How Many VGCers Own Firearms?




Posted by specopssv44

Just curious, how many of us are gun owners... I myself Own : M1A1 NM ( aka M-14), HK .45 , 1903A3, Mauser K-98, and soon, hopefully, an M-1 Carbine... had a M1 Garand, but sold it a year or so back.... need to buy anotherone though...




Posted by Dr. Rockso

Do Nerf Guns count?




Posted by Red


Quoting specopssv44: I myself Own : M1A1 NM ( aka M-14), HK .45 , 1903A3, Mauser K-98, and soon, hopefully, an M-1 Carbine


why?



Posted by Zeta

I think I've got a BB gun somewhere in my grandfather's garage. That count?




Posted by Shade

A marshmellow cannon.




Posted by specopssv44

For future reference, no airsoft, BB, nerf, etc does not count as a "Firearm".


Quoted post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by specopssv44 View Post
I myself Own : M1A1 NM ( aka M-14), HK .45 , 1903A3, Mauser K-98, and soon, hopefully, an M-1 Carbine
why?


Well, Im not saying its likely that Ill ever have to shoot my way through thousands of zombies crowding the Los Angeles streets on my way to safer, non-infested terrirtory.... but the fact that I can is comforting.



Posted by Slade

I think my dad bought me a Remington Model Seven a few years ago. so, sort of.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

I thought ALL Americans owned guns. THE TREND HAS BEEN BUCKED




Posted by Slade

My dad owns at least 5 guns that I know of. I just don't care for hunting all that much. Now, bow hunting... there's something I can imagine being proud of.




Posted by WillisGreeny

I got a 60 lb long bow around here somewhere.




Posted by Crazy K

I never had a real firearm in my house, the closest would be air soft guns, but that doesn't count at all. My father doesn't believe in owning a gun; I never asked him why.




Posted by Sapphire Rose

I have shotgun of some sort. I know how to use it, I just don't know what model it is. My father gave it to me when I moved out.




Posted by Speedfreak

My girlfriend's dad does, I fired a couple rounds on this rifle he had, was fun. I've fired recurve bows before, too. S'about it.




Posted by specopssv44


Quoted post: My dad owns at least 5 guns that I know of. I just don't care for hunting all that much. Now, bow hunting... there's something I can imagine being proud of.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. With a bow you have to get much closer and that means you have to be more aware of the wind and your scent. On the plus side bow hunters get to start their season much earlier, so the deer are more plentiful, its easier to find one. If your hunting with a rifle your season starts later (Bows, and muzzle-loaders start first, in that order), so the deer are fewer and further between. On the upside, rifles have a much greater Maximum effective range than bows or muzzle-loaders, but, if youre not a proficient shooter, you dont understand how to properly adjust your dope, or youre using the wrong ammo, your lengthened maximum effective range means little in the way of advantage.



Posted by Slade

Yeah, I hadn't considered that there would be more deer around during bow season. It's mostly the fact that you have to be better at getting close to the deer that makes me think that. Not to mention it takes more physical strength to fire a bow. Needing to know how to use your technology aside, isn't bow hunting just... harder?




Posted by cool gamer dad

My dad gave me a shotgun that I've never used in my life. It's basically for ****ing **** up though. Hopefully I'll never have to use it!


I've shot for sport quite a few times, and it's just not my thing.




Posted by Shade

I have a hand-made spear. That's a man's firearm.




Posted by Roger Smith


Quoting Shade: I have a hand-made spear. That's a caveman's firearm.


Aye.

I've only used paintball guns and airsoft guns. No real guns, which is really disappointing. I think there's a shooting range around here someone, I should totally ask my uncle to bring me up there.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I have a Walther PPK, a .22 rifle, and a 30-ought-six




Posted by Dr. Rockso

I have a BFG9000




Posted by specopssv44

dont get me wrong, bow hunting is badass. But theres something to be said for someone that can hit a moving target at 800yds




Posted by Shade

Can you hit that without a scope? Because if so your vision is pretty impressive.




Posted by specopssv44

Havent tried that range w/o a scope, but ive done man sized targets at 500 without scopes regularly. Havent gone further, because (until just recently) I didnt own a rifle capable of point accuracy at that range... That being said, at 500 yds, a person is pretty small, your front sight post will be wider than their body. 800 would be tough without a scope, but im sure someones done it without an optic (probably luck more than skill though at that point)... At work we regularly can engage targets out to 1800 meters without an optic, but thats because theyre machine guns, youre not gonna hit a target that far out with one bullet, youre gonna throw between 10 to 12 rounds a burst at it and adjust off the impacts.




