Self-Defense Within Your Home

[flying]

SWAB??? haha this is Thailand not csi on tv...

Sorry guess when you went to LOS you left your vocabulary at home?

Swab is a generic term known even to kids.

[IanForbes]

I've heard that you essentially can not protect yourself in self-defense during a robbery without incurring jail time yourself.

That is only in Canada. Canadians are not allowed to protect themselves. They are supposed to phone the police and wait 4 hours for them to arrive. I've got a few true stories to tell if anyone is interested. As I said before, only criminals are allowed handguns and self defense weapons. I don't have a clue what the Thai laws are and my experience with Thai police is they make the laws up as they go along.

[theblether]

The five iron is my second line of defense. Here is my first line, that's my 45 KG dog playing tug of war with me.

You would be better off setting your 45kg Thai wife on them.......when those Thai girls lose it wow.......scary!!!

[wana]

SWAB??? haha this is Thailand not csi on tv...

Sorry guess when you went to LOS you left your vocabulary at home?

Swab is a generic term known even to kids.

i think he means ,the thai police are too lazy to use swaps and such

i would guess if they found a dead burglar and 2 people said the wife shot him

the police would declare it a case closed,pat themselves on the back for a job well done

and go to play pool ,drink beer or get special massages

only if both persons denied shooting the burglar would they order forensics i would guess

[flying]

SWAB??? haha this is Thailand not csi on tv...

Sorry guess when you went to LOS you left your vocabulary at home?

Swab is a generic term known even to kids.

i think he means ,the thai police are too lazy to use swaps and such

Ah if so my apologies to Huayrat....

[IanForbes]

I come from a country (Canada) which has stringent gun laws. Only criminals and police are allowed to have handguns in Canada, and I'm as afraid of the police as I am of the criminals.

Ian, Ian.... Handguns in Canada fall under the Restricted classification not the Prohibited as long as the barrel lentgh is over 4", is semi auto and doesn't shoot .32 or .25 (the vast majority of handguns are).

There is the law, and then there is reality. Over the past 15 years I know of at least 4 occasions where the RCMP killed men who were supposedly already in lock up and only drunk and disorderly. There is the airport "incident" where 5 big cops held a mentally handicapped tourist down and tasored him to death. Then there is a case a single officer going onto a private citizens land and killing a father and son for setting off noise makers. I can go on, but you get the picture. I've lost all respect for the so called Canadian Justice System. It's there only to provide high paying jobs for lawyers and judges.

Getting a handgun legally in Canada is frigging near impossible and so time consuming that it's just not worth it. Even if you spend the time getting the license there is no way you are allowed to use it outside your home. You have to get a separate license to carry it to and from a gun range on specific dates. If you were caught doing a little plinking (shooting targets) out in the wilderness somewhere the gun will be confiscated and you will be charged.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, any criminal over the age of 10 can get handguns and automatic weapons through the black market from the US of A.

[connda]

I come from a country (Canada) which has stringent gun laws. Only criminals and police are allowed to have handguns in Canada, and I'm as afraid of the police as I am of the criminals.

Ian, Ian.... Handguns in Canada fall under the Restricted classification not the Prohibited as long as the barrel lentgh is over 4", is semi auto and doesn't shoot .32 or .25 (the vast majority of handguns are).

There is the law, and then there is reality. Over the past 15 years I know of at least 4 occasions where the RCMP killed men who were supposedly already in lock up and only drunk and disorderly. There is the airport "incident" where 5 big cops held a mentally handicapped tourist down and tasored him to death. Then there is a case a single officer going onto a private citizens land and killing a father and son for setting off noise makers. I can go on, but you get the picture. I've lost all respect for the so called Canadian Justice System. It's there only to provide high paying jobs for lawyers and judges.

Getting a handgun legally in Canada is frigging near impossible and so time consuming that it's just not worth it. Even if you spend the time getting the license there is no way you are allowed to use it outside your home. You have to get a separate license to carry it to and from a gun range on specific dates. If you were caught doing a little plinking (shooting targets) out in the wilderness somewhere the gun will be confiscated and you will be charged.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, any criminal over the age of 10 can get handguns and automatic weapons through the black market from the US of A.

"If guns were outlawed, than only outlaws would have guns." -- and therein lies the problem.

