I'm from the UK where debates about guns don't exist.

[sibelian]

Why would I need a gun to defend myself in a nation that doesn't really have any guns?

What use is a "freedom" to use a specific device to defend yourself when maintaining the right to that device for the populace also guarantees a massively increased risk of actually requiring to defend oneself?

In the UK we defend ourselves by removing the opponent's weapon. I am demonstrably better defended than the average citizen of the United States of America. There is no controversy about this fact. The statistics speak for themselves, very loudly.

The reason for this is that despite my having no right to purchase firearms to defend myself against armed attackers, armed attackers do not have the right to arm themselves against me either, and, this right being absent from their lives, they run prohibitive risks in making the attempt do so. So, generally, they don't.

It doesn't seem to occur to some of you that method you are choosing to try and make yourself safe, is in fact making your lives more dangerous.

[loli phabay]

1. erm you do know that their are still guns used in crimes and the knife culture is horrific

the US is like the Uk in that were you live makes a big difference on the chances of violence. The big difference is in the US its guns that get talked about and in the UK its knifes.

[sibelian]

2. As the statistics are not even vaguely comparable...

... I will assume that you are not entirely serious.

[loli phabay]

4. I think i saw somewhere you are more likely to be assaulted in the Uk than in the US

[sibelian]

5. ...

... did you now. Where?

[Johnny Rico]

10. Here's a source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

As per the article:

UK crime rate per 100,000 residents: 2,034
US crime rate per 100,000 residents: 466

[sibelian]

13. Ah, the Daily Mail.

You are the victim of yellow journalism. Even the yellow journalist doesn't believe what he's implying - from the article you posted:

"But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.
New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007"

So, 20,000 murders to 921, hm?

[Johnny Rico]

19. The subject was assault, not murder.

I will freely grant that the murder rate in the UK is lower...but that's not the subject at hand.

[sibelian]

22. Errrr...

yes it is...

[Johnny Rico]

26. Hence the (relevant) link.

[loli phabay]

30. err i think you will find it was my post and i said you are more likely to be assaulted in the uk

[sibelian]

44. Which has nothing to do with my OP.

Does it?

[Mimosa]

158. Your home invasion rates are far higher than ours.

Sibelian, the gang wars and the 'drug war' drive America's rate of violent crimes.

90% of citizens are unaffected by violent crimes.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. I'd rather get in a fist fight than a gunfight.

[loli phabay]

29. id rather you decide to fistfight me whilst im holding a gun

means there is no chance of injury to me other than maybe damage to my ears. This is not about fighting fair its about winning and walking away.

[sibelian]

40. "This is not about fighting fair its about winning and walking away."

No, it's not. It's about not having mass killings and murders all the time.

[Warren Stupidity]

124. Not to the Hollywood cowboys here.

It is about being a big man with a gun, a big hat, boots and spurs.

[lindysalsagal]

131. Michael Reagan called it our american gun fettish. He's right. Your manhood's on the line.

Somehow the europeans don't need guns to be happy . They don't seem to have the same desire for power. Americans really do think we're cowboys.

I always feel safer in european cities at night.

[Scootaloo]

227. I've never felt unsafe in an American city

And about the most severe weapon I've ever brought with me into a city is a pencil. Downtown Atlanta? Never felt in any danger. South LA? biggest worry was lack of respect for pedestrian traffic. New orleans... Okay, I was afraid of New Orleans, but that was more of a drunken "holy shit you guys this place smells like Yog-Sothoth" sort of scared, and I'm pretty sure guns don't hurt elder gods anyway.

maybe I should visit Europe sometime.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. No, it's about murder.

[Drunken Irishman]

92. George Zimmerman, that you?

So, you'd have no problem shooting someone for a petty fist fight?

[loli phabay]

93. if they attacked me and i felt in danger, we are talking about getting mugged or assaulted here

not two guys decideing to sort it out on the pavement.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. I agree there, however...

Your post makes it sound like you'd rather just shoot someone than risk any type of injury from a fist fight. Bottom line, defending yourself is okay - but sometimes things go south fast when guns are involved. Just ask Trevon Martin, unfortunately.

[robinlynne]

202. oh yes it is the subject at hand!

[MADem]

83. The UK is the size of Wisconsin, and has a much smaller population than USA, too.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

It doesn't really matter, though. After that spree killer shot up that primary school in Scotland, the gun laws changed.

Now, the only people waving guns in UK are the police and the criminals who smuggle the guns in.

The Daily Mail's sources included the Conservative Party and the UN, so blame them if the figures aren't accurate.


UK Murder is down even more than your figure according to this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/homicides-drop-to-near-30year-low-7959027.html

It's down in USA too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-death-rate-from-homicide-drops-to-a-near-50-year-low/2012/01/11/gIQAo5tDrP_story.html

Playing a "who's better" game doesn't cut it, though. There are sections of London where you take your life in your hands any time of day or night; just as there are in USA. It also doesn't really solve any problems to play a blue link gotcha game.

It would be nice if people all over the world became less inclined to murder one another.

[loli phabay]

85. bravo good post and sentiment.

[Fumesucker]

121. The population of the UK is more than ten times as great as Wisconsin..

[MADem]

128. I was using poor shorthand--I meant to say that it has a smaller population than USA.

The point being that you have a much smaller area to police, you have fewer wide-open spaces, you have no ranches with wolves and bears and so forth.

NYC has more people than Wisconsin. Of course UK has more people as well.

So and have a nice day, yourself.

[Fumesucker]

176. High population density also leads to a lot more opportunities for interpersonal conflict..

If one place has 100 people per square mile, Montana say and another has 100,000 per square mile, London say then the average person in the latter of those two scenarios is going to physically interact with a lot more other humans.

I would say the number of out and out assholes in any given population is probably fairly constant but if somewhere is more crowded you run into a lot more out and out assholes than you do if somewhere is sparsely populated.

[MADem]

179. UK is not a hundred rats in a shoebox, though. It's close, but not cramped.

London, even with a huge population, has a much more open feel than NYC. It's less dense, fewer skyscrapers.

The country as a whole has fewer "wide open spaces," so it's easier to manage, public-safety-wise, anyway.

[obamanut2012]

136. And all dangerous wildlife have been hunted to local extinction

I wear my pistol when I trailrun and hike, for legitimate safety reasons. Britain no longer has feral pigs or wolves, they never had coyotes, they have no pit vipers. All of these except the wolves are worries of mine when I run. Britain hasn't had a rabies outbreak in years, but I have encountered a rabid fox before. And, as you stated, there are no real forested wilderness areas left there -- they have been gone for hundreds of years.

When you live in certain rural areas and do certain things in true wilderness areas, it is not unusual or weird or Teabaggerish to own guns. The same if you own a ranch or farm.

[MADem]

159. I used to live on a farm in UK. The fields were rented to tenants who kept sheep and cows.

A hundred acres or more.

The only animal that might take down a sheep would be a hungry dog. There was no fear of wolves or other predators.

It was a very different environment from farming/ranching in USA.

[obamanut2012]

163. It's very intetesting you did that!

I had a bunch of coyotes outside the house the other night, and a five-foot+ rattler in the drive earlier in the week. Feral pigs are so bad here they are considered vermin, and you don't need a license to kill them, you just can't use bait to catch them.

I saw lots of bunnies and squirrels in England and Scotland.

[marmar]

145. But what does the size of the population matter when you're evaluating per capita stats?

nt

[MADem]

157. You need fewer cops to patrol a smaller area.

Community policing does help to bring crime down.

[Zalatix]

219. It would be nice if people all over the world became less inclined to murder one another.

This, 100,000%.

[loli phabay]

14. i can believe it, the ned culture is real bad in a lot of the urban areas

its bandit country if you are an outsider and you wander into a lot of the schemes.

[sibelian]

25. So, what do you think about the fact that fewer guns in the UK

means less gun crime?

[loli phabay]

32. well might be less gun crime but were i live unlike the UK if you break into my home your meeting a

12 gauge whereas in the UK your hoping the police arrive before you are killed. I prefer the odds over here.

[sibelian]

38. Then you don't understand what "odds" are.

And that's that.

[loli phabay]

42. simple my odds over here of being attacked in my home and killed by a knife wielding ned

are lower than that same knife wielding neds chances if i lived in the UK due to the fact here he would be facing a 12 gauge and in the UK a response time from the nearest ARV.

[sibelian]

47. So you're actually just completely IGNORING my OP.

You don't live in ned country. You get a 12 guage, so does the ned.

Why are you twisting your brain round and round in these circles?

[loli phabay]

49. now you get the point, he may be armed but he knows i may be too

in your case the bad guy can get tooled up and hes pretty certain that your not.

[sibelian]

52. So why doesn't he?

Why are there fewer murders here?

[loli phabay]

56. less murders but more assaults, in the UK you can mug someone and be pretty sure they are unarmed

here it is a different proposition so you dont get any where near as many random assaults going by the figures.

[sibelian]

65. Yeah, but you can't be sure they won't fight back.

Are you saying you need guns to shoot muggers?

[loli phabay]

68. its much preferable to trying to wrestle a stanley knife out of their hand or if there are more than

one of them, or do you think its marquis of queensbury rules.

