If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(You are farked)   The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help   (theguntutor.com) divider line 373
    More: Amusing, Britain, Portland Police Bureau, Robert Green, kitchen knife, Portland Oregon, imminent threat  
•       •       •

5549 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2012 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-29 02:10:59 PM

Flint Ironstag: Silverstaff: snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.

Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?



No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....


Holy fark are you really saying that you need to be protected from pointy objects. Hahahahaha!

Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?
 
2012-12-29 02:11:45 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Kit Fister: Bomb He

You are completely and totally full of it.

Every day you are kept safe by the commonsense regulation of the highway system. In the UK, where the regulation is better, accident rates are lower. In Russia, where regulation is a joke, accident rates are much higher.

Every day you are kept safe by commonsense and good regulation of the food you eat and the medicine you use. Compare with: third world hellholes.

Your example of 'drugs' is ridiculous. Illegal drugs are not sensibly regulated. Their completely banned under a system that does not work, just like clearly the current US system of gun regulation is quite broken.

Really. Get your head out of your backside.


Really? Common sense regulations on the highway system? You're going with that? As to the food I eat, a lot of it comes from local farms or what I hunt. So, regulations keep me safe from what i kill and butcher, or harvest out of my garden?

Medicine -- really? Those regulations stopped the sale of those drugs that infected hundreds and killed 30+ people with a strain of Meningitis?

So, you're going to tell me that our regulations are the ONLY thing that have anything to do with our safety on the roads, of food and medicine?

It's also disingenuous to suggest that an established framework of laws that act and work at a macro level extend and apply to the micro level. At a macro level, corporations operate (as far as anyone cares to observe) within the boundaries of those regulations. But as BP proved in the gulf, the pharmacy proved with the meningitis outbreak, and the numerous safety recalls in automotive history prove, those regulations don't do shiat to prevent much of anything, they simply reduce the frequency, sometimes.

Also, prohibitive regulations have yet to stop things like Ponzi schemes in the financial industry, or the million-to-billion dollar industry that is the illegal drug trade in this country.

Finally, harsh rules about murder don't seem to stop people from killing each other, harsh rules about rape seems to fail to prevent people from getting raped, and harsh rules about molesting kids doesn't stop people from farking children.

At a micro level, you may make it harder for the honest person to commit a crime, but someone intent on committing the crime will do it, and the only way we find out is if they manage to get caught.

Now, Mr. Kettle, Show me solid proof and not simply knee-jerk statements that contain neither direct relevance nor data supporting the premise you are advancing, and we'll talk.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:19 PM

ParaHandy: Pert: OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?

Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecu ...


In the UK Zimmerman would be dead for the offense of asking a kid what he's up to. Thanks for proving our point for us.

If some thug wants to assault me, I'd like the opportunity to not die.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:20 PM

calbert: where is Bathia_Mapes?

this article uses the BBC knife-ban article from 2005, and another article from the BBC in 2004 as 2 of its 3 sources.

old news.

/I'm calling for her because she correctly identified these as old articles when they were submitted on 12-26 and 12-27.


I did indeed. Not sure why the "author" of the article is using them as a reference point either, especially since the 2005 long pointed knife ban request never went anywhere.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:55 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?


Because you can't hunt on the queen's land? They'll draw and quarter you for that shiat. I've seen as much in the old Robbin Hood movies.
 
2012-12-29 02:13:00 PM

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.
 
2012-12-29 02:14:21 PM

HighlanderRPI: Ah Britain, the country whose citizenry turned their guns to plowshares after WWI and had to come crying to the US for small arms to defend themselves from an invasion after the Luftwaffe came calling.


No, Britain managed to stop Hitler's invasion plans with the Battle Of Britain in 1940, a year before the US joined the war. Small arms didn't feature much in that battle...

/Britain also had a large reserve of battlefield weapons kept in storage from WWI. Many WWII actions in North Africa and Italy were fought, and won, with WWI artillery.
 
