Second Dark Knight Rises killing spree possibly stopped in Ohio

So your argument, basically, is that having ten guns in the house is justified if the chance of violent crime is 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%?

I reckon the 9 cooking knives in my kitchen have no less threat than these guns when you consider the percentages, unless you disagree.

I mean, it's not as if the US has a greater problem with violent crime, or so I am informed.

I'm just asking a question. Why do you refuse to answer it? If gun violence is so rare in the U.S., then why is everybody raising a ruckus about gun ownership?

No, you assume that if I'm not killing or defending that I'm not 'using'. You said so yourself.

I'm not gonna describe how I routinely shoot critters that threaten the livestock, cause that falls into the trap of justification, that I have some special need.

The world is a dangerous place, that's a fact. So far my government trusts me to hold onto the tools I need to attempt to navigate that dangerous world, why shouldn't I have them? The need could arise at n urban convenience store at night, or in the backwoods in the middle of the day.

Shit's gonna happen regardless, we both know that. Where's the moral high ground in the argument that one shouldn't have every tool at his disposal to deal with it?

Neither have I. I hope I don't ever need one.

There's never ever ever been a case of violence in any part of the EU where the outcome would've been different if the victim was armed?

Why is preparedness mistaken for fright?

Because gun violence isn't as rare in the US as it is in other western countries, including those who permit gun ownership.

This isnot a debate about,own it or don't own it, it's about the extent to which you need it when you are going to buy a pack of chips.

Now, care you answer my questions?

What I don't understand in these arguments....there seems to be an almost superstitious aversion to the gun on the left.

I dunno, I'm fairly liberal on a bunch of things, but on the whole gun debate, I've neither cultivated this superstition against, or a the worship of, the gun.

I look at it as a practical machine.


I mean, if a liberal is willing to take martial arts, and defend themselves that way, why not a science-fictiony gadget that projects the beat-up from a distance, so you don't take any hits?
Wouldn't that be handy?

And if you'd use that imaginary contraption, why not just throw a hunk of metal at 'em with gunpowder?

If your aim is good enough, you don't necessarily have to kill 'em.

Jail, hospital, what's the diff to you?

What, you'd PREFER to take some shots in a fistfight?
Is that more NOBLE somehow?
How, exactly?
I...just don't understand....

Based on my social standing, if I applied for a gun licence in the UK tomorrow, I'd get it.

Tell me why I need it?

Not a bag of chips, but one time I got threatened with a gun while buying a pack of cigarettes. Had a gun then, could have used it, chose not to.

And then, one time a dude knocked on the door late at night because he thought I was out of town, when, in fact, The Warden was. Had a gun then, He knew I had it, he went away.

Do "almost needed it" and "used it without killing anybody" count?

I have no aversion to guns, and could see myself owning one at some point.

I also have no worship for them, and can't see a scenario where I'd want, much less need, a gun in every possible space that I might be in.

I'm really just meh about the whole thing.

Here's the thing Chup, violent crime on the whole is on a steady decline in the US. For the last 20 years or so, gun laws have been loosened over most of the country. Every time a new state enables say, conceal carry, wild west shoot outs are predicted, and they never happen. Yet the areas where violent crime is the worst (Chicago, DC) have some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.

Are we to see no correlation?

As for your question, irrelevant. Who am I to determine your needs?

Yeah there aren't as many people killed parachuting in cultures without planes than with. So what?

By the way, you have a much higher violent crime rate in the UK than the US has.

Gun ownership and public carry has greatly increased in the past two decades here, while homicides and violent crime have continued a 20-year decline.

The two are connected.

When was the last time I used one? Yesterday at the range. I go twice a week.

I'm not sure why you have your panties in a twist or think it's a good thing that someone in your country has to have a certain social standing before they can possess an instrument of self-defense.

But more importantly, I don't care.

Since there are fewer than 9,000 gun homicides a year in the US with more than 100 million gun owners, the concern overgun violence -- being the actions of 0.000001 percent of gun owners -- seems more displaced than our concern about exercising our rights.

But like I said, not a fuck is given by me what you do.

I think the joke is a country where burglars get to sue people for defending themselves, and your Home Office recommends vomiting on an attacker as a good tactic to prevent rapists.

But then, we're adults on this side of the pond. We don't ask permission to exercise our rights.

Of course. This is a debate abput facts (at least with me anyhow).

But public onwership is surely about necessity as a whole. I mean, if you have, as we do in the UK, 70 million people, do all 70 m of us need a gun in case some git gives us grief while we are buying fags?

As I say, I am not looking for a "guns are wrong debate", but the fact is that you are using a gun brandishing to justify your cary carrying. Isn't there a little irony in that? If I got to the store tonight the crime percatages say that there is a less than 99% chance of me being harmed by gun violence. Have you any comment on that, or will it just be a case of answered a question with a question again?

I think you meant to type: I'm sorry, I was just reflexively making up shit and strawmen, rather than listening to what other people were actually saying.

I think it's just the rural folk who are afraid of other people. Then there's the practicality of things. We city slickers are so thoroughly exposed to dipshits and wankers we'd probably shoot half a dozen each day if we carried.

I don't understand the question. Do I think it's ironic that I'm using the fact that I've been threatened with deadly violence to justify my packing heat for self defense?