[sibelian]

72. Wrsetling a stanley knife out of someone's hand

is a lot easier than wrestling a bullet out of the air.

[loli phabay]

74. the point is the round goes straight to the target, never seen anyone wrestle a bullet apart from

old avengers episode,

[sibelian]

84. No, the point is it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.

Cue your next change of subject.

[Johnny Rico]

76. Which is one of the many reasons a firearm is superior to a knife for self defense...yes?

[loli phabay]

78. im not sure they actually know what a firearm is, or how they work

[eShirl]

88. ...

[sibelian]

215. No, it's one of them many reasons why your murder rate is through the roof

And ours isn't.

[Johnny Rico]

217. Firearms aren't superior to knives for self defense? Really?

How odd, given that, that virtually every professional who has a choice between the two will carry a gun rather than a knife.

(occasionally they'll carry both, granted)

[permatex]

161. Are you saying that I should have to fight fair?

Are you saying that if I get mugged and I have a CCP, I shouldn't be allowed to use my gun to defend myself even if the mugger is armed with something other than a gun?

[Sea-Dog]

112. Then arm them with what? a knife its been shown that people that carry knifes end up in A&E

[secondvariety]

109. Not if you're not home,

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

then the only thing your 12 gauge will be meeting is a new owner. Folks with stockpiles of weapons love to brag about it (they can't help it). It doesn't take much of an effort to figure out which house has them and when it's unoccupied. NRA bumper stickers are a dead giveaway.
Get yourself a dog, treat it well and you'll ACTUALLY be safer from a break in-any cop will tell you the same thing.

[loli phabay]

20. interesting stats from the bizzies themselves

The tables rely on police forces to provide information on firearms incidents as defined by the Home Office.

The worst

1. Central Birmingham: 75 gun crimes from a population of 15,551 = one per 207 people

2. North Manchester: 183 from 64,207 = one per 351 people

3. South Manchester: 477 from 316911 = one per 664

4. Thornhill Road (Handsworth - West Mids): 122 from 92,013 = one per 754

5. Queen's Road (West Mids): 129 from 97,976 = one per 760

6. Wolverhampton East (Wednesfield - West Mids): 163 from 124,480 = one per 764

7. Dudley North (Dudley - West Mids): 157 from 128,569 = one per 819

8. Langbaurgh (Cleveland): 149 from 138,000 = one per 926

9. Stechford (West Mids) 158 from 148,950 = one per 943

10. Southwark (London) 259 from 244,869

[Mojorabbit]

198. I also read today

that your gun crime increased after you passed strict laws in the 90's.

[sibelian]

3. Oh, and you ignored every single point I made.

This was not lost on me.

[loli phabay]

6. it seemed to me that you were saying i cant have a gun and neither can the bad guys

even though its not hard to get a gun in the UK if you pay the money and know the right people. There seems to be this idea that the US is a free for all gun battle, in some areas like the UK their is a lot of violence but generally you can go for a whole lifetime and not see any.

[sibelian]

7. "its not hard to get a gun in the UK if you pay the money and know the right people." - false.

This is just spin, and doesn't answer my point.

[loli phabay]

8. are you really saying that if you go to salford, or possil or many other estates that you cant get a

gun if you pay for it, regardless of what you think there is shit loads of guns in the UK in the hands of criminals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
this is bbc link a bit out of date but some interesting figures on gun crimes, now unless its the same gun getting passed around then i would say theres quite a few of them.

[sibelian]

9. Again, the statistics speak for themselves

And, again, you ignore them.

[loli phabay]

11. and once again you really really believe that if you have the money and know somebody that you cant

get a gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378610/The-haul-45-pistols-machine-guns-sniper-rifles-seized-Liverpool-grandfather-exposed-gun-runner.html

[sibelian]

16. "its not hard to get a gun" "if you have the money and know somebody"

Is comparable to just going to a shop to buy one? Is it?

I think not.

[loli phabay]

17. yes it is, you go to the pub give the guy money and get the gun

couldnt be much easier than that, here you have to do paperwork in order to get the gun, so i would say its easier if you know were to go and have the money.


Byline: By MARION SCOTT and HEATHER GREENAWAY

A DEADLY cache of illegal weapons has been found at the home of a Scots Army sergeant.

Duncan MacGillivray, 40, stashed the guns and ammo after tours in Iraq, Northern Ireland, the Falklands and Germany.

The lethal haul included an AK-47 Kalashnikov rifle, a Browning Hi-power sidearm, a SPAS-12 shotgun - as used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Terminator - an MK4 submachine gun and thousands of bullets.

As an Army quartermaster, MacGillivray was responsible for equipping troops and had access to huge amounts of weapons and ammunition.

He claimed the guns belonged to his brother and were being used to pay off debts to drug barons.

Former Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency chief Graeme Pearson said last night: "Gangsters are desperate to get a hold of this quality of firepower.

Sunday Mail

[sibelian]

21. This disenegnuous tripe.

Do you think tomorrow I'll be able to go to my local pub and get a gun?

Where do you live?

[loli phabay]

23. you could if you knew were to go, hell you tell me were you live and i can tell you were to go

i live in Virginia. I am not sure how i can make what im saying any simpler, in the UK if you have the money and want an illegal gun then there are people who will sell it to you, and yes its as easy as meeting a guy in a pub giving him money and him giving you the package.

[sibelian]

28. Who?

What guy?

Are going to tell me that criminals in the States fill out paperwork for guns?

[loli phabay]

36. nope they dont always, but not every criminal has a record so they do buy them legally as well

as i said you tell me where you live and i will tell you the nearest scheme to go to, hell maybe even a pub were you have a good chance of getting a gun.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. You can do a gun buy at a garage sale in the United States.

No paperwork.

[loli phabay]

37. yup i know that, was just using it as an example of how easy it is to buy a gun in the UK if you kno

were and have the cash.

[sibelian]

41. Pretending it's easier than in the States

is just pretentious.

[loli phabay]

45. and you thinking that its not easy to get a gun in the UK is just willful ignorance

once again if you have the cash and know the right people its easy.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/obsessed-student-s-home-had-arsenal-of-illegal-firearms-1-1152509

[sibelian]

51. Dude, just repeating something doesn't make it true.

Having to know criminals to get guns doesn't mean getting the gun was easy. Dealing with criminals does not make things "easy", does it?

In the States, you can buy guns in a shop.

You can argue black is white as long as you like. Getting guns from criminals is not as easy as getting guns from a shop. That's it.

[loli phabay]

54. and you dont think the bad guys dont know were to get the guns from

do you still think there are no guns in the hands of the bad guys in the UK

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/05/18/members-of-scottish-wing-of-gang-face-long-jail-terms-for-smuggling-drugs-and-guns-from-holland-86908-22267027/

it dosent matter if guns are outlawed bad guys will still get them (i hate that phrase) and without to much difficulty.

[sibelian]

63. So where are they all?

Where are all the bad guys murdering all the people? Why have you got more?

[loli phabay]

67. i think its pretty easy to pull up the numbers from reported gun crimes, you can use google

but i would be more concerned about the number of stabbings and slashings and just general assaults.

[sibelian]

73. Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with what I posted, has it?

That's you changing the subject again. Essentially through a wounded nationalism.

[loli phabay]

77. no the subject is you scolding americans and being high and mighty about the UK and guns

then i show you lots of links about illegal guns in the UK and how they are not hard to come by, so i think your efforts would be better served working to clean up the streets of your locality which you still havent told us of than trying to lord it over americans who know of the problems.

[sibelian]

82. Right, so because you're oversensitive about your nationality...

discussions about ways of making your life safer for you and the people around you are off the table, are they?

[loli phabay]

87. no i just know enough about americans to know that they dont need your help to solve their problems

especially when you seem to want to scold rather than help.

[Surya Gayatri]

117. Whoaaa, Mr. America...that moral high horse you're prancing around on

is about to bolt away with you hanging off the stirrups.

Your pretentiousness in claiming to know enough about (A)mericans to be able to speak authoritatively on their behalf is pure American-style, arrogant hubris.

[sibelian]

214. "Scolding"?

What, like your parent? I'm not your parent. Either what I say makes sense or it doesn't, how it makes you feel isn't my problem. BTW, what I say does make sense and it's becoming clear that it makes you uncomfortable because you think it's an attack on your nationality. Have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

[wendylaroux]

255. speak for yourself!!! this person is awesome!!

scold?? you feel like your being scolded?? like trying to tell a kid what right from wrong "scolded"??

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. Buying guns there is like buying drugs here.

You have to deal with people who are just as likely to take your money and give you nothing or turn out to be a cop.

[loli phabay]

89. only if you are a total newbie, if your a criminal looking to buy a gun your pretty much dealing wit

people you know, who have a reputation to maintain so unless you are the biggest plank in the world its just business.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

102. Do you realize what you just did?

You just described one of these misfits who go on these shooting sprees.

We all know the old "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" thing. But you just brought up an interesting notion. Maybe outlaws would screen buyers better.

[loli phabay]

114. 6up bad guys in the business would be more discerning who wants your sale to

End up in a mass shooting and theheat coming back to you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

192. I'll just let that post hang out there for all to see.

[sibelian]

218. You're not even funny.

I'm beginning to think you actually want the mass shootings.

