees.

[Bluefront]

Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Democrat.....all carry similar meanings in English, these days anyway. Denied of course by Democrats, but their stated goals are mostly Socialist.....which is the left-wing (Liberal) in American English.

So if I use the word "Liberal", it is a dirty word in my book.

[klankymen]

Bluefront, I see no need to keep arguing with the Europeans. They've made it clear that as a whole, but not totally individually (we've seen the Netherlands, UK, Finland, and Sweden represented here) that shows us Americans exactly why we've had to go bail their asses out twice in the past 100 years from tyranny. Some of you have called Bluefront and I and other gun owners "delusional", but look at the big picture: sure, it's all fine and dandy to imagine and want a world without a need for guns and killing machines. But who's the delusional one to voluntarily remove a form of personal protection? You guys from across the pond conveniently ignore the arguments of being placed in one of the US's ghettos unarmed with your family. THAT'S delusional.

When's the last time you or Bluefront bailed anyones ass out of anything? We don't need unemployed mechanics with guns to bail asses out of places, we need trained soldiers with guns, which they will continue to have regardless of personal gun ownership.

Just to clarify that.

[quikkie]

Oi! don't lump all the euros together, there are one or two that are not afraid of the combination of metal and wood/plastic/ceramic that make up your typical firearm.

I remember reading (and I forget where) that the places in the US with the highest gun ownership have the lowest amount of burglaries and vice versa.

While I can see peoples points about negligent discharges (reminds me of youtube vid of the DEA agent in the class room) and heat of the moment homicides I see the need for more education rather than banning items.

I personally know people that have a concealed carry permit and their entire attitude changes when they are carrying - they are more reserved, calmer, less easy to anger. Why? because of the huge responsibility they have assumed by carrying a weapon - they can not afford to joke around. In addition they are more switched on, more aware of what's going on around them as it's not generally a good thing to be mugged for your weapon...

And lastly - getting rid of guns will not reduce the crime rate (see my earlier post for the stats) or the number of murders, as has already been said alternative methods will be found to commit the crime.

[klankymen]

I personally know people that have a concealed carry permit

in the UK? is that possible?

[Trip]

Americans have more crime because of diversity... do I need to post the FBI crime statistics again on which group committs what percentage of crimes?

Comparing US gun fatalities to UK gun fatalities is apples to oranges.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello Trip,

I think that drawing conclusions based on racial groups is a mistake -- because there are other stronger correlations; specifically the socioeconomic status of the criminals.

Question to the whole group: Does the presence of a large number of guns in society increase or decrease the rates of gun-related crimes?

[Rusty075]

Question to the whole group: Does the presence of a large number of guns in society increase or decrease the rates of gun-related crimes?

That's as much an oversimplification as Trip's racial profiling. The obvious answer is that it depends on the society. Take, for example, a military base. By most of the criteria set forth in thread it should be teeming with gun violence: 100% gun ownership, a "diverse" population consisting largely of single young males, high population density, and relative poverty. But violence is low compared to the general population. Now take virtually the same socioeconomic group of people and put them in prison, and even without the convenience of firearms they manage to kill each other at a much higher rate. Its the society that makes the difference, and what it holds as rules of acceptable behavior. Heck, even the "wild west" of American history, with its almost universal gun carrying, had an astonishly low crime rate.

Even the US now, if you factor out the criminal-on-criminal gun violence (which wouldn't be affected by gun control laws anyway), has very low levels of gun violence. The anomilies, like someone walking into a classroom and opening fire, get the attention because they are rare, not because they represent reality of life.

[Bluefront]

Answer....since guns are already in the hands of the bad guys, and are not likely to be removed by any law, or any other method thus proposed that is likely to be passed into law, the question is meaningless.

Crimes and murder will be carried out by the bad guys using their guns, or other means, no matter how you feel about the subject, and no matter what sort of gun law is passed.

Unless the present population is willing to accept new, much tougher laws dealing with crime, crimes of all types are likely to increase, and maybe get worse.

This is not the UK or Europe. We are dealing with a diverse population, some members of which are prone to more crime, more murders, proven by the number of crimes committed by this group, being vastly disproportionate to their numbers in our society. In St Louis, with a fairly equal number of each group, one group is responsible for >90% of the murders. Figure it out for yourself.....which group is more responsible for this community being so dangerous?