2012-12-29 02:15:54 PM

dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]


I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with
 
2012-12-29 02:16:35 PM

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


World War I and World War II, before the advent of battle rifles using detachable magazines with "high capacity", combat effectiveness: 1 kill per 10,000 rounds fired, on average.

Viet Nam era to present, after the advent of rifles using detachable magazines, lower-recoil, lighter-weight ammo, and better man-portibility of weaponry (M16/AR-15, etc.): 1 kill per 100,000 rounds fired.

By statistics alone, modern "Assault rifles" are less deadly than their predecessors. So, there goes that theory.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:34 PM

Silly Jesus: dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...

This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.


There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:44 PM

farkmedown: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns.

Enjoy your police state.


Which country are you forced to carry your ID while driving? Which country are you forced (in many states) to tell a cop your name if he asks? Which country allows its police to lie to you during questioning?

Hint: It's not the UK.

/I love the US and visit often, but the myth that Americans have rights that no one else has is just that, a myth.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:48 PM

ParaHandy: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.


So you're fine with folks in major cities owning weapons for self defense?
 
2012-12-29 02:18:01 PM

ParaHandy: Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.


Because of course your personal opinion and experience outweigh reality.
 
2012-12-29 02:20:56 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


causation / correlation / derp

Perhaps there is a difference in the cultures of the countries that you are comparing.

During Hurricane Katrina the folks all raided the stores and raped and pillaged. During the Japanese Tsunami the folks actually took extra food that they had at home to the grocery store so that others could have some.

That's culture, my friend. Throw some guns at both groups of people and who do you think will kill one another with haste? That's not the fault of the gun, that's a problem with the people.
 
2012-12-29 02:21:46 PM

dr-shotgun: I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

The ideal weapon for home defense is an AR-15.

The myth that the pump action shotgun is the best gun for home defense is just that, a myth. Here is why:

1- People think that shotguns are a blunderbuss, where the pellets spread wide and make inaccurate aiming irrelevant. This is untrue. Shotgun pellets only spread about 1" for every yard of distance. So in a hallway or across a living room, we're only talking a 3-4" spread.

2- 00 buck and slugs tend to penetrate walls while continuing to carry a lot of velocity and staying relatively intact. That means they are still potentially lethal after going through 2-3 walls. The 5.56mm ammo out of an AR is very fast, but the bullet is lightweight, so when it hits any solid object, it begins to tumble and break apart (in human bodies, this is what allows the tiny bullet to be so effective). When you shoot a wall with a 5.56mm round, it will go through, but it also has a tendency to break apart and not be very lethal. This is why most SWAT teams switched from 9mm HK MP5s to M4 carbines; less potential collateral damage.


You don't need to use buckshot for home defense. Birdshot is absolutely devastating at short ranges, will give greater spread and will not penetrate your neighbors house across the street. You can get something like an 8" spread at 15 ft with a short barrel and birdshot.
 
2012-12-29 02:22:11 PM
This is what I post every time someone goes on about how we (UK) are not allowed to defend ourselves in event of attack

It's only against the law to use excessive force. People in Britain who have legally owned guns have used them to shoot home invaders. Sure they get arrested since the police have to investigate but once its confirmed that you weren't shooting at them as they were fleeing they let you go.

The big no no is harming people when your life isn't in danger. There was a recent case where a gang broke into a family home held the family hostage while they ransacked the place. After the crooks left, the family got a large group of adults to chase them down. One of the crooks was beaten so hard with a cricket bat he ended up brain damaged.

They went to jail

Its all about proportion If they come at you with a lethal weapon or if there is significant risk to your well being due to the numbers attacking you can use lethal force to protect you.
 
2012-12-29 02:22:18 PM

ParaHandy: Silly Jesus: dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...

This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.

There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.


Only if the citizenry is unarmed.

Do you have a plan for confiscating 300 million guns?
 
2012-12-29 02:22:25 PM

ParaHandy: There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.