Outlaws look for easy victims. When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

However, with that said, most people that I meet from 'British Commonwealth' countries are some of the most anti-gun individuals that I have ever met. So if the country they live in outlaw firearms in the hands of the 'law abiding' populace, it is simply the will of the people being expressed through the laws of their government. That is what the majority within the country want. I can respect that.

Me personally? I'd rather live in a country with gun policies like Switzerland.

[Soutpeel]

When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

No such thing as "equal force" all that happens is that outlaws get bigger guns thats all.

Having lived in a country were carrying concealed firearms were the norm, and I carried a firearm for many years, it didnt matter even if you were carrying .44 Magnum because the "outlaws" were carrying AK-47's. (real 7.62mm fellows) and I can assure you an AK tops any handgun in a p*ssing match.

So based on your flawed logic...what would be the next step ?....allow everyone to carry assualt rifle to match equal force ?

Having lived in that sort of enviroment, I can assure you, banning firearms completely, and only putting them in the hands of the police (so they can shoot the "outlaws") is a sensible step.

[chrisinth]

When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

No such thing as "equal force" all that happens is that outlaws get bigger guns thats all.

Having lived in a country were carrying concealed firearms were the norm, and I carried a firearm for many years, it didnt matter even if you were carrying .44 Magnum because the "outlaws" were carrying AK-47's. (real 7.62mm fellows) and I can assure you an AK tops any handgun in a p*ssing match.

So based on your flawed logic...what would be the next step ?....allow everyone to carry assualt rifle to match equal force ?

Having lived in that sort of enviroment, I can assure you, banning firearms completely, and only putting them in the hands of the police (so they can shoot the "outlaws") is a sensible step.

I think that a lot of people on this thread are misunderstanding the gun laws in Thailand. Where it is possible for a Farang to own a gun here if considered qualified through the paperwork trails, the chances of him/her being issued a licence to carry the weapon in public for defence will be next to zero. The weapon permit will be issued for home protection or recreational only (words and phrases may differ slightly).

Besides, would you really want to carry a loaded weapon in public? If you assume social responsibilities for that weapon. forget about your night out with the lads, as alchohol and weapons do not mix. All you will be doing (99% of people) will be extending the size of your d1ck to those who are in the least bit interested.

One other aspect of weapon ownership that is often ignored, is the increased risk of home breakins (the reason you got the weapon in the first place to protect against) for the theft of said weapons for criminal use. This used to be prevalent where I came from, especially remote farms and houses where the recovered firearms from robberies were followed back to the theft locations, and I am sure it is a global problem.

Whereas the above are a couple of downsides of weapon ownership, in principle, I am in favour of people being allowed to possess weapons, but consider all the pros and cons before going there.

Edited March 17, 2012 by chrisinth

[IanForbes]

Those are well thought out replies, Chrisinth... all of them.

There really ARE some dangerous countries, but I wouldn't consider Thailand to be one of them. There really aren't many true hunting options in Thailand so I don't really see the need for guns here. I've got guns in Canada where we actually do have good hunting, but personal protection was never something I thought about when purchasing a rifle. Target shooting is fun with a hand gun, but I can get as much fun with an air gun as something built to kill people.

When you weigh all the things that can go wrong when keeping a loaded handgun around, against personal safety in Thailand I start to wonder about paranoia. Living in Belfast during the internal war years I could understand owning a weapon. I might even consider it if I lived down near the Malaysian border with all the problems there, but with all the choices of living elsewhere I think I would move.

[inthepink]

When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

No such thing as "equal force" all that happens is that outlaws get bigger guns thats all.

Having lived in a country were carrying concealed firearms were the norm, and I carried a firearm for many years, it didnt matter even if you were carrying .44 Magnum because the "outlaws" were carrying AK-47's. (real 7.62mm fellows) and I can assure you an AK tops any handgun in a p*ssing match.

So based on your flawed logic...what would be the next step ?....allow everyone to carry assualt rifle to match equal force ?

Having lived in that sort of enviroment, I can assure you, banning firearms completely, and only putting them in the hands of the police (so they can shoot the "outlaws") is a sensible step.

I'd go one step further and not put them in the hands of most police. I think gun crime stats from Britain vs the US speak volumes on this subject.