Posted by ExoXile

A shotgun and a rifle.

For hunting.


S' not like you can go around with them like in the US. [IMG]http://vgchat.com/images/icons/icon15.gif[/IMG]




Posted by Iris

We don't have a gun, but I wouldn't mind one or two small concealed ones lying around the house, as long as they were kept secret.




Posted by Slade

I just visited my parents in the middle of nowhere, and they have a loaded shotgun behind the front door. I guess it's for bears, cougars, and drug smugglers.


Quoted post: We don't have a gun, but I wouldn't mind one or two small concealed ones lying around the house, as long as they were kept secret.

For me it depends on who else would be living there. If it's just me, then I'd be fine with keeping a gun and ammo together at the bottom of a dresser drawer or something. Otherwise, I'd probably lock the gun, and hide the gun and ammo in different places.



Posted by Iris

I wouldn't lock the gun. I can't imagine being alotted the time to unlock a cabinet while in need of the gun, as well as searching for ammo, etc. I would just hide it somewhere high where no one would look with the ammo next to it.




Posted by specopssv44

I keep a loaded .45 and surefire on my nightstand, If someone breaks in they might have the element of surprise but my hallowpoints evens the playing field a bit.


Quoted post: For me it depends on who else would be living there. If it's just me, then I'd be fine with keeping a gun and ammo together at the bottom of a dresser drawer or something. Otherwise, I'd probably lock the gun, and hide the gun and ammo in different places.

I grew up around firearms from a young age, we always kept them locked up and unloaded, but there was always a loaded and unlocked handgun in our house for self defense, I knew where it was at, and I knew how to use it if I had to. But I also knew that it wasnt a toy and that if i messed with it thered be hell to pay. If you have kids that are old/mature enough to understand guns, take them to the range, let them shoot them and "play" with them in a safe enviornment, then curiosity wont come around and bite you in the ***.



Posted by Breakman

i own an air soft gun and a zapper




Posted by ExoXile

[CENTER][IMG]http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6523/1208656131362gg3.png[/IMG]
It's sad.
[/CENTER]




Posted by Shin-Ra

^ Wouldn't you imagine that has a lot to do with culture(s), population, and the country's past history than the guns themselves?

I live in Texas and my family's super conservative, therefore we have a crapton of guns. I only have a .410 shotgun for hunting, but there's at least 3 other guns in this house and I think that's the smallest amount out of any house in my family. We have a lot of wooded land in the country for hunting which is the main reason for everyone's arsenal, but we also pass guns down and everyone just likes them for some reason. Stereotypes rule.

I'll always have at least a gun in my house, because the shotgun (and my dad's collection) really did make me feel a lot better when I didn't have electricity and people were raiding houses after Hurricane Rita raped the Port Arthur area. Plus, we have a pretty high crime rate as well and I'd hate to be at the mercy of some asshole breaking into my house, just because he has a gun. Also I'm not really pro-gun or anti-gun, I really don't care either way.




Posted by ExoXile

[quote=Shin-Ra;848246]^ Wouldn't you imagine that has a lot to do with culture(s), population, and the country's past history than the guns themselves?

Population:
England - 50,762,900 (73 gun murders)
USA - 304,124,000 (11,344 gun murders)


If the US had 400~500 gun murders per year then, yes.




Posted by Shin-Ra

Hey, make sure and ignore the part where I said culture and country's past history also. Population does have something to do with it, but I also added those factors as well because I didn't want to put it all on one thing like an idiot.




Posted by ExoXile

I have no idea of where those extra 11,000 would come from.
And I lack the motivation and intelligence to research it atm.

But maybe that it's legal for almost anyone to buy firearms has something to do with it, idk. :confused:




Posted by Shin-Ra


Quoting ExoXile: I have no idea of where those extra 11,000 would come from.


I'd imagine the vast majority of that is gang related shootings. I mean, it's not like the average American is walking around shooting people or anything. However, if you go to the ghetto in this area, you're guaranteed to hear at least one set of gun shots by the end of the night (no exaggeration). Hence, culture and our past history that caused gang culture - such as poverty in general, past slavery, drugs use, illegalization of drugs (either way you're screwed), segregation, immigration of gangs, the formation of the black panthers which lead to the streets being left open for gang control. There's a lot that goes into it other than just guns existing. However, I remember some statistic about gun violence at home is as high (or higher?) than that of the streets. I also don't know how accurate that statistic is, as I just vaguely remember it.