Average police response time for violent crime reports here where I live: 10-20 minutes. I suppose the average person intent on beating/stabbing/raping/whatever is going to wait politely to commence their crime to give the police a head start?

Of course, it takes me less than 5 seconds to deploy and employ my firearm from a holster.

But, I guess it's wrong and impolite to defend myself against an attacker, I should just let him do his thing while I squeeze my eyes shut and think of Mother Mary until the police manage to mosey on by.
 
2012-12-29 02:23:47 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extinguisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


Time begin the "Save the Children from IN-Ground Pools" campaign.

/you act like every person who realizes they might need a gun is some gun polishing wacko.
//live in the big city... be ready to protect yourself
///also have a spare tire in my car. I suppose that makes me a tire polisher?
 
2012-12-29 02:24:34 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


Well, let's see, I grew up in a household surrounded by firearms. I was taught at a very young age that they are not toys, and are not things to play around with. At the age of 8, my grandfather took me hunting with him so I could see that guns kill, and aren't toys. By the age of 10 I was being taught to shoot by myself, including being taught gun safety.

Firearms have been a tradition for many generations, and kids dying in firearms accidents wasn't a big problem until parents tried to treat guns as a dirty, dark secret to be hidden away and kept away from the kids at all costs, while at the same time popular culture treated them as glamorous and powerful (or funny, in the case of old cartoons). That was a deadly mixture. Teach kids to respect them, and you've got a whole different issue.

I have many firearms in my house, and I have a 7 year old son. He knows guns are dangerous, and not toys, and to avoid them if he sees them. Except for my police duty sidearm and my wife's personal self-defense pistol, the guns are all locked up and unloaded, and we know where our personal pistols are at all times. Next year, I plan to take him shooting so he can see the destruction that guns do, and in a few years, teach him to shoot by himself.

ElBarto79: I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


Why should you be able to make the decision on what gun is allowed for home defense for other people?

Under existing legal precedent, the Miller, Heller and McDonald cases, the main test of if a gun can be banned is two pronged: is it in "common use", and does it have a valid legal use (self defense included). One reason for the strict restrictions already in place on fully automatic weapons is there isn't much valid legal use to a machine gun, as opposed to a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15. Miller implied that being in common military use counts as "common use", which is why short-barred shotguns were upheld as heavily restricted/de-facto banned under the NFA, since they were not allowed for military use.

If I want to defend my home with a Glock 22, it's my right. If I want an AR-15 in a configuration mimicing an M-4 Carbine, that works too, that's a standard weapon used in urban warfare by the military and in urban tactical situations by law enforcement.

What's so bad about "assault rifles". Is it the name? That big scary 5.56 mm round? You know, they come in little .22 plinkers that are still legally "assault rifles". Is it the scary black color and how they look like military weapons? Is it having a detachable magazine?

I never got how people thought controlling magazine sizes does anything than inconvenience the law-abiding. Millions of full-size magazines already in circulation, and they can be made with metalworking tools and some time and effort. Never mind the perfectly legal use of those magazines in sporting use (target shooting).
 
2012-12-29 02:25:28 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


If you look at the actual causes of murders, there are a couple of common ones:

- Suicide inflates our numbers by comprising about 60-70% of gun deaths.
- Drug-related firearms deaths comprise close to 80% of non-suicides.

Let's take one of these European countries you like to point out and introduce a healthy drug habit and criminal infrastructure selling the same, and change the social and cultural attitudes to ones such that Suicide became a much greater choice, and see how their numbers look, hmm?
 
2012-12-29 02:26:39 PM

shArkh: Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.


So what you're saying is that increased or mandatory gun ownership, of assault rifles no less, does not translate to more murder. Interesting.

Link
 
2012-12-29 02:27:47 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


Luckily these options for home security aren't mutually exclusive.

/there is no pending legislation forcing you to carry a weapon or keep one in your home. Why so interested in what I do?
 
2012-12-29 02:31:13 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


Oh, America does have a huge murder problem... And our population is, in fact, full of people who went full retard the moment they laid foot here.