[jaganath]

Heck, even the "wild west" of American history, with its almost universal gun carrying, had an astonishly low crime rate.

how do we know this? I presume it wasn't called the wild west because they were "wild" about assiduously collecting crime statistics?

[floffe]

So if I use the word "Liberal", it is a dirty word in my book.

Let me quote The West Wing:

Santos (D): It's true, Republicans have tried to turn 'liberal' into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick (R): A Republican president ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party, Senator? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed every one of those programs. Every one. So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.

I'm well aware you can debate whether some of those are good (and your opinion will depend on your own views), but there are several of those that only fringe extremists would be against today (civil rights, ending segregation, allowing almost everyone to vote).

[djkest]

Firearms fatalities in 2005 (all causes)

United States (population 297m): 30,694 Source

United Kingdom (population 60m): 185 Source

So after allowing for a five-times larger population, you're 33 times more likely to die by gunfire in the USA than in the UK.

Have a nice day.

Well, lets take suicides out of the picture, shall we? It is true that more gun-caused suicides happen in the US. But look, you dont' need a gun to kill yourself.

Okay, lets talk suicide rates.

US:
11.05 per 100,000 in 2005, source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Suicide/Su ... aSheet.pdf

UK:
17.5 per 100,000 for men
5.8 per 100,000 for women
Averages out to about 11.6 per 100,000 if you assume 50/50 distribution
source: UK.gov http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/P ... vlnk=13618

National safety council states in 2004 that about 50% of all suicides in the US were done with a firearm, although poisoning is the #1 method for females.

So, despite less guns and firearm caused suicide, the UK rate of suicide is the same or higher than the US. So basically by looking at the statistic of "firearms death" you lump 1/2 of US suicides in, and only a few UK suicides. But clearly, a lack of access to guns has not deterred UK subjects from ending their own lives. A more appropriate comparison might be murder rates.

[klankymen]

Well, considering all crime in america is black on black, gang on gang, in ghetto areas (according to BF and the like), and other than that it's a safe country, why not just stop going into the ghettos and let them kill each other, while you stay safe without guns in your whitebread world. seems like the most risk-free option to me, for people who are concerned about their own safety.

[87GN]

Well, considering all crime in america is black on black, gang on gang, in ghetto areas (according to BF and the like), and other than that it's a safe country, why not just stop going into the ghettos and let them kill each other, while you stay safe without guns in your whitebread world. seems like the most risk-free option to me, for people who are concerned about their own safety.

Avoiding risk is very important to staying safe. The most important factor, I'd say. I carry a handgun concealed on my person every day, but I don't go to bad parts of town, I don't walk down dark alleyways, etc. The handgun is just a tool along with the small flashlight I carry in my pocket or the medical pack I carry in the trunk of my car. I don't think I'm more likely to become enraged and kill someone because I carry a gun. In fact I am more polite and well behaved. I avoid confrontation as a hard and fast rule. Because I see self defense as a mindset, rather than just a handgun, I have never found myself in a situation where I even felt the slightest need to draw my weapon.

Now, I've traveled a little, and I remember policemen in Italy carrying submachineguns and automatic rifles on the street, slung over their shoulders. Seraphyn wrote that he didn't know what it was like living in a country that was so dangerous that one would need to walk around armed all the time. I loved the sights and sounds and culture I found in Italy, but here in America if I see a policeman with a rifle on the street, I'm walking away very quickly, because something bad is happening or is about to happen. I can only hope that Seraphyn, should he travel to Italy, remains as safe as I did. I should also mention that I narrowly escaped being mugged while in Italy. My time in Ireland and Germany was more pleasant.

Oh and as for the uses of handguns - I carried an M4 (carbine) and a M9 (handgun) in Iraq, but sometimes only the M9. I am a Navy Corpsman, providing medical treatment on the battlefield for all injured parties, and the handgun is definitely more useful when your other hand is busy holding pressure on a wound. I could go on, but it would seem that some of you are so obstinate as to ignore any rational argument about handguns. Handguns are far less lethal than even the most mediocre deer rifle, by the way.

The bottom line is that here in America, we, or at least a majority of people including myself, believe in personal responsibility. The government does not have an obligation to provide for my personal safety. My safety is my responsibility. I am ignorant of the laws of the EU, but here in the United States the police have no legal duty to protect you, and cannot be held responsible if you are injured. Rather than plead for the government to give me a warm and fuzzy security blanket by taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens and leaving armed criminals everywhere, I'm happy with being secure in the knowledge that my safety is in my own hands.