However, I could only find figures that were ten years old with a quick google so I'm ready to stand corrected:

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

(2001) Homicides in USA involving a gun per 100,000 = 3.98 people

So, ten years ago at least, you were nearly 38 times more likely to get murdered in the USA by somebody with a gun than you were in Great Britain.

[submaniac]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome/singlepage

Edited March 17, 2012 by submaniac

[connda]

When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

No such thing as "equal force" all that happens is that outlaws get bigger guns thats all.

Having lived in a country were carrying concealed firearms were the norm, and I carried a firearm for many years, it didnt matter even if you were carrying .44 Magnum because the "outlaws" were carrying AK-47's. (real 7.62mm fellows) and I can assure you an AK tops any handgun in a p*ssing match.

So based on your flawed logic...what would be the next step ?....allow everyone to carry assualt rifle to match equal force ?

Having lived in that sort of enviroment, I can assure you, banning firearms completely, and only putting them in the hands of the police (so they can shoot the "outlaws") is a sensible step.

I'd go one step further and not put them in the hands of most police. I think gun crime stats from Britain vs the US speak volumes on this subject.

However, I could only find figures that were ten years old with a quick google so I'm ready to stand corrected:

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

(2001) Homicides in USA involving a gun per 100,000 = 3.98 people

So, ten years ago at least, you were nearly 38 times more likely to get murdered in the USA by somebody with a gun than you were in Great Britain.

Humm. That probably means you're less likely to get shot than die in a car accident in the USA

3.98 to 100000 odds? That's pretty good odds. Think I'll keep packing when I'm in the US, and I guess I'll never consider moving to Great Britain.

[connda]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

I'd love to see the stats comparing the murder rate between the US and Great Britain on a per capita basis. Then break it down by weapon.

I'm thinking pretty soon he Brits will have to eat with their fingers because everything else could be considered a dangerous weapon.

Heroin Addicts Stabbed and Killed with Spoon in Sussex. MPs Call for Ban on Spoons -- "Dangerous Weapons"

Edited March 17, 2012 by connda

[inthepink]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/ar...come/singlepage

Yes 2.1 per 100k in the UK for the year 2002, vs 5.6 in the USA. (I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

Quoted from - http://fleshisgrass....ate-and-weapon/

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

I've never been to the States, so I can't make a personal judgement on the law there but I have been in many British pubs at closing time and I would have been very uncomfortable if any of my fellow drinkers had been "packing heat", I can tell you.

EDIT: I don't have an agenda here. I'm neither pro nor anti gun ownership, it's not something I've ever given a lot of thought to. In order to make an intelligent comparison, we'd need to look at the figures for more than just two countries and we'd need to narrow down the gun homicides to those that were committed by people who were not licensed to own a firearm. My only point, if I had one(!), was that gun toting police offices do not seem to deter murderers, not based on the figures I have found that relate to the UK and the USA anyway.

Edited March 17, 2012 by inthepink

[PingManDan]

One shot one kill, a drive out into the country to any dumping site, unload trash, and keep quite.

[endure]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

I'd love to see the stats comparing the murder rate between the US and Great Britain on a per capita basis. Then break it down by weapon.

I'm thinking pretty soon he Brits will have to eat with their fingers because everything else could be considered a dangerous weapon.

Heroin Addicts Stabbed and Killed with Spoon in Sussex. MPs Call for Ban on Spoons -- "Dangerous Weapons"

According to the Wikipedia article the 'intentional homicide rate' in the UK was 1.23 per 100,000 in 2011 whereas in the US it was 4.8. That's all murders with any sort of weapon at all so you're still ahead of us.

[submaniac]

I don't mind having a rational civilized discussion on the subject.

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

What I am saying is that the homicide rate does not correlate to gun ownership.

If guns are outlawed, people will commit homicide with alternative weapons.

This is a compilation of English "home office" (whatever that means) statistics on homocide:

http://scienceblogs....ional-00028.php

the statistics are as follows:

1978 1.09

1979 1.28

1980 1.26

1981 1.12

1982 1.25

1983 1.11

1984 1.24

1985 1.25

1986 1.33

1987 1.37

1988 1.29

1989 1.25

1990 1.32

1991 1.42

1992 1.37

1993 1.31

In 1997, guns were outlawed in Britain (and frankly I don't know the difference between Britain, Great Britain, and the U.K.)

