lol @ British law enforcement

[Feck]

But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?

Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough

[Wumbologist]

But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?

Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough

I disagree with you!

[Feck]

But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?

Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough

I disagree with you!

OK should we have a duel ?

[Wumbologist]

OK should we have a duel ?

Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?

[Pappa]

OK should we have a duel ?

Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?

*snork*

[Feck]

OK should we have a duel ?

Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?

Pistol Why? I thought swords

[Wumbologist]

OK should we have a duel ?

Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?

Pistol Why? I thought swords

[Feck]

[Wumbologist]

[Seth]

US states range from a low of 0.8 per hundred thousand (New Hampshire) and 1.1 (Hawaii and Vermont) to 8.7 (New Mexico). For obvious reasons, New Mexico, bordering on Mexico....has its murder rate jacked way the fuck up for reasons not related to American culture.

The drug trade is "not related to American culture"? Granted it's not related to gun regulation.

I meant that the reason New Mexico's rate is high is because of its proximity to Mexico, which has a murder rate of like 22 per hundred thousand.

With guns bought in Texas

Which the federal BATFE knew about but allowed to be illegally exported to Mexico anyway as a part of "Operation Gunrunner," at least two of which showed back up in the U.S. at the scene of the murder of a Border Patrol agent, all thanks to Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama.

[Seth]

There was a UK case recently where a young game keeper fucked up really badly and a Negligent Discharge killed his GF He phone the police told them what had happened went outside and killed himself .

I like guns (long ones ,not little sneaky people killers ) I think the UK has gone way too far in their restriction of them . I think the US has too few restrictions I never want to live in a place that normal citizens feel that carrying a hand gun is required for everyday safety .

I wouldn't want to live in a place where the government makes the decision whether or not the individual gets to carry a handgun because that's the government making a statistic out of every individual, each of whom have a right to make that decision for themselves.

Thing is, when "normal citizens" carry guns, criminals are much less likely to predate on anyone precisely BECAUSE normal citizens can carry guns. Therefore, (and the evidence is conclusive), more guns equals less crime. And since the simple act of carrying a concealed weapon lawfully and peaceably harms no one, and alarms no one (that's why it's called "concealed carry," there is no reason why any government should forbid citizens from doing what THEY feel is reasonable and necessary to secure their personal safety. Fact is that generally about 5 percent of people actually do carry regularly in places where it's legal, and that five percent provides a substantial amount of deterrent protection to the other 95 percent.

One thing in favour of UK laws is that minor criminals don't get killed for stealing a car or for burglary ... It may seem that the householder has a right to protect property BUT honestly is your TV , stereo or car worth as much as a teenagers life ?

No, but my and my family's personal safety and security in our own homes is absolutely worth a criminal's life if they unlawfully enter my home to commit a crime therein and I think that they are going to use any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

It's against the law to shoot a teenager for stealing your TV or car. It's perfectly lawful to shoot them if they violently invade your home in an attempt to do so, or use a weapon to carjack you at a stop light.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, it's NOT ABOUT PROPERTY, it's all about personal safety and the right to be free from violent criminal threat, and the right to respond with reasonable and appropriate physical force when physically attacked by someone. That the person is trying to steal your wallet or watch has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it. It's the presentation of a potentially deadly or harmful threat that justifies lethal self-defense.

[Seth]

No matter what is said there is a comparison between the murder (and death )rate and the availability of guns . Should any citizen want or need a weapon solely designed to kill people ?

Obviously yes, if you're carrying it for the purposes of armed self defense. Carrying a weapon not designed to kill people is far less effective and efficient.

Is there a legitimate use for a full auto to be kept at home or in the car ?

Red herring. You don't even know what "full auto" means, nor do you understand how true "full auto" machine guns are regulated in the U.S. (and yes, it's legal to own one)

i've said in many threads that UK gun laws are insane ,mostly made by politicians in response to incidents where a perp was breaking the laws we did have anyway . BUT British people don't actually ever consider that a crim is likely to be carrying a gun .

So what? They can kill you just as dead with a knife, or a cricket bat, or a rock, or a lamp, or a piece of cord. What the criminal is carrying by way of a weapon is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to me. If he poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm with his FISTS (like threatening to punch a small child), I'm going to shoot him dead, and be perfectly justified in doing so. The whole point of concealed carry laws is to give the law-abiding citizen at least equal, and preferably superior firepower to what the thug is carrying, so as to better protect the citizen and perhaps induce the criminal to run away merely by presenting superior force, which happens to be the case in something like 60 percent of the cases in the U.S. where firearms are used defensively, but not discharged at the criminal.

