• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Guns

I don't know. My husband was stationed in England for 4 years and he didn't feel any safer there, infact he says he felt less safe as an American living there. He has been all over Europe either an a civilian or as a soldier. He says there is no better or safer place to live the the good ol' USA.
 
OCsnakeman said:
You are arguing, if I understand correctly, that the UK has a lower rate of murder by guns, because they have no guns? That seems a bit ludicrous. Of course your murder by firearm stats will be lower. You don't have any.

Homicides in England & Wales over the past 3 years by method of killing.

Sharp instrument 698
Blunt instrument 167
Hitting, kicking etc 401
Strangulation 158
Shooting 140
Other 320

I'm not sure what "other" means, but it looks like in the absence of guns, violent crime still exists.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. It exists everywhere. That seems ludicrous too, to have a place where there's no violent crime.

There is a country which boasts that though. Vatican City. Heh...
 
OCsnakeman said:
You are arguing, if I understand correctly, that the UK has a lower rate of murder by guns, because they have no guns? That seems a bit ludicrous. Of course your murder by firearm stats will be lower. You don't have any.

Homicides in England & Wales over the past 3 years by method of killing.

Sharp instrument 698
Blunt instrument 167
Hitting, kicking etc 401
Strangulation 158
Shooting 140
Other 320

I'm not sure what "other" means, but it looks like in the absence of guns, violent crime still exists.
Click to expand...

The other point I was trying to make is that owning a gun doesn't make you less likely to be shot by one.
 
It doesn't? I would have to disagree. If a person with a gun is threatening me or my home, and is planning to shoot me, explain to me how the absence of a gun is going to help me not get shot? If anything, owning a firearm would at least give you the opportunity to defend yourself or stop your assailant.
 
ladymagpie said:
The US, the UK and Austrialia measure what constitutes violent crime differently. For example, in the UK threatening to assault someone is classed as a "violent" crime even if there is no contact. So let's just focus on one statistic. Say, murder rates.

US "murder by firearm" per 100,000 population = 2.97
England and Wales "murder by firearm" per 100,000 population = 0.07 ...
Click to expand...
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1259557&postcount=97

ladymagpie said:
So yes, I would say I feel safer in a country where very few people own guns. How does everyone having a weapon mean that people are less likely to be harmed? I'm struggling to understand that. ...
Click to expand...
I feel much safer in a country where free citizens are allowed to own guns and defend themselves. Having a gun means I am far more likely able to defend myself and my family. I struggle to understand how being relegated defenseless by a government makes one feel safer.

ladymagpie said:
Now before I'm flamed again with selective webpages and jpegs, I just want to gently remind people that while we have a different way of doing things, my country has been doing them for a couple million years and we're doing ok, thanks. No need to laugh at my perceived innocence.
Click to expand...
No flaming just differing opinion. That's why we exist. 230ish years ago a few folks decided to no longer accept oppression. ;)

pfffttt ... a million years ... My gentle reminder would be that in just 230+ years we made it to the top, not just doing ok. ;)



 
ladymagpie said:
Now before I'm flamed again with selective webpages and jpegs, I just want to gently remind people that while we have a different way of doing things, my country has been doing them for a couple million years and we're doing ok, thanks. No need to laugh at my perceived innocence.
Click to expand...

Last I checked guns were invented thousands of years ago (vikings and Asia, I think), not millions. And you are in England, while it has been around for a long time, at one point the general populace was able to have the top of the line weapons for that era (example, sword or bow) if they could afford it. So, no your country has not been practicing the oppression of the general populace to carry weapons for a couple of million years.

I understand that it was probably an exaggeration on your part to try and make a point, but when in a debate, exaggerations do not go very far.

http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm ~This site actually says in 1247 was the first recorded gunpowder use in Europe.
 
Against abortion, gay marriage, or guns? Don't have one.
 
The English used the long bow in battle against the French. Some say this is where the derogatory gesture to hold up two fingers at someone came from because the French threaten to cut off those fingers of the British if caught so that they could not use the long bow anymore.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_sticking_your_fingers_up_come_from

Great Britain used deadly force when she was becoming an Empire and colonizing the world. While civilizing the wild heathens of the lands. :) Not saying the US is any better btw :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top