Per your statistics

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

So how did the banning of guns affect anything? Before the ban on gun ownership the homicide rate was 1.3 per 100k, now it's about 1.1 per 100k. The overall homicide remained essentially unchanged.

The following is the homicide for Switzerland from 2000 to 2011:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Switzerland 0.96 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.07 1.01 0.80 0.68 0.71 0.66 0.66

In Switzerland every single male is legally required to maintain at his home a fire arm to age 30 (or age 34 in the case of officers) in order to serve in the national militia.

Switzerland's homicide rates are lower than U.K./Britain/England (whatever it is you folks call it---that island in the Atlantic).

My point is: gun ownership has nothing to do with homicide rates, and by banning guns people will only switch to killing with something else.

Furthermore, while you may say that the U.S.'s homicides are 4 times of "Britania", the U.S.'s homocide rates are still relative low compared to other countries:

U.S. homicide rate is 4.8 per 100k, that's still relatively low:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Edited March 17, 2012 by submaniac

[endure]

The whole gun thing is cultural and not really amenable to rational argument. Those who grow up in the US are told that it's their inalienable right to own firearms. If you asked the average Brit if they wanted to own a gun they'd more than likely ask 'what for?'.

[Douggie Style]

(Endure you beat me to it)

Just a thought..

If the pro/anti gun debate is driven mostly by the need to feel secure, especially in your own home...perhaps the examples you see in your country have a over strong influence on your view..

For example in Oz & Britain guns are really not around that much anymore so if you grow up there and adapt to that environment you might be more likely to be anti gun...it doesn't seem having a gun can really add much more to your security ..

In the US and other countries, that have always had a gun culture, you are used to guns, become more comfortable around them, perhaps actually need a gun in the home to feel secure...

I can imgaine sitting in your home with kids and all sorts of crime going on around your neighbourhood...in that context the pro/anti gun debate might then seem a bit different..

This is a lot of assumption, but I feel this might be why opinions become so polarised and passionate...it is as much trying to change a lifestyle than an intellectual argument

PS: And the reason I posted.....someone earlier mentioned most intruders enter via roof...so how do you secure the roof from intruders?..and are you allowed/is it a good idea to lay down a reinforced concrete style ceiling ...?

Edited March 17, 2012 by Douggie Style

[endure]

As an aside I live on a street where my window is exposed to passers-by. On a Saturday night at 1130 the local pissed youth think it's fun to knock on my window as they walk past. If I had a gun I'd be very tempted to shoot the bastards every Saturday night. As it is I just shout '<Snip> off you bastards', they giggle and that's it. No blood, no bullets, no dead teenies.

[flying]

If the pro/anti gun debate is driven mostly by the need to feel secure, especially in your own home...perhaps the examples you see in your country have a over strong influence on your view..

I have always owned many firearms & Archery equipment because I have competed in high levels of Competition.

High powered rifle/IPSC etc.

But you know I never felt I needed a weapon to feel secure in my home.....But again that comes down to many things like location, abilities etc.

But #1 reason for owning a firearm in the US in my opinion is to beat the government in a fair fight should the need ever arise. Of course hopefully the need will never arise but I believe many feel the same.

I am sure many here will laugh at that & to each their own but that is the truth of it.

[chrisinth]

Seems the thread has turned to gun ownership v home protection. Many other ways to protect apart from firearms!

[inthepink]

I don't mind having a rational civilized discussion on the subject.

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

What I am saying is that the homicide rate does not correlate to gun ownership.

If guns are outlawed, people will commit homicide with alternative weapons.

This is a compilation of English "home office" (whatever that means) statistics on homocide:

http://scienceblogs....ional-00028.php

the statistics are as follows:

1978 1.09

1979 1.28

1980 1.26

1981 1.12

1982 1.25

1983 1.11

1984 1.24

1985 1.25

1986 1.33

1987 1.37

1988 1.29

1989 1.25

1990 1.32

1991 1.42

1992 1.37

1993 1.31

In 1997, guns were outlawed in Britain (and frankly I don't know the difference between Britain, Great Britain, and the U.K.)

Per your statistics

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

So how did the banning of guns affect anything? Before the ban on gun ownership the homicide rate was 1.3 per 100k, now it's about 1.1 per 100k. The overall homicide remained essentially unchanged.