[loli phabay]

220. wtf you on about, still havent told me were in the uk your from so i can advise you how easy to get

a weapon, as i said in the post you attacked the guys you want to buy from in the UK are more discerning in a lot of ways from a legitimate dealer as they dont want to sell you a weapon and have you do a mass killing and it comes back to them, pretty much the same feelings were held by the loyalists and the weapons they held after the good friday agreement.

[Surya Gayatri]

119. +1,000 !

[permatex]

167. In most states, yes

there are some states that require all private sales go through an FFL who then have to do a NICS backgroung check, like CA,NY, to name a couple.
It is illegal for a private seller to use the NICS to check whether the buyer is legal or not. I would like to see NICS opened to private sellers with a sale/no sale system in place.

[Mimosa]

162. UK or US statistics are often manipulated

Not having been born yesterday I've noticed stats can be 'finessed' to convey whatever 'facts' gov entities want to claim.

[obamanut2012]

141. I think you are being very naive

And, the poster is correct: if you have the money and know the "wrong" people, I suspect it is relatively easy to get a sidearm in Britain, as well as the rest of Europe.

In states in the US were it is insanely hard to buy a legal gun, I'm betting it is relatively easy to buy a gun (ie NJ).

[permatex]

170. Correct

Japan is a good example, they have a total ban on the possession of handguns, yet the Yakuza have no problem getting guns at all, I suspect the same is true in the U.K.. If you know the right people, you can get a handgun.

[obamanut2012]

177. Right -- I suspect it's also possible to buy illegal drugs in the UK

And I know there are prostitutes.

Japan was another country I thought of.

[permatex]

180. [phone]

Drugs are illegal in this country, how hard is it to buy MJ, coke, heroin, ecstasy, or any host of drugs, and if not those, how about perscription drugs?

The author of the OP just has no clue at all.

[cthulu2016]

181. The homicide rate in Japan is the lowest in the world.

0.34 per 100K.

Yakuza notwithstanding.

[permatex]

182. thats true

but their suicide rate far outpaces ours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[obamanut2012]

185. I think his point is that you can get guns if you know who to get them from

That was my point, anyway.

[loli phabay]

223. bingo if you belong or have contacts with a fleeto (gang) then its relatively easy

the guns are out there and the criminals have access to them.

[Sea-Dog]

191. got any data on 'how relatively easy it is'?

whats the likelihood of being shot in the UK?

[obamanut2012]

264. How easy is it to buy illegal drugs?

Or a prostitute?

No matter where you live, if you know how to contact certain people, you can buy illegal substances. Thinking you cannot buy an illegal gun in the UK is being naive. Thinking you can't buy illegal (or legal drugs sans script) in any town in the US is being naive.

[Sea-Dog]

271. still no data to back up what your saying.

ill take it as a opinion then

I doubt folks pick up their weed and at the same time a desert eagle just for kicks like its a common normal combo. even the local small time pot dealer is more likely to have a bat than a gun in the UK.

besides who would go near a gun used in god knows what? not only going to do time for a illegal owned weapon or just plain illegal firearm but also something that could be linked to a local bank job or murder.

if I have time I may look up how many legally owned guns are stolen each year. in the UK end up being used for illegal activity.

[whathehell]

12. That's nice.

I can only imagine how little you know of this board

if you think that the vast majority here are unaware

of the differences between the gun laws of the U.K

and those of the U.S, so beyond the national

chest thump, did you have a particular point?

[sibelian]

15. You are fully aware of the point I was making.

I will not repeat myself to you.

[whathehell]

61. What I truly am NOT aware of is why you think

Anyone here needs to hear YOU make it.

Sorry, dear, but no one here needs to either discuss OR defend

themselves to you, your incredibly officious and demanding tone notwithstanding.

[sibelian]

221. Stick your fingers in your ears, then.

And let the mass murders continue.

[loli phabay]

224. rofl way to go reinforcing his point.

[whathehell]

245. Stick yours in your mouth, then

and realize that sometimes one needs

to LISTEN more than speak.

[DainBramaged]

252. That's mighty condescending of you chap

is that the superior gun owner ego you're wearing or just feeling frisky since were on an anonymous message board?

[whathehell]

259. Your concern is duly noted, "chap"

but you're so "off the mark" it's funny.

A. I FAVOR strict gun controls

B. I'm not a "chap"

C. After over 9,000 posts, I'm feeling no "friskier"

than you on an "anonymous message board"

[DainBramaged]

260. Thanks for your reply

now join my ignore list.

[whathehell]

262. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Lose sorely much?

[MADem]

90. +1 nt

[Zoeisright]

193. Let me get this straight.

Someone comes here to tell of their personal experience, and you think it's a "national chest thump"? How incredibly rude of you.

[whathehell]

199. You've got a long way to go, it seems

because I don't know what "personal experience" you saw.

I saw nothing of the kind, only a general statement of contrast

on American vs. British gun laws, the differences with which

most here are WELL aware...So yes, I'm afraid

it did appear as nothing more than a "national chest thump",

especially since I did give him a chance to dissuade me of the

notion, but got nothing but a huffy little dismissal. .

[sibelian]

222. Don't even bother to pretend that your oversensitivity is my problem.

Go and read again what you posted to me. You took offense at an imaginary slight. That's it.

[whathehell]

247. Don't' even bother to pretend that your overweening arrogance is not the problem

You go and read what I posted to you, along with

the posts of several others who actually LIVE here and

imagine they MIGHT know a tad more than you

about their own country.

[DainBramaged]

253. overweening

the word for the day, comes from weenies who think they can bully other posters into suppressing their views.

[whathehell]

258. I do hope you're not ascribing

that "bullying" to me...You're free to do so, of course,

just as I'm free to reject it completely.

[LuvNewcastle]

18. There are many reasons why people in America keep guns.

Most Americans don't live in high-crime areas and they certainly don't need to carry them around wherever they go. There is a fear, certainly not unfounded, of an out-of-control government which has all the guns in its possession. I believe that a government should have a healthy amount of fear of what the people might do if the government overreaches. While there are clear problems with our culture's violent tendencies, I don't think that taking away peoples' guns is a cure-all. The country needs to have a frank discussion about violence and the issue needs to be studied thoroughly. There are no simple solutions to this problem.

[dipsydoodle]

27. Compensation for having small dicks being one of them.

.

[LuvNewcastle]

50. There is some of that, of course.

History is full of examples, however, of well-armed knights and soldiers slaughtering unarmed civilians. I can certainly understand why many are reluctant to give up their arms, especially since we seem to have less and less control over our government and media all the time. But when people use their guns as insurance against future confrontations instead of getting involved in their communities and government in order to prevent those confrontations in the first place, things get out of hand and we have the situation we're in today. It's a vexing problem.

[whathehell]

75. You mean there's no small dicks in the UK?

Based on my own experience,

I'd have to differ.

[loli phabay]

79. guffaws, of course there is but its supplemented by supporting man utd instead of guns

[Lars77]

110. Actually Man Utd fans probably have small dicks :)

[whathehell]

123. And that is a good thing, bro..."guffaws" and all.

[Surya Gayatri]

118. There are indeed as many puny dicks in the UK

as in the US.

However, the British male populous seems less inclined to over-compensate by carrying around metal penile substitutes to be whipped out at the least provocation .

(By the way, I'm an American).

edit: typo

[whathehell]

122. LOL...

I know that....This is what's known as a moment of levity.

I'm actually "on board" with the whole compensation thing.

Like other similarly disadvantaged males in other countries,

I'm sure they compensate with SOMETHING -- but whatever

it is, for their sakes, I'm glad they have stricter gun laws and

I certainly wish we had them.

BTW, according to HuffPo and some other stats, a huge majority

of Americans WANT tougher gun laws...The disgusting situation

we have now, which does, of course, vary by state

is apparently NOT a reflection of the will of the people.

[Surya Gayatri]

130. "They (do) compensate with SOMETHING", as do

ill-endowed males in all cultures.

For British males, some favored compensatory mechanisms are out-drinking their mates at the local and out-screaming their adversaries at sporting events.

That's leaving aside the phallic symbolism of fast, bullet-shaped cars (mostly accessible to the more well-to-do male).

American males are also wont to resort to these trials of strength and symbolic dick-waving, if firearms are not available and a shoot-out would be considered socially gauche.

(if necessary)

[whathehell]

189. Thank you for

that information!

[loli phabay]

209. actually they do instead of guns its knifes and has been for decades

it used to be razors, then stanleys, some day it will probuably be light sabers or something but blades seem ngrained in the ned culture.

[Surya Gayatri]

239. Many young British males are indeed members of the "white weapon" cult...

Fortunately, for an island nation as densely populated as the UK, "white weapons" are a far less lethal means of offing your enemies than assault-class firearms, by many measures of magnitude.

Can you imagine if, god forbid, Brit boys had greater access to combat-ready assault weapons à la USA? A recipe for mass extinction of under-30s, especially in the context of their "yob" drinking culture.

Why do you think American gun apologists like yourself are always spouting that hackneyed cliché: "Never take a knife to a gunfight"?

You and others of your cult are so pathetically predictable.

