quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Only places like Saudi Arabia are what I would call crime free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Only places like Saudi Arabia are what I would call crime free.

That's kind of sad that you think that. Maybe you should move somewher eelse, and you can chill out. Because here in rural Maryland where I'm at, there practically is no crime. Each year there's a few cases of minor burglary, the occaisional drunken fight, and some weed possession charge, but that's about it. We leave our front door unlocked, 7-year olds walk their dog unsupervised, and I would feel entirely safe walking down a dark alley at 3 am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Only places like Saudi Arabia are what I would call crime free.

That's kind of sad that you think that. Maybe you should move somewher eelse, and you can chill out. Because here in rural Maryland where I'm at, there practically is no crime. Each year there's a few cases of minor burglary, the occaisional drunken fight, and some weed possession charge, but that's about it. We leave our front door unlocked, 7-year olds walk their dog unsupervised, and I would feel entirely safe walking down a dark alley at 3 am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit. It is far different shooting at a target on the range and someone bent on injuring you in real life. As often as not bystanders are hit instead.
"As often as not" seems to me to equal 50% of the time. Do you have any statistics to prove that, or is it just your own guestimation to try to prove your point?

Even with training the average, and even above average, shooter will have a hard time hitting what they are aiming at when in a stress situation. This has been shown over and over again...What chance do you or the average gun toting amateur have? So, you have an armed person shooting at you, trying to kill you. If you are unarmed, the "bad guy's" stress level is down, thus improving his aim, increasing the likelihood that he will hit you. But, again using your logic, if you have a gun and can shoot back, even if you don't hit him, it will increase his stress level, thus making it less likely that he will hit you. Or are you saying that only the "good guys" are affected by stress? Your own logic shows that you would be safer if you also have a gun and can return fire.

Now I'll set back and read all the bullshit posters tell me how they would never miss the kid with a knife or 6 shooter...between the eyes every time I'm sure... oh and of course they are making sure their field of fire is clear so they don't hit someone else on a pass through... yea.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And under the Empire they were still called citizens but were actually subjects.
In every thread Polite picks a sidebar to attempt to derail the thread and to prove his self proclaimed superiority.
I attempt to humor him as it seems to be needed for his self perception.

Bullshit, you introduced the term citizens to try and prove some convoluted point, without having any inkling of eithern fact or history.

You started the sidebar about subjects vs citizens and now try and blame me. If you wish to report my sidetracking doing so in this thread feel free. All I am doing is correcting your errors (again)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

No you don't, but once someone looks at the bore of a gun, the gun-holder has said s/he is willing to kill you. Do you think a burglar won't fight for their life? That's why if you aim, you have to be prepared to kill.

Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit. It is far different shooting at a target on the range and someone bent on injuring you in real life. As often as not bystanders are hit instead.

Even with training the average, and even above average, shooter will have a hard time hitting what they are aiming at when in a stress situation. This has been shown over and over again...What chance do you or the average gun toting amateur have?

Now I'll set back and read all the bullshit posters tell me how they would never miss the kid with a knife or 6 shooter...between the eyes every time I'm sure... oh and of course they are making sure their field of fire is clear so they don't hit someone else on a pass through... yea.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

For every crime stopped by a private gun owner I'll bet a couple of kids end up in the hospital or morgue from gun accidents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

For every crime stopped by a private gun owner I'll bet a couple of kids end up in the hospital or morgue from gun accidents.

I'll take that bet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK I trust you... just take the St. Louis area and do a search for children killed or injured in gun accidents...and count them for the last three years.

Now run a search for stories of non-law enforcement gun owners who stopped a crime and count them for the last three years then post the results.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK I trust you... just take the St. Louis area and do a search for children killed or injured in gun accidents...and count them for the last three years.

Now run a search for stories of non-law enforcement gun owners who stopped a crime and count them for the last three years then post the results.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman
Okay, let's break this down. Someone accosts me with a knife, and when I go for my weapon, he stabs me, therefore its my fault I got stabbed.

It's not "your fault". Obviously, it's his fault. But you're also not obligated to escalate the situation.

quote:

Or, I could wuss out and let him take MY wallet.

Ah, I see. You think letting someone steal your credit cards (which you will immediately cancel) makes you less of a man.

quote:

I can tell you haven't been in a fight against an armed man. I have. I used to be a bouncer and it's not as easy as it looks to stab someone facing you. In doing so, you expose yourself at least two times, the overhand drawback or if you do the hip-low brandish. When I was younger, I practiced to make my move during those two times. Now, not so much (mainly because I've broken my body being a bouncer, among other things).

Fortunately, I haven't, though as a martial artist I've trained quite a bit with an opponent with a fake knife, so I'm familiar with what you're talking about.

But I don't think most people have done that. I think a lot of people think they're real tough and get a false sense of confidence because they've got a gun. Every time there's a school shooting, for example, we see people say "oh, if only every teacher carried a gun, they could've just shot that guy while he was running down the hall" as if holding a gun automatically makes you some kind of expert marksman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

1 I have never repeat never reported anyone to the mods
2 I am not about to let you close down this thread by daring me to report you.
3 Citizen vs subject is off subject

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

In 2006 the numbers of murder at 65.3 per 100,000 population, sexual offenses at 58.6 per 100,000, and thefts offenses at 70.5 per 100,000. They also have problems with drug smugglers.

According to the UNODC, the 2006 homicide rate in Saudi Arabia was 1.0 per 100k. That represents a drop from 1.2 per 100k in 2005, and the rate remained at 1.0 through 2007 (the latest year in the UNODC dataset).

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You are correct, guns do not guarantee anything.

This is simply pointless nonsense. Nothing "guarantees" anything. However...

In January 2013, President Barack Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research. The CDC and the CDC Foundation asked the IOM, in collaboration with the National Research Council, to convene a committee tasked with developing a potential research agenda that focuses on the causes of, possible interventions to, and strategies to minimize the burden of firearm-related violence.

The committee's report, published by the National Academies Press, found that armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker...

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

Additionally, the committe reports the finding that...

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year -- in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Interestingly in this connection, the report notes that some scholars argue for a lower estimate of 108,000 DGUs based on NCVS data, but discounts that conclusion because respondents were not asked about defensive gun use!

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit.

Oh. You saw a video. Well that settles everything.

Here's another one.

K.