Out of Pod Experience

Guns are less dangerous than drunkin idoits.

^
I was under the impression most Euros/brits loved the fact that less manufactured weapons were not floating around.

which explains the increase in cricket and baseball bat sales...Also might explain why bludgeoning is on the rise as well...LETS SEE IF IT CAN OVER TAKE BEATINGS FOR SECOND!! Sharp pointy things are still number 1 though...

And what about drunk idiots with guns?


In this instance, without guns you'd have had a beaten drunk idiot. With a gun you'd have a dead or severely wounded drunk idiot.

[quote=Kattshiro]
I was under the impression most Euros/brits loved the fact that less manufactured weapons were not floating around.

which explains the increase in cricket and baseball bat sales...Also might explain why bludgeoning is on the rise as well...LETS SEE IF IT CAN OVER TAKE BEATINGS FOR SECOND!! Sharp pointy things are still number 1 though... [/quote

Some of us aren't happy at all.

When you realise that the police aren't capable of protecting you from scumbags who would do you harm, you want to be able to do the job yourself. If the police can't (or won't) perform the role that they keep telling us they are there for, then the responsibility for your own defence rests with you.

I don't like the idea of knives; I know **** all about how to use one and as has often been remarked, a weapon you don't know how to use belongs to your enemy. Admittedly I know little about guns (and the last time I fired live ammunition was from an SLR when I was Air Cadets back in the 80's) but I'm sure it'd be a damn sight easier to take a course in how to handle a firearm than it would to level up to ninja on blade skills.

The scumbags know how overstretched the rozzers are and have realised that the laws don't have to apply to them if they don't want them to and that they have more or less free license to do as they please to whomever they want with little chance of any negative consequences.

I also don't subscribe to the "it'll precipitate an arms race" argument. On the many many occasions I've been assaulted, or become embroiled in a physical conflict, over the years I've never yet seen any of the scumbags do less than their level best to seriously hurt their target. There is something seriously wrong when the only people with the means to defend themselves from physically stonger aggressors are the ones causing the grief in the first place.

When you live in an area where the popular idea of what constitutes fun is multiple guys kicking another chap around the floor after he passes out just because they can, you'd like it not to be you that they play football with. I'd jump at the chance to own a large calibre handgun, not because I want to hurt anyone, but because I don't want to see anyone who doesn't deserve it (mostly me I'll admit) hurt.

Do you know any smackheads... or ex-smackheads even?

I know a few and the last thing any of them would do is commit a robbery whilst armed. Burgle someone's house and you may go inside for a short holiday (assuming you have form and the magistrate/judge is tired of seeing you every three months) but committ a burglary whilst armed even with a knife and you'll stay inside a lot longer - it's called aggravated burglary and is a much more serious charge in the eyes of the law. They also tend not to burgle places when they know the owner is in.... this can create complications as most folk seem to be adverse to having their possessions removed and often take physical steps to prevent this.

Also, smackheads tend not to be able to hold on to anything of value (like, for example, a handgun) for long, for obvious reasons, so I suspect that as I'm not shooting all my spare cash up my arm I'd be able to afford a larger calibre and better quality bang stick than the average smackhead.

To be honest, heroin abusers aren't really a problem I'm overly concerned about. Whilst I have been burgled (by smackheads oddly enough) I've yet to have one assault me in the street because he's had too much of his favourite recreational pharaceutical.

I'm more concerned about dickheads with a skinful of wifebeater. Feck it; give them guns too; I very rarely drink these days so my reactions and aim would have to be better than those of the average drunken lackwitt spoiling for a fight. Advantage Jago methinks.

Let's have a bit of natural selection to weed out those screwing things up for the rest of us shall we?

Well if your getting owned in the face by drunks theres some natural selection right there, should have learned how to look after yourself. My point about drugs addicts still stands, you corner a desperate drug addict the lack of rationality they have from rattling and the prospect of getting caught can drive them to do some pretty reckless things.

I would rather take on one that didn't have a gun personally, you only need to look at the US to see how well the whole self defence thing works.

I'd have dropped a large object on to his head from the above window :P

To the OP:

Glad you made it through without anyone being hurt.

In regards to purchasing a gun, a shotgun will probably be your best bet as a deterrent. If it's a pump-action, the sound of a round being racked into the chamber alone will likely cause potential assailants to flee - it's one of the most frightening things you can hear. It's also more likely to put an assailant down on the first shot than an handgun; with pistol rounds, where you hit the opponent matters and may not put them down instantly. With buckshot, it spreads a LOT of damage over a larger area and has massive stopping power. One hit and your assailant is likely down for the count.

One drawback to using a shotgun is size. A shotgun won't exactly fit into a desk drawer and thus may not be as close to hand if someone's trying to break in. Also, a shotgun with a full stock is less maneuverable in close quarters such as a hallway (which is why the shotgun I'm looking at getting, a Remington 870 tactical, has a folding stock).

Anyway,

Handgun: ease of access
Shotgun: superior deterrent; more stopping power

I'm currently a handgun (and rifle) owner, btw. This is just what I've figured out from browsing the web and my own experience with firing friends' and relatives' shotguns vs. my own guns. (BTW, a rifle is not the best choice for home defense - rifle rounds have a very high likelihood of going through walls and hitting other people in your house or in your neighbors' houses.)

One look at the US national crime statistics, compared to other occidental countries with gun control, suggest that criminals aren't feeling much dettered. As for your first point, the average criminal run as soon as he hear ANY sound of someone being awake.


Take a look at that map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

Half of the US states have more than 5 times the number of homicides of Europe. Just where exactly is the detterent?

You can also notice that murder rates seem to concentrate on southern states. Aren't they the one that are most favorables to guns? Coïncidence, or pattern?

You are correct, where is the deterrence? Looking at that map I see that crime is still ever present in each and every country, so it appears it will happen regardless of what rules are in place. But wouldn't you prefer a set of rules that at least give you some right to protect yourself? It has always seemed strange to me that humans are the only animals that willingly give up their survival instincts like that.



I don't know, are they? This is your case that you are presenting, shouldn't you know that?

Regardless I should point out a very major flaw here. That chart is for homicides. Homicides being multiple forms of murder, more than we can think of. No where does it separate gun statistics in the list. I would also like to point out population factors. We have more people in a handful of our cities than some countries have. I see that some of the more population concentrated areas show up darker. Also I would like to point out the fallacy of comparing stats with a country that has gun control vs one that has gun bans. Of course the one with gun bans will be lower......in the gun crime section. But again as we can see with the homicide map you gave us, your ban obviously didn't snuff out the urge to kill.