The following is the homicide for Switzerland from 2000 to 2011:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Switzerland 0.96 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.07 1.01 0.80 0.68 0.71 0.66 0.66

In Switzerland every single male is legally required to maintain at his home a fire arm to age 30 (or age 34 in the case of officers) in order to serve in the national militia.

Switzerland's homicide rates are lower than U.K./Britain/England (whatever it is you folks call it---that island in the Atlantic).

My point is: gun ownership has nothing to do with homicide rates, and by banning guns people will only switch to killing with something else.

Furthermore, while you may say that the U.S.'s homicides are 4 times of "Britania", the U.S.'s homocide rates are still relative low compared to other countries:

U.S. homicide rate is 4.8 per 100k, that's still relatively low:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Interesting figures but you've essentially ignored my point, which was that armed police officers are not necessarily a good thing.

I'd also like to to add, that you seem to be implying that prior to the 1997 Firearms Act, the laws concerning gun ownership in the UK and the USA were similar, which as I am sure you already know they were not. If you want to have a rational discussion then please don't bend the facts to suit your agenda. If you are truly interested in the effects of gun control laws on homicide rates with guns, you need to take into account the 1920, 1937 and 1968 Firearm Acts as well as various other pieces of legislation.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong but you are definitely not looking at the subject objectively.

(Your pithy little comments regarding the various administrative areas that make up the United Kingdom and apparent pride in not knowing what the Home Office and the UK actually are, make you sound more like an ignoramus than somebody who is genuinely interested in having a "civilised" discussion on the subject by the way.)

Edited March 18, 2012 by inthepink

[swisstouristpattaya]

we should autorize only gun in chocolate,yamiiiii

[Sing_Sling]

But #1 reason for owning a firearm in the US in my opinion is to beat the government in a fair fight should the need ever arise. Of course hopefully the need will never arise but I believe many feel the same.

I am sure many here will laugh at that & to each their own but that is the truth of it.

The truth? According to mostly men who love playing soldier.

That has to be the single most obscene and laughable reason one hears from the likes of the Michigan Militia and their fellow inbreds that make the Hatfields and McCoys look like intellectuals.

Beat the government in a fair fight . . . groups of 30-odd semi-literate rednecks against the most powerful army in history . . .

You vote in the government - you put your faith in the people you elect - you have created the two-party system - you have allowed the military-industrial complex to run the nation despite warnings back to Eisenhower - you vote irrespective of the policies . . . you watch Fox . . .

Of course the 'you' is not meant to portray YOU personally . . . just people with that bizarre viewpoint

[connda]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/ar...come/singlepage

Yes 2.1 per 100k in the UK for the year 2002, vs 5.6 in the USA. (I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

Quoted from - http://fleshisgrass....ate-and-weapon/

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

I've never been to the States, so I can't make a personal judgement on the law there but I have been in many British pubs at closing time and I would have been very uncomfortable if any of my fellow drinkers had been "packing heat", I can tell you.

c

[connda]

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/ar...come/singlepage

Yes 2.1 per 100k in the UK for the year 2002, vs 5.6 in the USA. (I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

Quoted from - http://fleshisgrass....ate-and-weapon/

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

I've never been to the States, so I can't make a personal judgement on the law there but I have been in many British pubs at closing time and I would have been very uncomfortable if any of my fellow drinkers had been "packing heat", I can tell you.

It seems like many non-Americans think it's still the Wild West in the USA: Those gun-crazy Americans with their quick-draw holsters and a .45 Smith and Wesson dangling from their hips, ready at a drop of a hat to defend your manhood by seeing who can draw the fastest in a shootout. It's not that way gents.

In the States that I lived in, it's illegal to carry a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol. Many of the people I know who carry don't even frequent bars and nightclubs -- their generally middle-class, family oriented folk. Actually, most of the people I know who carry are some of the most down-to-earth, sensible, grounded, educated, and law-abiding individuals that I know. These people pack: to protect themselves from criminals that are committing murders and other violent crimes with or without guns.

Even with the statistics you are offering, I like the odds better when I carry a weapon. Even if guns were outlawed, as submaniac pointed out, it probably would not dent the current statistics. Criminals would have guns and use them and everyone else would be a potential victim. We have sub-cultures in the US that are criminally violent and much larger as a percentage of the population than what you have in GB. Take the guns away and these sociopaths would still be killing each other (and innocent victims) at the same rate they are now. The only thing that would change is the weapon selection, and considering that these are criminals, it would probably still be guns.