By the way, you have a much higher violent crime rate in the UK than the US has. [/quote][/quote[Not true. Produce the statistics please if you are going to run that bullshit. We have higher petty crime such as muggings, but that is due, in no small part to the fact that our population is more dense. Go have a look at the petty crime rates for Chicago and NYC and you'll be onto a debate.

Ok, fair enough, I trust you have data showing that the increase in ownership is directly linked to the decrease in crime?

Prove it.

The range is practice, not practical use.

So you are happpy to give guns to any old nutcase then?

Who asked you to care, it's a comparator.

I don't get this argument. You are basically trying to say that baecause the gun violence has particular statistic it makes sense for you to carry a fully loaded gun int a shop to buy a pork chop. I'm sorry mate, but not only are the statistic still well above the rest of the western world, but your statistics don't explain at all why you need to carry a gun into WalMart.

Remember, I am not debating the 2nd amendment, but rather this idea of needing a gun wherever you may be.

So be it, but lets face it, this is poitnless macho postuering. Lets discuss the actual questions I am putting forth.

Disingenuous nonsense. In 30 years about 15 people have been proscuted for excessive violence against home invaders. This is in comparison with about 30,000 peole prosecuted for home invasions. But I trust you ahve the figures to hand to justify the hopelessness of our homesteads. Maybe you could post a few Midnight Funeral articles.

neither do we. We are just more grown up.

If I knew ahead of time that I would need a gun during a given trip to the grocery store, I wouldn't strap on a gun before leaving...I'd just stay the hell away from that grocery store.

I only carry the heavy stuff in urban areas where I'm likely to be around a lot of "citizens."

But that lack of self control is a constant on the gun control nut side.

But you should need to carry at all times, no?

Not sure where Chup's going on this, but I'd say the answer lies with accidental gun use. This whole argument is a bit silly in my opinion, because I don't care if somebody has an arsenal he doesn't need. But I do care if he has an unsecured arsenal.

See, now, if I were living in America I may well buy a gun. But, if I were honest I would do so 20% for protection, and 20% to have it.

I just don't get the fear of a toilet roll.

For what it's worth, I'm not going with "guns are evil, ban them".

Just wondering why someone needs one for a shopping trip is all. After all, this thread was a discussion about whther or not you needed a gun in a cinema.

To be honest, it depends on where you were living in America. Since I've moved away from Memphis, I hardly ever carry anymore. When I still lived there, you bet your ass I carried just about everywhere I went.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

More Guns, Less Crime

And here.

Or all of these.
A conference organized by the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School and held at American Enterprise Institute was published in a special issue of the Journal of Law and Economics [2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. Academics of all interests in the debate were invited to participate and provide refereed empirical research.[3] A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:

Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]

Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]

Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[6]

David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago, and Michael D. Maltz, University of Illinois at Chicago, "Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapon types, victim characteristics, and victim-offender relationships," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[7] They found "a decrease in total homicides."

David B. Mustard, University of Georgia, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[8]

T. B. Marvell, Justec Research, The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[9] Marvell found evidence that right-to-carry laws reduced rape rates.

John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[10]

Other refereed empirical academic studies besides the original paper with David Mustard that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.

William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[11]

Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[12]

Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[13]

Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[14]

Stephen G. Bronars, University of Texas, and John R. Lott, Jr., Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, American Economic Review, May 1998.[15]

John R. Lott, Jr, The Concealed-Handgun Debate Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998.[16]

John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data Journal of Quantitative Criminology, October 2001.[17]

John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, ABORTION AND CRIME: UNWANTED CHILDREN AND OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS Economic Inquiry, April 2007.[18]

I do not give anything to anyone except the finger.

I am happy that one need not pass a test to exercise their rights.

You choose not to.

I carry everywhere. So what?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Period.

Yes, it is, and I'd appreciate it if you ceased doing it.

Gee I wonder why there are so many home invasions in the UK?

That's spelled g-e-l-d-e-d, not g-r-o-w-n-u-p.

Why not?

I feel naked unarmed. It's just how I'm wired, how I was raised, trained, and live.

"Citizens."

Yes, but see this is an honest answer and all I have been aiming for.

You carried because you felt in was required. You don't as much now because you don't feel you have so much of a threat.

That's logic.

What I am debating is the "I need to carry a gun, fuck yeah" ideal.

I moved from one of the most murderous cities in the country, to Mayberry, N.C., Murder rate = None In Living Memory. It's a bit of a culture shock.

Again, I say produce the statistics. I am not interested in articles from the Daily Mail, which is Britain's National Enquirer, and your link to the Telegraph provides no comarator to US gun crime.

So basically, you are yet to provide the gun crime comarsators. I challenge you do do so, if you have the bollocks.

Fair enough.I am here to discuss the issue, not judge. Having said that, the Standford commentary is the only one I treat with crediblity.

However, neither dgives detail as to why you need 90 rounds to buy a jar of peanut butter.

So, if I were, for instance, a manic depressive and I went and bought a gun, you'd say I was excercisingg my rights?

On the contrary. All Americans like you see is that your way is right and any other perspective must, by default, be wrong.

So why do you need to?

So, are you advising me to carry a kitchen knife wherever I go?

Pleaseproduce the comparative statistics. I think you'll find you have more.

Like I say, postureing.

The numbers come straight from your Home Secretary, the UN, and the EU. I didn't say gun crime, I said violent crime. You have a higher violent crime rate than the US.

US Crime stats - Link http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Attached is the report from your Home Office, presented as a PDF.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary

I do not care what you do. I really, really don't.