You would rather than an armed criminal be safe, and that a homeowner be
Whose side are you on, Bob?
Yes, yes, we've heard that argument here too. When Florida was (one
of?) the first state to pass laws where law-abiding citizens could carry
concealed weapons, the hue and cry was mighty, about how "blood will run
in the streets", "the Gunshine State" and all that. Not surprisingly
(to me), when non-criminals were allowed to arm themselves, the
criminals found other things to do. Violent crime went down in
Florida, just as it has gone down in _every other state_ with CCW laws.
Oh - and I've driven in England. I found the drivers to be pretty good,
especially in the "be in the proper lane on the motorway, depending on
your speed". I think that maybe your assumption that your contrymen
can't be trusted with deadly force, is unfair. A car, after all, is
deadly force. If they're not ramming each other on the M25, they
probably wouldn't be shooting each other, either.
Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
many people got the impression that that was some kind of first. Near as I
know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.
I know from first hand experience that carry licenses have always been
available in Washington. I've had a CCW for 24 years. I've never had a need
to use it nor has anyone I know. It would seem that the people with the CCW
are less likely to get into a bad situation in the first place. I think this
is do to those individuals being more aware of their surroundings and
knowing where not to be.
It was one of the first to go from oppressive to sane. As you say,
others never went to "oppressive" in the first place.
How much gun violence is there in Alaska?
It's a self-selecting population, to be sure, who becomes CCW certified.
I see it as little different from learning CPR, or how to run an
automatic defib - the few people who do, benefit all those who don't.
Odds are that if you do need someone with the appropriate training, they
might be around, which is better than knowing that they won't, or can't.
No it wouldn't, stop beliving those who wish to control you (and me) and
to do so need you unable to resist whatever they foist upon you.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
What you fail to recognize is that once you own a gun and have learned
to shoot and maintain it, you also have gained a hell of lot more
respect for them. Again, look at the stats. Gun owners as a group,
especially those with concealed weapons permits, are the sanest,
most law-abiding folks you'll ever meet.
It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.
If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
Please don't be so condescending. I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
But the fact is that you are living in a country where guns are easily
available if not freely available. In Britain and Canada, illegal handguns
can be obtained for relatively small sums of money. In Toronto, Canada this
year, we've had more gun violence than ever before. Getting a permit to own
a handgun is pretty difficult here, but that hasn't stopped the escalation
of shootings. I think most Canadians believe that guns are finding their way
up here from the US.
I can't agree with you. The US and Canada are close enough in lifestyles
that you can compare. Your readily available guns compared to our not as
readily available guns, the percentage of your crime and murder rates with a
gun being involved are much higher than what we have here in Canada.
How do you rationalize that your way is better?
Hellooooo.... I was comparing the US to the UK. But since you brought it up...
That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much lower
in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per *capita*
are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing crimes
than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Actually, it's true, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Guns per capita in Canada: 0.25
Guns per capita in the U.S.: 0.82
Firearms death rate per 100K population: 4.3 in Canada, 11.4 in the U.S.
Yes, folks, that's right: with 3.3 times as many firearms per capita as
Canada, the United States has only 2.7 times as many firearm *deaths* per
Other interesting statistics from that site:
27.3% of Canadian homicides were committed with firearms, versus 66% in the
United States -- but, on average, 25% of Canadians own firearms, versus 82% in
the United States. Clearly, of the two, _Canada_ is the one with a firearm
And even more interesting, nearly half (46%) of Canadian firearm homicides
were committed with handguns. I thought that Canadian law made handgun
ownership very difficult?
And this is better exactly how?
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
The fewer guns there are in society, the fewer times they're going to be
used. You seem to think that only criminals use guns. How many law abiding
citizens have shot someone in a fit of rage or simply when they've lost
their temper? How many kids have been shot accidentally when play with their
parent's gun? How many accidents have there been?
How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three things
can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on the
human body that a bullet can.
Is that simple enough an explanation for you?
You seem to think that just because the US permits it's citizens the
greatest latitude of human rights anywhere, it's necessary for everyone to
go out and partake of all those rights. While owning a gun is one your
rights, it doesn't for one second mean that it's a good right. The human
species it too self centred and too arrogant to know any better.
"used" doesn't tell the story. It's how they're _being_ used that
matters. I "use" my guns all the time, for their intended
purposes...recreation, investment, enjoyment, historical study,
engineering insights, and so on.
By definition, zero.
More than there should be, of course. How many defensive uses of
firearms happen, which don't involve a shot being fired?
Again, you're lumping all gun use into the same category. Not all of
us are criminals.
It gives good insight into your limited understanding of the situation,
yes, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
And you'd rather have me disarmed while the criminals run around knowing
they're safe, then? After all, the criminals won't give up their guns,
because, _they're criminals_. By definition, they don't follow laws,
you see. So, if honest people _do_ disarm, and the dishonest people
_don't_ disarm, the only people who are safer, are the criminals.
Not my idea of a good thing.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.