I think, if you dig beyond the machismo rhetoric from many of us on the pro-gun side, you'll find that we all agree that this is a violent, stupid country.

Here is why I am pro-gun: I live in a violent place and I have zero faith in the protective abilities of the police. There is a trite saying in the gun community: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And I honestly have no problem with regulation. I own many guns (I enjoy collecting them, learning about them and shooting them in competition) and even *I* find it preposterous that I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Colt 6920 inside of 15 minutes.

I encourage laws that require mandatory weapons training. I encourage laws that call for stringent background checks. I encourage laws that put some weight behind gun owners living up to their responsibility for secure storage.

Where I vehemently disagree with the gun-grabber crowd is in bans. Citizens in this country should have a universal path to the responsible ownership of nearly any kind of firearm they deem necessary for their protection. As long as our nation has an active criminal class of thugs looking to pray on decent people, good citizens should have regulated access to the absolute best tools for defending themselves.
 
2012-12-29 02:31:16 PM

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?

World War I and World War II, before the advent of battle rifles using detachable magazines with "high capacity", combat effectiveness: 1 kill per 10,000 rounds fired, on average.

Viet Nam era to present, after the advent of rifles using detachable magazines, lower-recoil, lighter-weight ammo, and better man-portibility of weaponry (M16/AR-15, etc.): 1 kill per 100,000 rounds fired.

By statistics alone, modern "Assault rifles" are less deadly than their predecessors. So, there goes that theory.


I'd wager the kill rate went down because the rate of fire went up. You guys don't even care to have any kind of reasoned discussion do you? You want your toys and you don't give a crap what you have to say to have them or who dies because of them.
 
2012-12-29 02:35:43 PM

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.
 
2012-12-29 02:36:24 PM
There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.

Does it now?

Does your proclamation come from significant time in tactical training classes? How long have you been a sworn law enforcement officer for? Studied terminal ballistics and gunfight dynamics?

Or have you done an exhaustive study of police response times to violent crimes in progress and developed your hypothesis based on that?

Have you ever put on a uniform and carried a weapon in the defense of *anything*?

I'm guessing your statement is based on an exhaustive study that consisted of watching a lot of Luthor and that new Skyfall film....
 
2012-12-29 02:36:46 PM

Frank N Stein: No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....

Holy fark are you really saying that you need to be protected from pointy objects. Hahahahaha!

Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?


How often do most people butcher and dress a carcase in their kitchen? We have supermarkets around here that sell meat nicely prepared. The law here allows people to carry knives if they can show a need, like they are on their way to fish or their job as a chef. If you prepare whole animals then I assume they'd allow you to have the suitable tools.

Remember this is only a proposal from a handful of doctors at one hospital, not a serious policy from a major party let alone the government in power. Do you want me to list every single crackpot suggestion made in the US? At least we have birth control facilities that don't have to worry about being attacked.

As for 'defence against pointed objects' yes, being stabbed is fairly serious.

/BTW I am a British citizen but am also range qualified firearm instructor. We may not have handguns anymore but rifles and shotguns are still available.
 
2012-12-29 02:38:37 PM

ElBarto79: I'd wager the kill rate went down because the rate of fire went up. You guys don't even care to have any kind of reasoned discussion do you? You want your toys and you don't give a crap what you have to say to have them or who dies because of them.


What's reasonable about using sensationalism to demonize a rifle? More people have died in the past year because of flu, drunk driving, and food-releated heart disease than have died from firearms. The number of people killed using a s-called assault rifle in the past 20 *years* is sub-2k.

And yet, you continue to try and act like every single person who even TOUCHES these rifles turns into a raving, murdering lunatic. If the hype about these rifles were even remotely true, we'd have 5-6x the body count in the US than we do.

So, why should we try to have a "Reasoned discussion" with you when you refuse to consider anything other than "OOOG BLACK RIFLE BAD!"?
 
2012-12-29 02:43:09 PM

ElBarto79: Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.


