newman #fundie

newman #fundie fstdt.com

You retards are missing the point as usual.

States with higher rates of armed citizenry DO have less crime. (Where would you rather walk at 2AM, DC or Arizona?)

Secondly I am advocating more than mere self-defense. I'm advocating that home owners be able to treat home invaders the way John Wayne Gacy (the killer clown) treated his victims. That WILL stop home invasions. Fear works.

68 comments

old comment by Fed Up

By my understanding, each person in the Swiss defence force is issued an assault rifle and a box of ammunition ONLY to be used if ordered, or in life threatening situations. I've never been to Switzerland so most of this info is from wikipedia.
Let's face it, you'd be pretty stupid to ignore your firearm if someone was trying to break into your house.

Yes, the Swiss example is abused by the pro-gun lobby, but that doesn't make the point any less valid. Neither free ownership or a blanket ban of weapons is a good idea.

I think that part of the problem is society's almost pathological fear of guns. Guns are dangerous, but so are cars (and nobody wants to ban those apart from a few eco-extremists). True, guns are designed to kill, but sometimes people are put in situations where they need to kill others. That's not a sadistic fantasy, that's a fact that holds true in a range of conflicts from World War 2 to being robbed on the street.

The last thing I want to see is the unlimited ownership of firearms, but neither do I like living in a society where I can't defend myself. And this is coming from someone living in the "safe" UK.
If the police were able to prevent all violent crime from happening, then there would be no need for people to own guns. But the police are highly incompetent, and let's face it, even the largest and most professional force could never make a country truly safe.

To be fair, the US is probably a lot different- the gun is embedded into the national psyche as a symbol of a free society, and consequently is viewed as a universal solution to defence (both on the streets and against 'oppressive' government). From what people have told me, the average American thinks that if he's got a gun, he's safe in his homestead and Washington can't bother him. Stupid fundies.

But my point is that you don't have to be pro-gun or anti-gun; both sides have extreme and sometimes ridiculous arguments. Instead, why not develop a system that licenses semi-automatic handguns to responsible members of the public, who've been through a military training program and passed a health analysis. Enforce the idea that firearms are extremely dangerous and are only to be used if no other alternative is available. And sport shooting, obviously.

The cynic in me suggests that those who condemn the use of guns in self defence have never actually been in any danger themselves. Ivory towers?

old comment by John

States with higher rates of armed citizenry DO have less crime.

I suspect states with lower population densities have both more liberal gun laws and less crime.

How often do burglars invade homes while the homeowners are present? I suspect this kind of robbery is fairly rare and is usually carried out - often against the elderly - by robbers who are already armed and ready to shoot (the typical "burst-in" robbery). Does Newman intend to answer the door with his gun ready each time like some backwoods moonshiner? As for deterrence, one survey of people in jail for burglary found that criminals claim they're not much afraid of a homeowner with a gun. A dog, now that's something they're not going to mess with; dogs don't hesitate or get intimidated.

old comment by John

@tempus: I don't know how others feel, but I have no problem with people keeping guns. I just don't think they have the value guys like Newman seem to think they have. Criminals have guns, too, and they are more likely to have theirs out and be quicker to use them, for all Newman's tough-guy gonzo talk. Criminals know that, too, which is why they're rightfully more scared of a big dog than a homeowner with a gun.

The right to have a gun doesn't mean they can't be regulated. We have the right to have cars, but we still have to register them, carry insurance and accept financial and criminal responsibility for misusing them. Nor should people who carelessly allow a gun to be stolen or sell it to a stranger without proper identification be let off the hook when the gun is later used in a crime.

old comment by BannedChick

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/95/more-guns-less-crime.htm

http://hematite.com/dragon/usatodayccw.html

http://www.kc3.com/news/buybacks_fail.htm

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/Lott5.html

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent.

In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially lower than in those three countries.

In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.

But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

Citizens without guns are sitting ducks just waiting to be eliminated.

However, the John Wayne Gacy comment makes him look like a freaking retard.

old comment by BannedChick

Stogoe, what is your obsession with brown people you stupid fuck? I posted facts, you posted anal drainage. Post some facts to back up your assertion or shut the fuck up. Nothing like using bad words to make a stupid point, huh? Freaking moron.

GigaGuess, thank you for using intelligent words to make your point. My point is that I own guns. I know how to use the guns. If someone is in my house uninvited they basically sign a contract saying they want to be shot. There will never be a time when a criminal is more important to me than me, my family, my possessions, or even the dog that I hate.

The time it takes for police to show up after a 911 call is usually enough time for someone to rape, murder, beat you. The time it takes for a bullet to fire from a gun makes it so much faster to ensure justice. I think most people who have never been the victim of a violent crime see the world through rose colored glasses. After you are a victim you understand how important it is to be able to defend yourself because most of the time that is the only person you can in fact rely on.

On another note. Newman is possibly the biggest retard to ever walk the face of this earth.

old comment by Gore

continued...
Tyrants, despots, usurpers, organized criminals will all find ways of securing their own rights to bear arms through their stations and admiration of power. We the little people on the other hand might have a bit more difficutlty with that, like, I don't know, during the American Revolution? When the colonists had no rights to arms, and nearly all armaments were in the possession of the military or armories... And before you go on about how that was 200 years ago and everything's different now, I would suggest you take a look at all the civil wars, military coups, political takeovers, invasions and occupations of recent history with future prospects never being a guarantee, and then you tell me if your fellow civilians (regardless of their competence and trustworthy status) should be completely unarmed up to the very instant of all out crisis. Hell, even the movie Enemy at the Gates about the battle of Stalingrad should spell it for you at least. As in, Congratulations! You've been drafted, and all we have to equip you are some rusty assed bolt action rifles and 10 rounds which you will have to share with someone else until one of you falls or manages to scavenge something better.

Meanwhile newman, the psychopathic (all 'merkin) buttercup, will be free to play with deadly weapons under no supervision in the face of our dwindling gun culture which would have least put a check on it. From my perspective the OP has as little understanding of that amendment as you do, and both your opinions on it mean fuck all to me.

newman #fundie fstdt.com

68 comments

Confused?