[beevul]

243. Uh...

"Can you imagine if, god forbid, Brit boys had greater access to combat-ready assault weapons à la USA?"

Is it your belief that gun owners at large in America have access to "combat-ready assault weapons" in America?

Seriously?

[Surya Gayatri]

246. Is this a serious question? Impossible to tell--it sounds as if you're just being provocative...

Are you seriously implying that American "boyz" don't have infinitely easier access to assault weapons than do Europeans?

Wow, what can I say? Read the statistics...maybe?

[beevul]

248. Nomenclature.

Its important.

I interpret the phrase "combat ready" to mean "weapon of war".

Is it weapons of war, that you're referring to?

[Surya Gayatri]

249. I'm referring to the same kind of assault weapons used by

military and para-military units the world over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[beevul]

269. Thats what I thought.

The type of weapons youre referring to, are tightly controlled by the national firearms act of 1934, and by definition are either fully automatic, or fire in burst mode.

Iether way, that fact that youre referring to that class of weapon, clarifies your earlier assertion:

"Can you imagine if, god forbid, Brit boys had greater access to combat-ready assault weapons à la USA?"

People in America, can't just go buy that class of weapon, with a simple background check, for a few hundred dollars, at "joes gun store".

That class of weapon, requires a very extensive background check, a 200 dollar tax stamp, permission from your local chief leo.They are also in fixxed supply, and garner from a few thousand to over twenty thousand dollars each.

Those types of weapons are not "on the streets" as they say, in America, in any way shape size or form.

[Shadowflash]

103. +1 bazillion!

[eridani]

33. I suppose that virtual elimination of habeas corpus is not "overreaching"

Or assassinating American citizens without trial.

[LuvNewcastle]

55. Yes it is.

Issues like that are the reasons people are getting scared. I think a lot of people have given up and are waiting for everything to go to hell so they can pick up their guns and have a revolution. They have no idea what a horrible, bloody mess that would be. I wish people would get more involved in politics and try to turn things around in the proper way.

[eridani]

60. Remember the color-coded terrorist alerts?

They ended after the 2004 election for some reason. Boogaboogabooga--Mooslim! Boogaboogabooga--soshulist! And the conservative guntoting he-men cower and obey.

[LuvNewcastle]

70. I think our media is our biggest problem.

How can people make good decisions without the proper knowledge? It's too easy to lead people around by the nose in this country. There's hardly any real information out there outside of the internet. The situation was bad before 9/11 and it's become nearly impossible since.

[sibelian]

34. I think getting rid of all the guns would be a start.

Changing the culture of the people using them is clearly going to take longer.

[loli phabay]

39. what about knives, i would think that would be of a bigger concern in the UK

[sibelian]

53. are you embarasssed or something?

why do you keep changing the subject?

[loli phabay]

62. yes im embarressed for you, its like an american coming onto a UK site and trying to be all haughty

and telling people in arbroath why they are wrong to put brown sauce on their chips. but as you live in the UK why are you not more concerned about knives on the street than guns on american streets.

[sibelian]

71. I *am* concerned about knife crime.

Most people in the UK are.

And, with regards to "its like an american coming onto a UK site and trying to be all haughty" well that's just too bad, it's not like UK sites lack such Americans. If that's how it works, well that's how it works. Your nation is plagued by murder. Mine isn't. There are many things your nation has done which my nation copied because it turned out your way of doing things was better. But the handling of gun crime is not one of them.

[whathehell]

208. +1...n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

127. Murder rate 25% of ours. It seems knives not such a huge problem.

[loli phabay]

216. dude forget about the murder rate, if you live in the UK then knives are a concern

they have had problems for decades with the youth carrying blades and using them, not always killing the victims but rather slashing and chibbing. They even have brought new laws in to combat the neds carrying them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. Didn't you know that whole "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" thing was propaganda?

[Johnny Rico]

46. How, exactly, would you propose that this be done?

Bear in mind that there are (roughly) 300 million guns in private hands in the US.

[sibelian]

59. The first thing necessary to get it done

...is for people to understand that it has to be done. There's no solution before that. For as long as people accept the murders, they will continue.

[Johnny Rico]

66. Ok...how do you propose getting the majority of US gun owners to agree that it "has to be done"?

I can't imagine any scenario under which that could happen.

[sibelian]

80. By explaining to them repeatedly that their lives are at greater risk than necessary.

Again, and again, and again.

[loli phabay]

91. lol i dont think thats a plan that will work...

[Johnny Rico]

144. The anti-gun side has been doing that for decades, and the pro-gun side is more entrenched

and powerful than ever before.

Any other ideas? Otherwise, you don't seem to have any way of implementing your agenda.

[sibelian]

225. Then it has to get stronger.

Doesn't it?

[Johnny Rico]

228. Well, yes, it would have to get stronger to more effective by definition.

But there isn't the slightest evidence that this is going to happen in the foreseeable future. The Brady Campaign and the VPC combined don't even have 1% of the membership and resources of the NRA. Support for gun control is now at its lowest point in decades.

The pro-gun side has won, and the anti-gun side has lost. It really is that simple.

[sibelian]

230. Then the fight has to be started again. n/t

[loli phabay]

233. okay go ahead and start it, but as the other poster said you are not going to change people

there are more americans who own guns than people in the UK, think about that for a minute, there are huge orgs that cater to these people and have huge political power and that power would ramp up if the people thought that politicians were going to take away the right yes thats right to bear arms, this isnt something that parliment can just take away this is part of the american contract whether you like it or not.

[Johnny Rico]

234. Get back with me in a couple of decades and let me know how it's going.

It will take at least that long for the situation to change substantially...and bear in mind it might well go the other way during that time, with more gun rights in the US rather than less. That's certainly the national trend, after all.

[permatex]

174. Apparently you don't know that much about our BoR

How would you repeal the 2A, first it would take a petition to congress for a constitutional convention, which ain't going to happen, and if by some weird circumstances it did, tell me how your going to get 2/3 of the states to ratify it?
You may wish for a ban sitting there in England, but here in the U.S., it won't happen and I would fight like hell to see it doesn't happen.

[whathehell]

210. Yes, because no one has ever truly "explained" that to us before.

We've all just been waiting for the fruits of your singular, superior mind.

Jeebus...Are you SERIOUS?.

[sibelian]

229. Go and read what I psoted at the beginning again.

And go and read your responses.

You don't HAVE any response. You have a whole series of communication blocks, over-reactions, oversensitivity, freaking out and essentially ignoring the content of my OP, questioning my right to make it. But you are not "representative" of your country. There are plenty of people in the United States who would rather actually fix things than freak out at the obsrvation that they need fixed because the person pointing it out is the "wrong nationality".

You ask "am I serious" - Yes, I am. The situation is this - your nation has an outrageous murder rate and mine doesn't. You are clearly completely capable of processing this ratinoally, you cannot grasp]/b] the idea, when it is pointed out to you, you just lash out. What do you think my intentions were in making the post in the first place? There is political solution to the problem of mass murder. It's no good waving your hands and saying "that's the say it is" it's entirely clear that the situation doesn't *have* to be the way it is.

Acceptance of evil springs from despair, not pragmatism.

[whathehell]

251. You go and read what I posted at the beginning

After that, I'd suggest you contact the White House regarding your

unique insights and detailed plans regarding our national issues.

Silbian, here's the deal: You're presumptuousness is SO over the top, it would be

funny were it not accompanied by such complete sincerity and lack of awareness

on your part.

You make an utterly baseless "judgment" on the degree to which I am or

am not "representative" of my own country, and though your concern is duly noted

there, I really must tell you, that it's looking as if it may be you who may not be representative of the your own country,

or, even a lot of other people, generally. You see, what I'm just now seeing in your posts is

something different than what I saw earlier and that is an irony-free literal mindedness that's coupled

with a complete "tone deafness" when it comes to "speaking" to other people, and no, I don't think it's related to this particular

topic. I'm being serious here, and I'm honestly NOT trying to be flippant or cruel, but you do seem

to have some communication issues that you might want to seek help for.

I won't be responding to anymore of your posts on the issue we've been discussing,

but I truly hope you will consider my words and I do wish you the best of luck.

[LuvNewcastle]

64. It would be virtually impossible to confiscate all the guns in America.

It would be extremely dangerous to even attempt such a thing. Sometimes you just have to accept certain things and do the best you can with the situation you've been handed.

[Johnny Rico]

69. Absolutely right.

There's isn't any feasible scenario in which such an attempt wouldn't result in mass violence unseen in this country since the Civil War.

[sibelian]

213. So you're just giving up?

Why? Are you afraid that it would result in civil war?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. There are many reasons why people in America keep guns.

For instance, a 12 gauge looks good over a picture of The 3 Stooges.

[Zoeisright]

194. Oh for God's sake, that is the dumbest argument ever.

A million people with guns would be no match to the United States Armed Forces. There is no way there will ever be a successful armed uprising against the US government. That's a fantasy, powered by gun lovers who think having a gun makes them invincible.

[DainBramaged]

257. "of an out-of-control government which has all the guns in its possession"

you are really that paranoid?


How sad for you how sad.


American citizens own 300,000,000 million guns. Id say you gunnies outnumber the government's guns by a wide margin.