As far as anyone being able to get guns, that's pretty much how it is. I don't know too much about the process, but there is a waiting period of a few days when buying a gun. They do a criminal background check and I think you can't get a gun if you have a felony. Don't quote me on that, but it's something to that effect.



Posted by Xero

I don't have one. It's illegal around these parts.




Posted by specopssv44

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11

* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:

a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14

* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:


High Gun
Ownership Countries


Low Gun
Ownership Countries

Country


Suicide


Homicide


Total*


Country


Suicide


Homicide


Total*
Switzerland

21.4


2.7


24.1
Denmark

22.3


4.9


27.2
U.S.

11.6


7.4


19.0
France

20.8


1.1


21.9
Israel

6.5


1.4


7.9
Japan**

16.7


0.6


17.3

* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.

6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18

* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19

1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13Ibid.
14Ibid.
15See supra note (fiddling).
16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).
17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000); Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80.
18At our historic worst, murders in the United States approached 25,000 in 1993 -- or 23,180 to be exact. So even applying our highest single-year tally over the past 70 years would mean that Europeans have experienced 16 times as many murders as we have in the United States.
19THE FEDERALIST 46 (James Madison).




Posted by specopssv44

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11

* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:

a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14

* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:




6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18

* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19

1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13Ibid.
14Ibid.
15See supra note (fiddling).
16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).
17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000); Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80.
18At our historic worst, murders in the United States approached 25,000 in 1993 -- or 23,180 to be exact. So even applying our highest single-year tally over the past 70 years would mean that Europeans have experienced 16 times as many murders as we have in the United States.
19THE FEDERALIST 46 (James Madison).




Posted by Klarth

IT DONE SAYS IN OUR CONSTITUTIN' THAT Y'ALL CAN BEAR ARRRRMS

never mind the fact that it's a stipulation from a different time that people in the land of the thought-free vehemently defend so they can continue to flagrantly abuse the "right" it gives them




Posted by Klarth

Fact: Blam, blam! Funeral.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

BATMAN DOESNT USE GUNS

AND LIFE IS PRETTY SWELL FOR HIM




Posted by specopssv44

batman has badass body armor, the batmobile and a sweet butler.




Posted by Xero


Quoting The X: BATMAN DOESNT USE GUNS

AND LIFE IS PRETTY SWELL FOR HIM


AN AMERICAN HERO IS SHOWING THE GOOD EXAMPLE WOO!



Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

give me a practical advantage of owning a gun

in this scenario:
you are not a farmer
the practical advantage cannot be 'killing/injuring someone'




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Canada would have a lot less murders if the US wouldn't hand them out willy nilly. I mean, 90 murder per year in a big city like Toronto isn't a whole lot, but it's be less!




Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]Don't own one, never did, probably never gonna. But i totally support the right to own guns.

I do know for a fact my father has a gun though.[/COLOR]




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

go shoot him with it




Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]Only in my dreams Vamp, only in my dreams.

All the best cowboys have daddy issues.[/COLOR]




Posted by specopssv44

ok, give me a practical advantage to owning a spoon, and it cannot involve eating/preparint/anything to do with food.




Posted by Shade


Quoting The X: give me a practical advantage of owning a gun

in this scenario:
you are not a farmer
the practical advantage cannot be 'killing/injuring someone'


you own racing horses.



Posted by mis0


Quoting The X: give me a practical advantage of owning a gun

in this scenario:
you are not a farmer
the practical advantage cannot be 'killing/injuring someone'

That's kind of stupid, because that is what is a gun is designed to do. I'm not a gun owner, nor do I have any desire to be. However, a gun can be used as a way of preventing a situation such as a robbery from actually getting physically violent. The threat of a gun is probably enough to deter any lesser-armed assailant from continuing with their robbery/attack/whatever. And if it doesn't, then they can be dealt with swiftly.

Not too long ago, I got a chance to learn how to use firearms, and I decided to do it. It was an interesting experience, and it changed my opinion about a lot of firearm owners. At the firing range, there were a variety of people from many walks of life. None qualified as the gun-toting, redneck stereotype. They're regular, responsible people, who feel the best way to protect their person, home, or business is firearm ownership.



Posted by Lord of Spam

i was looking into picking up a glock 17, but then someone decided that my car has far too operational and decided to total it for me. YAY




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

should told him to wait right there while you bought a glock and then shot him




Posted by Lord of Spam

hey THE X, ever shot guns before? Its fun. Bam, theres your practical advantage: shooting squares of paper for fun.