Partly true. Historically speaking, as the drug trade increased in value and sophistication, drug cartels better armed their distribution points in the US in order to protect their criminal enterprises. Plus, after the famed Hollywood shootout, the police reacted and uparmed and uparmored themselves.

The police do not up-arm and up-armor themselves based on day to day criminals, nor do they employ such weaponry in anything close to a frequent basis. SWAT teams are the exception as they are called in most often nowadays to serve warrants in drug cases where a violent, armed response is far more likely than in any other type of warrant-serving situation.

Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?
 
2012-12-29 02:46:54 PM

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.

Average police response time for violent crime reports here where I live: 10-20 minutes. I suppose the average person intent on beating/stabbing/raping/whatever is going to wait politely to commence their crime to give the police a head start?

Of course, it takes me less than 5 seconds to deploy and employ my firearm from a holster.

But, I guess it's wrong and impolite to defend myself against an attacker, I should just let him do his thing while I squeeze my eyes shut and think of Mother Mary until the police manage to mosey on by.


The law in the UK has no problem with you defending yourself, even if your attacker ends up in the hospital or the morgue, as long as you didn't go all psycho and carry on hitting him when he was unconscious or shoot him while he was running away. I don't think US law is too happy about you doing stuff like that.

But here the chances of a random attacker, burglar, violent spouse, drunken neighbour, road rage driver etc having a gun is tiny. You can defend yourself far more easily by closing a door or just walking away and if it comes to physical confrontation both sides are far less likely to suffer serious harm.

No system is perfect and like seatbelts there will always be specific examples where you might be better off but the statistics clearly show that the UK is far safer when it comes to homicides.
 
2012-12-29 02:48:34 PM

Kit Fister: And yet, you continue to try and act like every single person who even TOUCHES these rifles turns into a raving, murdering lunatic. If the hype about these rifles were even remotely true, we'd have 5-6x the body count in the US than we do.

So, why should we try to have a "Reasoned discussion" with you when you refuse to consider anything other than "OOOG BLACK RIFLE BAD!"?


it's also very hard to have a "reasoned discussion" when a lot of anti-gun advocates make it clear they oppose the very right to bear arms. Their idea of "reasoned discussion" is getting pro-gun people to agree with them on abolition of firearms, or at least doing it one tiny step at a time until guns are completely gone.

You know those Republicans who with regards to the budget and taxes assume negotiation means "getting you to agree with me completely"? Gun control is a similar issue to Democrats: "Reasoned discussion" about gun control means you agreeing with us that more gun control is needed and it's a step towards banning guns.

Look at our fellow Farkers who have advocated for a repeal of the Second Amendment, or to politicians like Gov. Cuomo of New York or Sen. Feinstein of California who are calling for forcible confiscation of currently legal weapons. People who know nothing about guns are trying to make big sweeping decisions about them based on alarmist propaganda.
 
2012-12-29 02:51:11 PM
BTW I don't think guns in the US should be banned. There are simply far too many out there and the only people who would surrender their weapons would be the law abiding citizens leaving the criminals fully armed.
 
2012-12-29 02:52:06 PM
Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.

No, the statement I was referring to was this absurd notion that the AR-15 is designed to "kill lots of people." Like the ONLY reason to own one is because you wanna walk into a room and shoot everybody That is just pure movie bullshiat.

All guns are derived from military weapons in one way or another. All guns have their design roots in a mandate for more efficiently "killing people." The AR-15's only sin is that it is an especially efficient tool.

That efficacy works both ways. The AR-15 is simply the finest implement that the good guys (cops and citizens) can use to defend themselves from criminals. Cops carry them because they are easy to use, reliable, the terminal ballistics inside of most police shooting distances are devastating, they are accurate and the 30 round magazine requires much less weapon manipulation during a high-stress gunfight. All those points also make the AR-15 the perfect tool for a citizen to defend him/herself with.