Oh and that line of bullshit doesn't fly here, this is Democratic Underground not paranoid government conspiracy to take away my guns underground.

[whathehell]

48. "Why would I need a gun to defend myself in a nation that doesn't really have any guns"?

Is someone ASKING you to do this?

What is WITH you?

You come here, all righteous and combative and, for the life of me, I can't imagine why.

Again, you must know next to NOTHING about most people here or those in the US generally.

If you did, you'd know, for instance, that a vast majority of Americans,

FAVOR stricter gun laws. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html

Please familiarize yourself with both this site and the range of American

opinions regarding guns before you come here, thinking we're in need

of your arrogant, supercilious little "scold".

[thucythucy]

148. And what is with YOU

and all the offended Americans on this thread too thin-skinned to accept a comment from overseas about "the American way of life" (and death)?

If you read the OP, you'll see he's addressing this to SOME Americans who don't understand that endowing almost anyone who can breathe with the right to arm themselves to the teeth makes them less safe, not more. I think he (or she?) is pretty clear on that. I think it's a point that is worth making.

You'll also see, if you scroll down the thread, that he's run right into the buzz-saw of denial that means that, even if, as you say, the majority of Americans favor a more sane gun policy, it will never happen in the current political climate, which will never change if Americans are unwilling even to discuss how other nations deal with this issue, and dismiss all outside criticism as "arrogant" and "supercilious."

I heard the same comments made about French critics of American policy in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. How DARE foreigners criticize the Holy Land! Arrogant jerks! What do they know about "freedom" and such? USA! USA!

I for one welcome the OP, and think he's "spot on"--as they say across the Pond. I hope he posts more on this, and on other topics as well.

[Zoeisright]

195. Plus one billion.

That easily offended gun lover is symptomatic of the entire problem with this country; an undeserved feeling of superiority, combined with lack of courage and reason that makes gun ownership seem like the solution to all problems.

[whathehell]

203. You can ask

the other offended Americans, but while you're preparing to do that,

we need to talk about a couple of your assertions:

A. I did read the OP, and no, I don't seem him/her addressing "some" Americans,

as opposed to others, In fact, the poster actually starts a thread as if he were in

the middle of a discussion no one else heard, which seemed rather odd.

B. Your charge that we on DU are too "thin skinned" to "accept a comment from overseas"
about our way of life, etc, shows just HOW LITTLE you know this board, because, as virtually anyone
can tell, you, we've been "accepting" such comments for years...Hell, the admins even
give foreign DUers their own forums to discuss their own national issues, and I'd say
that's quite hospitable.

My position, and I think it matches the rest of the "offended" here, is that it's one thing to come here
to "discuss" or "ask" about something in this country, It's another thing ENTIRELY
to delude yourself into thinking you know MORE about a person's country than they do,
and feel, therefore, entitled to "lecture" and "scold" them on it

Beyond the sheer arrogance of it, the problem is, some, like Silbian, seem to think they are talking
to Free Republic or some other RW site, where, it could be argued, they might be justified,
but certainly not on this site.

[thucythucy]

250. Whatever. The level of hostility in reply

to this OP seems to me all out of proportion to what he's actually saying.

"It doesn't seem to occur to SOME OF YOU that method you are choosing to try and make yourself safe, is in fact making your lives more dangerous."

And I honestly don't see where the OP is "deluding himself" into thinking he knows "MORE about a person's country" than anyone else. Besides which, maybe he does. For all you know he or she could have their doctorate in American studies, spend years at a time here, and know far more about America and Americans than most of us do ourselves. Not that it matters much to the point he's making.

And yeah, I know DU gladly accepts posts from beyond the borders of our own blessed republic. You wouldn't know it though from some of the posts on this thread, though.

Like I said: whatever. If you're offended you're offended, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[whathehell]

256. Sorry, but again, I disagree with you and

a number of others seem to feel the same.

If you actually would like some insight into where

some of us are coming from, you might take a look at post # 62

regarding the matter of "embarrassing" yourself as we

would were we to go to the UK, or any country

not our own and start lecturing them on how to conduct their own

social and cultural affairs...It's insufferably presumptuous

and I, for one, cannot even IMAGINE doing anything like that.

Like you said: Whatever.

Enjoy your weekend as well.

[thucythucy]

261. I checked it out,

and post #71 seems like an appropriate response.

Best wishes.

[whathehell]

263. I checked it out too

and post #71 seems terribly lame.

Back at ya.

[pintobean]

57. Lessons learned from 1776

on both sides.

[Prophet 451]

58. The stats do speak for themselves

Unfortunately, they don't say what you want them to. According to Eurostat, we have the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, one of the highest in the civilised world and higher than the USA. The US has an estimated violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 citizens, ours is over two thousand. I agree that the Mail is trash but the Telegraph are usually pretty reliable: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html.

Now, granted, our rate of homicides is much lower (1.23 to the US's 4.8) but I would suggest that has more to do with long-standing cultural factors than it does to do with the (relatively recent) ban on handguns.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. I wonder if the definitions of 'violent crime' are the same, though

UK definition:

Police recorded violence against the person

Violence against the person offences contain the full spectrum of assaults, from pushing and
shoving that result in no physical harm, to murder. Even within the same offence
classification, the severity of violence varies considerably between incidents.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/user-guide-crime-statistics/user-guide-crime-statistics?view=Binary

USA definition:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/aggravatedassaultmain

It seems, to me, that "pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm" would be included in the UK statistics, but not the American ones.

[Prophet 451]

101. Fair point

And you might be right. Here though, it's unlikely that pushing and shoving would even be reported to the police (and hence, included in the stats) in the first place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. Indeed; in the UK, you'd get a better idea of prevelance with the British Crime Survey

but you'd really need to do the same survey in both countries to measure them against each other.

For a crime that is more likely to be reported (or as likely in either country, anyway), and defined roughly the same in both countries, and which could be argued on both sides - that availability of firearms either helps the criminal or the victim - you have robbery. Stats for that for 2010 seem to be :

USA: 367,832
England and Wales: 76,189 (Apr 10-Mar 11)

England and Wales population in the 2011 census (the end of that period) was 56.1 million; US 310.5 million at the end of that period. So:

E&W: 135.8 robberies/100,000 pop
USA: 118.5 robberies/100,000 pop

So there's no clear argument that absence of guns cuts the robbery rate; perhaps the presence of guns does cut it, but the figures are close enough that you have to look for other possible factors too, eg the incarceration rate.

However, the homicide rates do remain significantly different, and the use of guns in homicides really does point, I think, to it being far more difficult for criminals to get hold of guns in the UK, such that the holding of guns by the lawful US population doesn't make up for it.

[arthritisR_US]

197. I remember a shouting match between 2 chaps

that resulted in both being charged with different violent crimes, different charges because one started it and the other continued it. No blows or physical contact just over active jaws yet each was charged with violent crimes and it was all over the village paper. The vicar was the one to get the bobby out of the pub to stop their shouting.

[Mimosa]

169. ^ Agree ^

I've 3 or more friends who live in Britain. Two are ex-pats. They confirm exactly what you've said, Profit 451.

The factors behind the increase in violent crimes in the UK are similar in origin to ours here including declining opportunities for rewarding employment.

[tclambert]

96. What I've heard is Canada has essentially the same gun laws as the US, and much, much less violence

per capita. Toronto's homicide rate is about 3.3 per 100,000, Chicago around 16. Cities are almost exactly the same population. Canada's overall murder rate (from Wikipedia) is around 1.62 per 100,000. The US is at about 4.8. The UK is lower, about 1.23, significantly lower than the US, but not that much different from Canada.

The Canada-US difference intrigues me. I don't know why we shoot each other so much. Canada doesn't seem that different culturally. But there must be some explanation.

Also from the statistics on Wikipedia, the US doesn't look so violent compared to countries south of us. Mexico and Central and South America are extremely violent.

I'm not sure gun laws correlate very well.

[mwooldri]

156. I think a lot of this is cultural.

My opinion from my experiences of Canada is that it is a far more laid back country than the USA. They look out for others a bit more but still allow people to have their freedoms.

[Posteritatis]

204. Our basic legal infrastructure's a lot more recent, too

The Charter's from 1982; it's written in pretty straightforward contemporary English, and doesn't have have the extra couple centuries of myths and prestige wrapped around it. It's a lot more straightforward what rights people have and what ones they don't as a result, and the arguments over the details are usually more finely-grained or less, well, silly.

The main arguing over such things here tends not to be people holding differing opinions over a particular right as much as conservatives explicitly upset at its existence versus everyone else.

[DanTex]

160. Canada's gun laws are very different from the US.

In Canada, it is difficult to acquire a handgun, and even if you get one, you can only shoot it at a range, you have to keep it locked, you can't transport it loaded, it must be registered, etc. Most of the NRA crowd in the US would consider Canada's gun laws to be "fascist" or "draconian". In the US, in a lot of states, you can go to a gun show and buy as many handguns as you want without even passing a background check. Night and day.

Canada has a much lower murder rate than the US, and gun laws are part of the reason why. In fact, a lot of the guns used in crimes in Canada actually come from the US, because it's often easier to buy a handgun in the US a smuggle it into Canada than it is to buy a handgun in Canada.

