Gun laws in the great state of NY

[Skinny Viking]

Its a big city man .... believe me, there are parts I won't go near

 

[John_C]

The last stat I read on crime rates PER CAPITA put the U.K. slightly ahead of the U.S. Now that was for all overall crime, so you're just as likely to get mugged, have your stuff stolen or vandalized in the U.K. Just not as likely to die from it.....

I was, of course, talking per capita. See the http://www.unodc.org/

If there was ever a good example of why having a *culture* (irrespective of legality) of not owning deadly weapons is good it's the above. We have just as much crime, we just don't kill each other over it. I suspect this has something to do with not having anywhere near as many people owning, let alone carrying the tools to do so.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

Imagining someone seeing this out of context is pretty much my favorite part of this thread

 

[AD Chaos]

 

[Jevil]

someone already posted a stat about it but basically, less than the amount of people that die by from being bludgeoned by baseball bats each year

Oh, fuck online dictionary... again.

 

[006]

Almost everything you wrote is not actually relevant to what i said. I said to imagine YOU are the one breaking in, not the other way round.

ORLY? Refresher of your replies and mine to those (what I quoted and replied to):

yes, having a gun is a great idea if your facing waves of people who's primary intent is to harm you

But not one person, or a couple? Are you kidding?

But when you're in your house at night and hear someone smash a window, you don't know whether you're being burgled or whether you're about to be raped with a hammer drill and strangled with your own intestines.
Either way, you'll get your gun and someone may end up shot, but chances are you've turned a non-lethal situation in to a lethal one.

The burglar also turned a non-lethal situation into a potentially lethal one by breaking into the home in the first place. Until I know if it's going to be lethal or not, I'd rather have the gun just in case. Not, "well let's just wait and see." Fuck that. Like I said before, it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Do you think I, or even most people, would just flat-out shoot someone immediately if they broke in? That isn't the only option, especially if you find out you're the only one with a gun. You can keep them there until the police arrive. You could just let them leave. Well, you could and then just hope they don't come back, or come back with a gun and/or more friends. You'd probably be surprised how many times people go with just detaining them until police arrive instead of shooting them. Imagine that. Just because you have a gun for home/whatever protection doesn't equate to you absolutely having to shoot them if they break in.

Is it worthwhile greatly increasing your risk of death in the vast majority of situations?

Ask the criminal that with "situations" meaning crime.

It's not my problem if someone breaks in that they could be walking into a lethal situation. They shouldn't break in in the first place. By doing so, they expose themselves to the possibility of that situation. What are you standing up for criminals? Feel bad for those that have been shot in someone's home and they didn't have a gun to defend themselves from the homeowner?

Apparently you are speaking a different language, the backwards one, where you say one thing and mean the complete opposite? What I wrote is completely relevant to what I quoted and responded to from you. Reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

Also, the UK has way less population, sorry to break it to you but "1/4" the crime rate isn't as big of a difference as you think when you factor that in. Crime rates have gone up there since the gun ban. Criminals in the UK get illegal guns too. Keep being naive though

 

[mva801]

I was, of course, talking per capita. See the http://www.unodc.org/

If there was ever a good example of why having a *culture* (irrespective of legality) of not owning deadly weapons it's the above. We have just as much crime, we just don't kill each other over it. I suspect this has something to do with not having anywhere near as many people owning, let alone carrying the tools to do so.

Right. That's kind of my point. The U.K.'s homicide rate has always been lower, and banning handguns has had no measurable impact on the murder rate. SOCIETAL and CULTURAL concerns have more to do with it.... So why ban handguns?

If you don't want one, don't buy one? Our right to own is ingrained in society and protected by our constitution.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

You'd need a gun to do that for any real length of time

I live in the wilderness, but I have power, therefor I just order my groceries online and have them delivered.

 

[mva801]

But what will you do when sasquatch's attack your house looking for your beef jerky? hmmmm? HMMMMMM?

 

[John_C]

ORLY? Refresher of your replies and mine to those (what I quoted and replied to):

Apparently you are speaking a different language, the backwards one, where you say one thing and mean the complete opposite? What I wrote is completely relevant to what I quoted and responded to from you. Reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

Also, the UK has way less population, sorry to break it to you but "1/4" the crime rate isn't as big of a difference as you think when you factor that in. Crime rates have gone up there since the gun ban. Criminals in the UK get illegal guns too. Keep being naive though

Sorry if it wasn't clear but I was specifically referring to your post http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/10340095-post188.html, not to literally everything you've posted in response to previous things i'd said.

My frustration was you latching on to some idea that I was fussed about you killing the intruder. I'm not. I'm fussed about the intruder killing you.

And, I'll say this again: The crime rate is per capita, i'm not a retard.

I do agree that the ban on handguns had little to no useful effect immediately, but it's worth considering that you wouldn't expect to see any significant change as gun crime is a small percentage of violent crime overall.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

But what will you do when sasquatch's attack your house looking for your beef jerky? hmmmm? HMMMMMM?

The Sasquatch around here is very friendly, he enjoys my marijuana brownies and he likes certain television shows like 2 and 1/2 men.

 

[StefTD]

The Sasquatch around here is very friendly, he enjoys my marijuana brownies and he likes certain television shows like 2 and 1/2 men.

sounds like me 5 years ago...

sorry for OT, to get back to topic-I still don't see why you "have" to own a gun but in the end I may
understand that the different view on government and so on is pretty different and I have no problem
with protecting your rights and so on, I just don't need a gun at all

 

[006]

Nobody said you "have" to own one. Totally missing the point. The increasing amount of gun regulation is trying to make it so you can't even get one if you want to. Which is wrong and in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[John_C]

direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

Obviously this is important for americans, but lets be honest it's pretty irrelevant for the wider debate. Just because it's written in the constitution doesn't make it right.

 

[Terminus]

I love how some of you guys keep throwing out numbers and statistics.

if 1/4th of the burglars wear spandex then 1/5th of them will be hungry for potatoes.

 

[colonel kurtz]

Just because it's written in the constitution doesn't make it right.

maybe so, but it's the entire basis on which our system of government is founded, therefore making it the standard to which all laws are held

 

[006]

I love how some of you guys keep throwing out numbers and statistics.

Using reputable sources that have gathered the posted information, most of them over the course of many years, all of which can be substantiated.

Obviously this is important for americans, but lets be honest it's pretty irrelevant for the wider debate. Just because it's written in the constitution doesn't make it right.

This:

maybe so, but it's the entire basis on which our system of government is founded, therefore making it the standard to which all laws are held

You also need to realize that not only are gun owners against all this regulation as well as the notion that the 2nd amendment isn't "right" or "necessary," there are also tons and tons of people that don't own, nor want, a gun who simply do not want the BoR messed with. If one amendment gets completely nixed, or damn near it with all the regulation, then what is next? Freedom of religion? Free speech? Trial by jury? If one wasn't good enough to keep around, no matter what it was, then really how important are the others?

 

[Terminus]

Using reputable sources that have gathered the posted information, most of them over the course of many years, all of which can be substantiated.

I know...just a joke man. And btw I'm in agreement with Team Gun Owner.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

do the pussy Euros not care about personal protection?
There shouldnt even be an argument.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

do the pussy Euros not care about personal protection?
There shouldnt even be an argument.

"Pussy Euros," please don't judge all Americans by this guy!