Interestingly, that efficiency has FAR less meaning to mass shooters. Frankly, an AR-15 was an irrelevant tool in the Newton shooting - he was in that school for 10 minutes and fired 100 rounds (hardly a machine gun pace). He could have used a pump action shotgun. Honestly, the kind of weapon used in shooting a bunch of cowering children doesn't matter nearly as much as people unfamiliar with firearms like to believe.

Also, the biggest mass shooting in US history (Virginia Tech) was committed with a pair of handguns (one of them, a .22).

In the end, these so called "assault rifles" have little actual bearing in crime. They don't actually make mass shooters any more lethal and they are only used in 0.4% of firearm homicides. Gun-control advocates only go after them because they look evil. It would be like road safety advocates calling for a ban on Ferraris. Well, they LOOK like they go fast, and speed kills, so we should ban them!
 
2012-12-29 03:00:26 PM

Kit Fister: Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?


I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....
 
2012-12-29 03:06:09 PM
I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....

My company makes specialty rifle sling mounts for police and military users. We have outfitted quite a few SWAT teams, patrol officers and special operations units.

None of them use full auto. All the police guns tend to be Colt 6920s or (for departments with crap budgets) Bushmasters. Even the super secret military guys; while they have full-auto M4s and HK416s, it is never used. For providing cover fire to keep the bad guy's heads down to move, it's all semi-auto.
 
2012-12-29 03:08:41 PM

Rising Ape: Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.

The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?


Why yes. Yes it was. It was sent back to the states for ratification even then, just as Amendments are today. Our "grand little experiment," as Europe likes to call it, has worked exactly the same for about 236 years now (going by the date of the Declaration of Independence), give or take.

On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Nine, by the way, is roughly 3/4 of thirteen. Today, the standard for ratification is 2/3 -- far lower. Originally, they wanted a unanimous ratification, until they realized how impossible that would be, to get every single person in the newly-formed nation to agree.

Source (one of many, because Google really is your friend):http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ra tificatio n.html
 
2012-12-29 03:26:12 PM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - The NRA

"I think the gun sort of helps." - Eddie Izzard

"Poverty causes crime." - The NAACP

"Crime creates poverty." - P.J. O'Rourke

See, technologies come and go. We have, however, constantly refined and improved upon things in the weapons, communications and transportation sectors.

I don't see the toothpaste going back into the tube any time soon. And so, we arrive, as we always do, at the only logical cut point of this circular argument. The one simple rule we can't seem to follow.

"Don't be a dick".

Call me once we've sorted that out.
 
2012-12-29 03:35:53 PM

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?

I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....


Police-issued ARs are Full AUto-capable weapons, not Semi-Auto.
 
2012-12-29 03:36:57 PM

dr-shotgun: I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....

My company makes specialty rifle sling mounts for police and military users. We have outfitted quite a few SWAT teams, patrol officers and special operations units.

None of them use full auto. All the police guns tend to be Colt 6920s or (for departments with crap budgets) Bushmasters. Even the super secret military guys; while they have full-auto M4s and HK416s, it is never used. For providing cover fire to keep the bad guy's heads down to move, it's all semi-auto.


They don't SHOOT full-auto, but at the very least every cop I know of on SWAT teams, have FA-capable weapons.
 
2012-12-29 03:37:43 PM

bunner: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - The NRA

"I think the gun sort of helps." - Eddie Izzard

"Poverty causes crime." - The NAACP

"Crime creates poverty." - P.J. O'Rourke

See, technologies come and go. We have, however, constantly refined and improved upon things in the weapons, communications and transportation sectors.

I don't see the toothpaste going back into the tube any time soon. And so, we arrive, as we always do, at the only logical cut point of this circular argument. The one simple rule we can't seem to follow.

"Don't be a dick".

Call me once we've sorted that out.


A-farking-men!
 
2012-12-29 04:25:38 PM

Flint Ironstag: No, Britain managed to stop Hitler's invasion plans with the Battle Of Britain in 1940, a year before the US joined the war.