[Zoeisright]

196. No, Canada does not have the same gun laws as the U.S.

Do some research.

[Brewinblue]

97. No one needs a gun.

End of discussion.

[Honeycombe8]

106. Every woman living alone needs a gun.

She is a target of criminals. The US is filled with criminals, most of whom target women at one time or another. The US is filled with murderers, rapists, serial killers, home invaders.

If a man breaks into a woman's home, she is at a big disadvantage because she is female. Her arms are shorter, so he can reach her and stab her or strangle her, and she wouldn't be able to even reach his body. Men are stronger because they have more muscle. If a woman is going to protect herself against an intruder, who has the element of surprise on his side, she needs a weapon to even the fight. And it is a fight. A woman in hand to hand combat with a male criminal is almost sure to lose. If she has a gun, she at least has a chance.

I have used a gun to stop an intruder from breaking in. I have a bigger gun, now. I may get a shotgun, too. The reason for a shotgun is....you may not have to use it. Every criminal knows what a shotgun sounds like when it's cocked, and they know what that can do to a body. You don't even have to aim that well. More than likely, he'll run like hell when he hears that.

Anyone breaking into my house, you're taking a big chance. Maybe I won't make it out alive. But as long as I have breath in my body, you won't, either.

[lindysalsagal]

133. How am I expected to find a gun and load it and aim it if an assailant is already inside my house?

And, what about if the gun is grabbed an used against me? I feel like a gun would arm an assailant, not me. I couldn't sleep at night with a gun in my house. I have an alarm and can call the police. Leave it to them. If you really think you're living ins a dangerous place, move, or hire professional guards and up your security system.

[Honeycombe8]

140. My gun is loaded and is an easy to grab place. Yes, he could grab it and use it against you, but

you do realize he came with all the equipment he needs to get what he wants? He's already armed and doesn't need your weapon. He doesn't need any weapon at all, in order to kill you. That's the point. YOU need a weapon for defense. HE doesn't need anything to pepetrate his crime. But most criminals come in with their tools of their trade. He has a plan, after all. That's what he's doing there.

There's no way the police can get to you in time to protect you. But they can find your body and call your relatives.

I was raised around guns. I respect them. They have protected me in the past, and I will use them to protect myself in the future, if need be. I'm not particularly brave. I don't live in any more a dangerous place than anyone else who lives in a big city. But if you watch the news and true crime stories or follow statistics...women die every day, killed by men. I hope I never need my gun again, but if I do, I have it. I'm not going to sit here like a duck and let someone come in and torture me or kill me, without putting up a fight. And I need a weapon to have a chance in a fight with a male criminal. If he takes it from me...meh...he didn't need that gun to kill me, in the first place. But I'm at least going to try.

I called the police when I had an intruder years ago. I scared him off with my gun. The police got there 20 minutes later and took a report. If I hadn't had a gun, they may have found my dead body, instead. The intruder had a crowbar. They come prepared for combat.

[Patiod]

173. I'm for regulation, but understand the need for guns

One of the things that frustrates me in this argument is the Black-and-White thinking going on with either side.

I've talked to people in rural Arizona, and told them that I were living in the middle of nowhere, I would want to be armed, too.

But then I asked them to understand that I live near a huge city, and that easily available guns there have led to utter mayhem. People have shot each other over parking spaces they dug out of the snow. Little junior high girls have SHOT each other over boys. Gangbangers have careened through the business district, shooting at each other. Countless innocent children have been killed by as gangs attempt to completely obliterate each other (often with guns purchased in Virginia, where gun laws are even more lax).

You pile people on top of one another, and maybe you need different gun regulations there then you do when you're out in the middle of the countryside. But people in cities want to take guns from people who live miles from their neighbors, while people who live 30 miles from Tucson think everyone should be able to buy guns out of a machine in the 7-11 and high school kids should be able to carry at school.

honeycombe, I've been in your shoes in terms of having an intruder (who came in through a window, and I barely escaped through the front door and hid out across the hall with a neighbor) After which, my dad took me to the shooting range, and then offered me his handgun. Because I could envision a large number of situations where the gun would be more of a problem than a solution, I declined. But in another situation, (maybe where I had no neighbors to flee to), I may have accepted, so I completely get your motivation.

[Honeycombe8]

206. Thanks for understanding my position. Which is that a gun is just one of many tools.

I'm not afraid of guns. I was raised around them, so I'm somewhat familiar with them. I knew a lot of people with guns, none of whom ever committed a crime, much less shot a person. So I view guns as a tool, like a knife, a circular saw, a hammer, etc.

It's just one of many tools that women can use to protect themselves. Fleeing is a good way to go, if you can. Calling 911, definitely. Kicking and screaming, if you are caught...absolutely. Hiding, if you have a place to hide, is good (in teh movies, they always get found, though). But having a loaded pistol at the ready, in case you can grab it before he gets close, that is also an option.

When my brother evacuated for hurricane Rita, it was good he had guns with him. A lot of criminals were on the loose, looking for people evacuating, knowing they'd have possessions and cash on them.

When I pulled a gun on an intruder, there was no back door to my apartment. No way to flee. That's why I pulled the gun out.

I have had several incidents, actually. So maybe I view things a little differently than others who have never had to grapple with that issue.

[Mimosa]

171. Any place can become dangerous

In my 'nice' neighborhood women have been followed home from the grocery store and robbed. That's a not uncommon tactic. There have been incidents where the women were 'just' robbed. Police don't patrol anywhere near as often as they used to when I was younger.

I cannot afford an 'alarm system'. That's about 100 dollars a month, right?

Lindy, nobody is saying everybody needs to be armed. You have a choice not to be.

In real life, people who own weapons for self defense have learned how to use them. There is NO CHANCE an intruder into my home could grab a gun from me. I am trained, get in range time at least twice annually, so my instinct would be to be certain I aim at an intruder and to unhesitatingly aim center mass.

Honeycombe, I'm sure we've both read the reports that when bad guys rob women who live alone they sometimes (these days) throw in 'bonus crimes' even if the women happen to be older. Personally, I do what I can to raise my odds that I won't be a victim. I don't open my doors without knowing who's there. I have security doors too.

But at night I sleep better knowing I've a gun within my reach.

[Honeycombe8]

207. What you say is true, Mimosa. A gun is just one of many things to use.

I refuse to live in a paranoid state, but I try to be careful, watchful. I've been followed into parking lots several times. Several attempts made to get into my residence. Not dangerous areas, either, although two of those incidents were in maybe questionable areas. I've been approached by weird men while waiting for a bus. So I try to be careful.

I don't open the door at night to strangers, I keep my doors locked at almost all times, incl. the day, outside lights, take my cell phone to the bedroom, and other things. A gun is just another thing. I've only been practice shooting a few times, but I was, to my surprise, pretty good at it. I guess learning to play tennis, playing foosball a lot, softball, and other games prepared me for it. Of course, that's not shooting at someone while you're in a panic. But the deal is, I am fairly comfortable around guns, and I learned how to shoot and load them. I don't carry one, take it places, or anything. (Although I used to take it when traveling long distances in my car, but I don't travel in my car long distances anymore. I can pay to fly now.)

[clffrdjk]

151. Besides the fact that you are flat wrong

What other constitutionally protected rights must a person show a need to claim?

But if you really just want to end the discussion there fine come and take them.

[permatex]

175. So how will you disarm the American population?

are you going to go door to door and help with confiscation?

[sibelian]

241. By starting.

Rome wan't built in a day.

[The Doctor.]

98. This really is a comparison of apples and orangutans....

There are so many reasons why what works for the UK could never work here. Right off the top of my head: Entirely different culture, civilized under the gun as opposed to the sword or bow (You have family swords, we have family guns), Americans are constantly thinking in terms of 'advantage' (that's part of the 'cultural' thing), and then there's the simple, sad fact of widespread proliferation.

Nothing can be done to turn the US into the UK, no matter how 'holier than thou' the UK pretends to be, it simply doesn't have the history and culture of the US.

[Honeycombe8]

111. The US also has more of a criminal problem than the UK. Lots of murders, serial killers, home

home invaders, rapists. The UK has its share, too, for various reasons, the US takes the cake.

Women are frequent targets of criminals. Watch those true crime stories on TV (I Survived, 48 Hours, Forensics, Nightmare Next Door, etc.), and you'll see time and time how women are abducted, tortured, strangled, buried, dumped, raped, stabbed, shot...anywhere, any time. From parking lots, in their houses or apartments, from schools, walking down the street at night, walking down the street in broad daylight.

Women are at a disadvantage to criminal men, when it comes to protecting themselves. A weapon evens the fight. And it is a fight, when a criminal decides to attack you. Men have more muscle, and are therefore stronger, they have the element of surprise, and their arms are longer, plus they're criminals with a plan at hand.

A gun may not make the fight end up differently, but at least it gives her a chance. A woman in hand to hand combat with a male criminal is almost surely gonna lose. Which is why women are killed daily.

If a woman is able to pull a gun out of her purse and say, "Say hello to my little friend," she has a chance of getting out of the situation alive. Without it, statistics show that she will likely die.