Can none of the Americans see that this is a better way to live ?

The "better way to live" is for government to piss off when it comes to how law-abiding citizens choose to arm themselves against the potential for violent criminal attack and stick to regulating the circumstances under which deadly physical force may be used in defense of person or premises. That way everybody makes their own choices and lives with the consequences thereof.

[Seth]

I've caught burglars in my home , I wanted to hit them with a stick ,I never picked up a serious blade , I definitely did not feel the need to apply lethal force ,One of the reasons was that It never occurred to me that they would be armed with much more than a knife (not a problem ) . I didn't hurt them (maybe should have ) But there was no reason for anyone to lose their life , If it had happened in America I think it would have been much more likely someone would ......

Here's a note for you: Having and presenting a firearm to a home invader does not mean that you are required to discharge it and kill him. In the U.S., about 60 percent of the time, or more, the mere display of the firearm is enough to thwart the crime, drive off the invader or cause them to surrender immediately, at which point you hold them at gunpoint till the police arrive.

The choice of living or dying is entirely up to the home invading thug. If he surrenders, you don't get to shoot him. If he attacks, you do. Pretty simple really.

[Seth]

But, I do know it is worth the peace of mind, mental well-being, and privacy of my wife, and my child, and god damn right I'll fucking kill the sonofabitch that threatens them, and I don't think I ought to be burdened with the responsibility of determining what their "intention" is (whether to take a tv or rape my wife or kidnap my child). The worst intent on their part ought to be presumed, and the burden should be on them to prove otherwise, and if they don't and I take my "rounders" bat and shove it in their ear, then I ought to get a medal.

If you did that in the UK, you'd end up in prison without question.

That's a shame. I would think that someone breaking into your home at night while a man's wife and child were in the home (where they should be entitled to sleep through the night peacefully) ought to allow a man to defend himself and his loved ones. If that's a criminal offense in Britain, then I feel very sorry for the citizens of your country. It seems you are at the mercy of those who would invade your homes.

You're allowed to defend yourself using "reasonable force" (which may involve the death of the attacker). Killing someone on the assumption that they might intend to harm you is not regarded as reasonable at all.

What, you have to wait until the DO harm you before you can kill them? What a stupid policy. Here in the U.S. you must "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm" before you are permitted to use lethal force in self-defense in public. In Colorado, and many other states, the legal presumption of threat is significantly lowered inside one's home, where a criminal intruder the homeowner reasonably thinks is going to use "any degree of force, no matter how slight" risks being lawfully killed.

People are morally permitted to act on the circumstances set before them, as they occur, and they cannot be morally required to retreat or suffer physical harm before self defense is justified. If you are to preserve your life, you must be permitted to act based on your reasonable beliefs.

In that regard, knowing that someone armed with a knife can attack and kill me even if I shoot him if he's within 21 feet and is threatening me, it's my reasonable belief that anyone closer than that holding a knife in a threatening manner is a direct and imminent danger to my life, and I'm going to shoot him as quickly as possible, without inquiring as to his ultimate goal or intentions. I'm going to lawfully act on appearances to protect my life and the lives of others, and be justified in doing so.

If crooks with knives (or baseball bats) don't want to get shot, they shouldn't carry weapons. It's up to them whether they live or die in a confrontation with me. I've already made up my mind and trained quite carefully and comprehensively for what I will do if confronted by an armed attacker, and I will not hesitate to resort to my training at need.

And I have a perfect, unassailable fundamental and universal human right to do exactly that.

[Coito ergo sum]

But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?

Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough

I was talking about the murder rate (not limited to guns) in New Mexico, which isn't Mexico.

I didn't blame "gun crime" on Mexico. I stated that New Mexico's disproportionately high murder rate is in part due to its proximity to Mexico.

I did not say that you were in error. I've twice now been clear about that, but feel free to ignore it if you want. I said the guns sold from Texas that get used in crimes in Mexico have nothing to do with the murder rate in New Mexico. Your articles were about guns used in crimes in Mexico that were identified as having originated in the U.S. Can you not see the difference? Really?