In 1940, Britain had no way of knowing that - at the time, the battle merely caused Hitler to postpone Operation Sea Lion (for what turned out to be indefinitely). Combined with the equipment losses of the Battle of Dunkirk - they were up a creek. Their Home Guard (aka the Local Defense Volunteers) were drilling with broomsticks & looting museums trying to get weapons so they could train for national defense purposes.
 
2012-12-29 04:28:05 PM

Xaneidolon: Finally, it might be really, really instructive to talk to someone who is a survivor of a weapons purge and get their take. For me, it was a Cambodian refugee. It will make you rethink defense as a basic human right.


Ask an Israeli Holocaust survivor about his gun rights.
 
2012-12-29 04:32:03 PM

Frank N Stein: I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?


No, I'm just sad that we're having a mass murder problem and you seem to think its yet another fine moment to stick it to the 'libs.' Resentment Over Society.
 
2012-12-29 04:37:09 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Frank N Stein: I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

No, I'm just sad that we're having a mass murder problem and you seem to think its yet another fine moment to stick it to the 'libs.' Resentment Over Society.


I like how you quoted "libs" as if I actually said that. Methinks you have a persecution complex.
 
2012-12-29 04:43:29 PM

bikkurikun: The_Sponge:

Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Protect against who? Protection against the government is useless, because the government will always have more, bigger and better guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore. This is why even small town police in the US has and needs military grade weapons. If anything, you are turning your country in a less free, autocratic, militaristic, police state, as the government will put in more effort to control the gun-owning citizens.

For protection against other citizens you wouldn't need guns if there are no guns in society.

In short, the only thing gun ownership in a society like the US leads to, is more violent crimes, gun accidents and a police state where people have a very misguided sense of what 'liberty' actually means.


Yeah, but we can hold out way longer and take more of a stand if we are armed.

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)
 
2012-12-29 04:58:53 PM
You are not grabbing them!
When you get tired of spouting all the testiments to fear, ignorance and stupidity, just suck on it.
 
2012-12-29 05:22:44 PM

dr-shotgun: shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with

Oh, America does have a huge murder problem... And our population is, in fact, full of people who went full retard the moment they laid foot here.

I think, if you dig beyond the machismo rhetoric from many of us on the pro-gun side, you'll find that we all agree that this is a violent, stupid country.

Here is why I am pro-gun: I live in a violent place and I have zero faith in the protective abilities of the police. There is a trite saying in the gun community: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And I honestly have no problem with regulation. I own many guns (I enjoy collecting them, learning about them and shooting them ...


Now you've done it. A reasonable, non-confrontational post that makes sense. Prepare your flame-proof suit.
 
2012-12-29 05:23:44 PM
No, I meant what I said ... there are about 30k firearms deaths annually in the US, about 11k of which are murders(1). The murder rate is 5x that of the UK. The ubiquity of guns is not the sole problem, obviously a number of murderers would have used other methods, but a major factor in the difference is the fact than guns make murder much easier.

Gang banger murders over drug turf are still murders, though they are business rather than personal. Over here, drug turf wars involve beatings, stabbings and hospitilizations rather than gun murders - partly because it's hard to get guns, partly because the relative rarity of murders means than each one will bring down a much more thorough investigation than e.g. LAPD can afford to mount.

The easiest lives to save a crimes of passion ... Bubba gets tired of just beating Shaniqua and shoots her in a drunken rage. No nightstand Sat night special, no death.

My best guess is that stricter gun controls which make it not worth the trouble for Bubba to deal with will save about 5k lives a year.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and murders, e.g. if you take 1st tier Western countries and rank them by murder rate, it goes:

1. USA
2. Switzerland
3. France
4. Canada
....

If you rank them by gun onwership, it's the same list.

(1) most murders carried out by US police on duty are written up as good kills, I'm assuming that's a smal enough number not to bother with for back of the envelope stuff.
 
2012-12-29 05:25:22 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.


As an actual Scotsman, I resent that imputation ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report