I have a gun. I can shoot it. I have used it before to prevent an intruder from breaking in. I will probably be getting a shotgun (the sound of a shotgun being cocked sets fear into the hearts of criminals, so that they are likely to run instead of confront). But a handgun is best when you're too late to get the shotgun out, and you're seconds away from hand to hand combat. Shoot at the chest, the largest target area. The goal is to stop him in his tracks, before he can get close enough to reach you with his (longer) arms.

[alcibiades_mystery]

172. +1

The discussion itself is symptomatic of the root problems, which are deeply ideological.

[Brewinblue]

100. Ever notice

how one or two gun freaks (yes you are freaks) will post over and over again to make it seem as though their point of view here isn't the same as the worst tea-partier's.

[The Doctor.]

129. That's nonsense.

As well as deliberate and blatant flame-bait.

[NCTraveler]

139. You have gained lots of knowledge in 11 days.

I am sure you have been reading for a long time.

[Honeycombe8]

104. The U.S. is different from the UK.

First, we have more crime. There are a lot of reasons for this. But whatever the reasons, that is the case.

Second, once you accept that some bad people might just kick in your door one day to rob and rape and kill you, then you start to thinking about how to protect yourself. Even if the bad guys don't have guns, you are at a decided disadvantage.

Third, if a man were to try to attack you, or break into your home, it's a pretty good assumption that he means you harm. Even if he doesn't, you have the right to protect your property. But if he does mean you harm, and you are female, you are at a big disadvantage just from the fact you are female and he is male. Even a skinny short guy has a physical advantage over a female. He has more muscle than you, because of his biology, and his arms are longer, which means even if he doesn't have a gun, he can reach out and stab you or strangle you, and you wouldn't even be able to reach his body to protect yourself.

So if you are a female, a gun evens the fight. And it is a fight.

In America, the cities are jungles, and there are a lot of bad guys out to rob you, rape you, kill you, torture you. We have had quite a few serial killers here, who kill for fun and no other reason. We have home invasions. We have millions of illegal immigrants, who have not been screened for criminal background. The UK has had serial killers, I believe, and does have crime, but not to the extent that the U.S. does.

I have pulled my gun on an intruder and stopped him from breaking through the door. So, I have a gun. The police can't get here in time to protect me. It's up to me, alone. A woman who has been and will be targeted for crime because I am a woman living alone.

That is the way it is.

[Lars77]

108. Guns are a deeply embedded part of American culture, in Europe they are not.

As a Scandinavian i come from a totally different kind of society.

But I've had this discussion with someone in Kentucky. Basically her argument was "what do you do if someone breaks into your house?".

I said that i will probably get out of my house and call the police. But even if i confront the burglar he probably won't have a gun. Might have a knife and that's dangerous enough but it still doesn't warrant me arming myself in my opinion.

Then she said "What if he takes all your stuff before the police gets there"?

In Scandinavia that might happen, as there are plenty of small communities far away from police stations. I did not want to be condescending to her, but basically we have invented insurance so that you do not have to put yourself in harms way to protect your things. It really is that simple.

American gun culture comes from the time of the frontier, where people lived in territories where the federal government had no power yet, and where the sheriff might be far away or not exist at all. Settlers had to protect themselves against bandits, native Americans and wild animals, as they lived in a territory where the government did not have monopoly of violence (Max Weber).

In Europe there has never been a frontier, and so Europeans have never had the need to arm themselves. I know some people in the US argue that perhaps Hitler would not have come to power etc if Europeans had guns, but this is a false argument, because the original purpose of arms in the US was not to protect themselves against their own government. It was to form militias to protect themselves against invaders (until the Fed. Government decided to raise a permanent army), and to protect themselves on the frontier.

In all European countries, criminals can buy guns and get guns. Some of them do, some few of them actually use them. But it seems to me that in order to use a gun against another person in Europe, you need to cross over boundary that is simply not there in the US, because there you can assume that the other person is armed as well.

[HereSince1628]

120. I suspect current American interest in guns for self-defense has less to do with the "frontier"

and actually lot more to do with urban crime. And I suspect that has very much to do with the complicated interplay of perceptions of individualism, crime and the sense of personal self-empowerment provided by a firearm.

Europe and Scandinavia may not have had a frontier in a very long time, but frontiers may not really be the point. Although I do agree that "The Frontier" is a popular feature of literary attempts to explain America.

Consider for example that Europe certainly had one hundred years of Viking raiders who pillaged the defenseless not on frontiers but at refuges of civilization. Well, at least that's the story we get handed to us from the victims...

It doesn't take a frontier to make a landscape lawless and violent. It just takes people willing to act in lawless or violent fashion.

[Lars77]

187. Well we are about 800 years apart on that point

Vikings were raiding hundreds of years before guns existed.

But if its true that gun ownership is about fear of urban crime, why is gun ownership much more prevalent in the rural areas? I am assuming it is anyway?

If you ask some scholars, the frontier is an explanation for everything I think this time it is part of the puzzle though!

[obamanut2012]

188. I would say two reasons

Being a rural gun owner:

1. dangerous wild animals, and

2. living someplace where it might take 20-30 minutes for law enforcement to show up.

And, for me:

3. protection while trailrunning and hiking.



People who own livestock have an even more vested reason to own firearms.

[loli phabay]

211. bingo i am 40 minutes at least from the deputies arriving unless i get luckey

and in the winter you can forget about it, for the same reason i have fire extinguishers in the house as i know the volunteers are not gonna get here quick enough i have guns, whether thats to kill varmints who eat our garden, squirrels in the forest for dinner, or deer in our meadow, not to mention the more dangerous animals around and hopefully it never happens someone who decides to come into our house for nefarious reasons.

[HereSince1628]

212. I'm confident most of America's guns are where most of America's people are-urban and suburban areas

I don't doubt that there are many reasons for carrying a gun and that the reasons in rural areas may overlap but also be different than the reasons in an urban or suburban area.

America is a big place and people do live in places where there are animals that could be dangerous to people, livestock and/or pets. The most common (in distribution and in numbers) dangerous animal in the US is the coyote (only polar bears and rattlesnakes are considered more dangerous, bobcats and alligators come in 4th and 5th).

My understanding how dangerous coyotes are can partly be gained by realizing that about 220K sheep are killed every year by coyotes, while in 30 years there were 160 attacks (a fraction more than 5 attacks per year, fatal attacks occur less than once per year) by coyotes on people. Most of the attacks on people were in the greater Los Angeles area By contrast about 29K people are killed every year in the US by people with guns, and something around 700 people are killed in homicides each year by guns in Los Angeles county.

Simply put, in the US, and Los Angeles county, a person is much more likely to be killed by a person with a gun than by a coyote (our most widespread dangerous animal). The implication is obviously that people with guns are somewhat more dangerous to other US citizens than are coyotes (which doesn't mean coyotes aren't potentially dangerous or that every person with a gun is particularly dangerous).

Each person assesses their own risk. In the US, the resolution of that risk could be to legally own and carry a gun.

I've lived in rural areas of Wisconsin and Minnesota most of my adult life and I've done that without keeping a firearm for self-defense.

I could be bad at assessing my risk, but I'm comfortable with it.

[obamanut2012]

265. I have been stalked by coyotes and feral boars

I really don't care about the stats on LA, and doubt there are too many sheep farmers there, nor too many feral boars attacking hikers. I also have a right to have some protection from being raped and murdered if I want to go for a run in the woods.

Ridiculous.

[polichick]

113. Americans are completely irrational about their precious guns...

Your rational argument won't make sense to them. Very sad situation.

[lindysalsagal]

134. Agreed. n/t

[marmar]

146. D'accord.

[yellerpup]

115. Thank you for pointing this out.

Proof means nothing, however, to those who are so full of fear (and thus attract danger) that they are willing to accept mass murder as collateral damage. I wish they would just grow a dick and hold onto that for comfort.

[malaise]

126. Follow the money

Folks are becoming filthy rich of these weapons of mass destruction - it has nothing to do with rights or safety.

[Surya Gayatri]

132. +1,000 !

[lindysalsagal]

135. The dirty little secret they don't want to discuss....

The gun industry.

[redqueen]

166. +1

[Marrah_G]

137. In some areas of the country guns are necessary

I think the regulations need to be tightened in much of the country, but a ban would never work.

[MadHound]

138. And if you're a farmer,

With a coyote or mountain lion attacking your livestock in the middle of the night, what do the British do?

Oh, yeah, the British don't have that problem now, do they.

There is a place for guns in this country.

[Marrah_G]

142. Or living in very rural areas with bears and mountain lions etc

[Egalitarian Thug]

143. If the UK ever had 60 M guns, how would you propose to get rid of them?

The two big factors here are that we have always had them and we manufacture more than anybody else in the world.

We've got about 300 M of them here already, and that's just the legal ones.

[sibelian]

231. By beginning.

Start with one kind of firearm.

[beevul]

244. How well do you think that would work?

Do you think that the owners of all the other types of guns you weren't going after during this effort would take the attitude that "they're not coming after nine", and do nothing...


Or...


Do you think that would rile the entire lot of them?


Living here all my life, as I have, I know the answer to that question.

[Egalitarian Thug]

270. Maybe I'm just being thick, but that doesn't strike me as an answer.

You're in a better position in the UK for this kind of action. You've never had the right to arm yourselves, you have already submitted to 24/7 surveillance, and your justice system is even more one-sided than ours. You've never had to try to eliminate anything on that kind of scale, and finally, even in the UK your professional criminal class has no problem at all getting a gun if they want one and your second line and above of police forces have already been thoroughly militarized.

There is no doubt that GB is a somewhat more civilized nation than here (DU), but the roots of your relatively gun-free nation grow from the archaic notion that you are property of the Monarchy that God saw fit to rule over you and therefore your rights are especially. I know it's no longer like that, but the basis remains the foundation upon which all the rest is built. Brits are not innocent until proven guilty, quite the opposite. Your judicial is at least as, if not more, corrupt than ours.

[DustyJoe]

147. Heavy Sigh

Would it make everyone happier
If
He had kicked in the door, walked the aisle with a 5 gal gas can pouring it and lit it ?
Death toll in a crowded box like a theatre with probably 3 exits would probably been about the same.
.
The killer is a nutjob.

[thucythucy]

149. Thank you for an articulate and intelligent post,

as well as for your replies to the various comments in the resulting thread.

Contrary to the folks here who argue that people on DU "don't need and don't want" opinions from outside the borders of the USA, I think one of the great advantages of life on-line is I get to hear and see precisely those sort of opinions. This is one of the reasons I come to DU in the first place.

So please, keep up the good work!

[ohgeewhiz]

150. Add me to that list !

I come here not to read the 4 or 5 tired old arguments we read every day about freedom to own any kind of gun.

[sibelian]

237. Many thanks for your polite response!

This one's turned into a real mess...

[Bluenorthwest]

152. And yet the UK has had many, many dozens of bomb attacks. Way more than here.

Dozens and dozens. Why is that? Do you claim that criminals doing bombings are somehow superior to criminals shooting guns? In what way? I say the use of weapons by criminals is the use of weapons by criminals. The choice of weapons does not really sway my view of a violent action.

[obamanut2012]

155. That actually is a good point

OKC and McVeigh taught us in the US what mass murderers bombs can do.

[Sea-Dog]

190. Criminals aren't doing bombings

Althou

terrorists are criminals
criminals arent terrorists

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. Facts mitigating against seriously remedying America's gun problem.

There are literally more guns than people in circulation in the United States and we have a Constitution that permits them. Whether the Constitution permits them to the extent their proponents believe they do is another question.

[obamanut2012]

154. What happens if a rabid raccoon comes into your yard?

Or a feral pig attacks you while you're trailrunning or hiking? Pepper spray won't work. Wait, I just Googled and pepper spray is illegal in the UK, so forget the pepper spray part.

How do people in Britain protect their livestock from coyotes and wolves?

I don't hunt, but I know they are lots of canned hunts in Britain (I'm a Royals watcher), so how do those folks get the guns? Are regular folks allowed to hunt, or just Royalty and the aristocracy, and really rich people like Richard Branson?

[Spider Jerusalem]

226. There are no raccoons in Britain, or feral pigs, or wolves, or coyotes

you're talking about an island the size of Minnesota that's mostly heavily urbanised. Wolves and wild boar and bears have been extinct in Britain since the 16th century or so. The worst you might have is a badger or a feral domestic dog. Farmers will probably have shotguns; obtaining a shotgun certificate is relatively easy, especially if one lives in a rural area, after passing a background check and being visited by the police to ensure that you have proper arrangements for secure locked storage of the gun and shells.

[obamanut2012]

266. Thank you for proving my point!

Exactly.

And, thanks for the shotgun info. I wonder if the OP knows about the shotgun info. Thanks!

There are no raccoons in Britain, or feral pigs, or wolves, or coyotes

View profile
you're talking about an island the size of Minnesota that's mostly heavily urbanised. Wolves and wild boar and bears have been extinct in Britain since the 16th century or so. The worst you might have is a badger or a feral domestic dog. Farmers will probably have shotguns; obtaining a shotgun certificate is relatively easy, especially if one lives in a rural area, after passing a background check and being visited by the police to ensure that you have proper arrangements for secure locked storage of the gun and shells.

[DanTex]

165. Excellent post.

It's not just the UK. It's every other wealthy nation except for the US. No other first-world nation has the gun violence problem that the US has. And this is because nowhere else are the gun laws written by the right-wing gun lobby.

[Iggy]

168. LUCKY You; Here in the U.S.

we just hafta be armed to the teeth and ready to shoot it out with al Qaeda, druggies (prescription and/or illegal), street people, sundry criminals, etc. (NRA "philosophy&quot .

we have 270 Millions guns. but NRA says we need _more_.

weak.

[obamanut2012]

178. Pepper spray and many legitimate martial arts weapons are also illegal in the UK

ie katana, which are used for legitimate purposes. I can semi understand the katana, but not the pepper spray.

I am sure it's possible some states outlaw pepper spray, but I don't see the reasoning for it, to be honest. It is an excellent, inexpensive, easy to use, non-lethal self defense weapon, especially for women.

[sibelian]

240. Some of the bans on non-lethal devices are possilby slightly authoritarian, I agree

The greatest difficulty, if we're honest, is having a culture in which people feel they can trust each other and rely on their fellow human beings to treat one another with kindness and respect.

The UK used to be known as the home of politeness, civilisation, taking care of one another, simply allowing each other to be without interfering or being rude, making way, holding doors open for people, etc. This culture is being dissolved by consumerism. It's very sad because that culture is the glue holds society together, it's not laws.

In the UK law used to be what happened at the end of a process, law was where you went when ordinary human relations had collapsed to the point where external agenices had to be involved to solve the problem. Now law seems to be a way of controlling society. The ordinary human relations are disappearing.

This all adds up. It makes it easier to take from people, to oppose them, to thwart them, and eventually to start stealing and from stealing eventually comes killing.

I see more recent bannings in the UK of the non-lethal weapons you describe, as an extension of our fear of the loss of our character, the end of the sweet nation of cuddly, lumpy, uncomplicated, slightly silly people who spent most of their lives just being nice to everyone, or at least trying their best to be nice. We're getting harder, and we don't like it.

[Dash87]

183. They've been successful in protecting people from defending themselves

If that makes any sense.

Guns: Illegal

Pepper Spray: Illegal

Tasers, even at home: Illegal


How is pepper spray an "offensive weapon," like the UK says it is? That makes no sense. Sure, it can be turned into one, but its purpose is defensive. Any way you look at it, the UK's policy on self-defense is backwards.

[obamanut2012]

186. I don't get the pepper spray thing at all

It's non-lethal, and is DEFENSIVE. The only people here I have ever seen use it as an offensive weapon are cops against Occupy and student protestors.

[flamingdem]

184. THANK YOU for this logic

I've been writing over and over that the average gun deaths per year in the USA = 10,000 and England 45!

We know why and it has to change.

[tawadi]

200. Have you been watching your own news?

People in the UK are furious over the stationed machine guns on civillians' homes & the billions spent on security for the 2012 Summer Olypmpics in London. Sounds like debates to me.

[sibelian]

242. Well, that's certainly an interesting point.

Thank you for making it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

201. Great Britain does not have a second amendment

the gun culture is for sports or organized crime, drugs etc. Not something that you can buy at the store. I was horrified when I came first came to the USA.

[AntiFascist]

205. There's also an incredible level of paranoia in the US...

much of which probably relates back to the Civil War period. Look at how much of this paranoia got stirred up when we elected a black president.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. there's no real debate here in this country, either.

I stay out of these arguments, generally, because I know well enough that at the end of the day, it's pointless.

Meaningful gun control legislation in the US at a Federal Level, is not going to happen. Ever. Every time we have one of these tragedies, the exact same 2 things happen: a flurry of argument, proposals for additional regulation in some form by one side, followed by a mass freak-the-fuck out by the other. That's one thing.

What's the other thing that invariably happens, after that? That's right, nothing.

Nothing happens.

Gun Control at a Federal level is a loser political issue in this country, for a lot of reasons. Are they good reasons, are they bad reasons, it doesn't really matter--- because the facts on the ground aren't going anywhere.

And I say this as someone who is, personally, anti-gun.

[loli phabay]

235. i am kinda done with these arguments as well, its not going to change any minds and just seems like

gangups on people. back to the mens forum and whether sasquatch is a boy or girl i think.

[Warren DeMontague]

236. Now THAT is an important argument.

Bigfoot Lingam or Yeti Yoni? Film at 11.

[obamanut2012]

268. Male

[rudycantfail]

238. What happened in Aurora has been described as horrific and savage

and it was. I wonder how much worse would it have to be before the Democratic Party leadership decided to take on the NRA and the far right's (and America's because it remains unchallenged) warped perspective?

[BOG PERSON]

254. you know what else doesn't exist in the UK?

a constitution!

[Arugula Latte]

267. The USA and Americans are fucking crazy and violent.

There are millions of gun humpers in this country, and many are on DU. Guns flow like water around here.

No civilized society would allow these conditions, yet the conclusion this deluded nation of morons always draws is "We need MORE guns!"

Frankly, I don't have any hope left for this country.