Most of the Brits I've met are anti-gun, and that reflects in your laws. The will of the majority dictates the law of the land. I'd be uncomfortable living in your country. But it's my choice. Likewise, the US was founded on the right of individuals to bear arms. Throughout the majority of the country, most people support the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. It's the law of the land. If you would feel uncomfortable living in the US, then don't. It's your choice.

Really, there is no right answer here. You'll never turn me to your position, and I'll never turn you to mine. The best we can do is to agree that we disagree. I'm not going to disparage anyone for their opinion on this matter.

And if there is a legal way for me to obtain a firearm in Thailand for use on my wife's farm and land, I will.

[connda]

I don't mind having a rational civilized discussion on the subject.

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

What I am saying is that the homicide rate does not correlate to gun ownership.

If guns are outlawed, people will commit homicide with alternative weapons.

This is a compilation of English "home office" (whatever that means) statistics on homocide:

http://scienceblogs....ional-00028.php

the statistics are as follows:

1978 1.09

1979 1.28

1980 1.26

1981 1.12

1982 1.25

1983 1.11

1984 1.24

1985 1.25

1986 1.33

1987 1.37

1988 1.29

1989 1.25

1990 1.32

1991 1.42

1992 1.37

1993 1.31

In 1997, guns were outlawed in Britain (and frankly I don't know the difference between Britain, Great Britain, and the U.K.)

Per your statistics

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

So how did the banning of guns affect anything? Before the ban on gun ownership the homicide rate was 1.3 per 100k, now it's about 1.1 per 100k. The overall homicide remained essentially unchanged.

The following is the homicide for Switzerland from 2000 to 2011:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Switzerland 0.96 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.07 1.01 0.80 0.68 0.71 0.66 0.66

In Switzerland every single male is legally required to maintain at his home a fire arm to age 30 (or age 34 in the case of officers) in order to serve in the national militia.

Switzerland's homicide rates are lower than U.K./Britain/England (whatever it is you folks call it---that island in the Atlantic).

My point is: gun ownership has nothing to do with homicide rates, and by banning guns people will only switch to killing with something else.

Furthermore, while you may say that the U.S.'s homicides are 4 times of "Britania", the U.S.'s homocide rates are still relative low compared to other countries:

U.S. homicide rate is 4.8 per 100k, that's still relatively low:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Interesting figures but you've essentially ignored my point, which was that armed police officers are not necessarily a good thing.

I'd also like to to add, that you seem to be implying that prior to the 1997 Firearms Act, the laws concerning gun ownership in the UK and the USA were similar, which as I am sure you already know they were not. If you want to have a rational discussion then please don't bend the facts to suit your agenda. If you are truly interested in the effects of gun control laws on homicide rates with guns, you need to take into account the 1920, 1937 and 1968 Firearm Acts as well as various other pieces of legislation.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong but you are definitely not looking at the subject objectively.

(Your pithy little comments regarding the various administrative areas that make up the United Kingdom and apparent pride in not knowing what the Home Office and the UK actually are, make you sound more like an ignoramus than somebody who is genuinely interested in having a "civilised" discussion on the subject by the way.)

I consider submaniac's stats to be a valid, alternate viewpoint -- and an interesting counter-point to your own. And I don't see anything in his posts that personally attacks the credibility of any other poster -- unlike your referral that he may be an ignoramus. So when you don't agree with someone, you revert to name-calling? That's pretty sad.

[submaniac]

(Your pithy little comments regarding the various administrative areas that make up the United Kingdom and apparent pride in not knowing what the Home Office and the UK actually are, make you sound more like an ignoramus than somebody who is genuinely interested in having a "civilised" discussion on the subject by the way.)

This is a visual comparison between the United Kingdom, the United States, and the State of Texas

What you deem to be a pithy comment is a result of me legitimately not knowing exactly the difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and Britain. It was a result of YOU making the foregoing comment:

(I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

There have been alot of previous comments on other threads to the effect of "I'm not British...I'm Welsh"..."I'm not British...I'm Scottish"...Apparently England, Scotland, and Wales are deemed to be different "countries", and frankly for those of us who do not live there, do not understand the purported difference in the administration of your various "countries". The entire land mass of the UK is smaller than the State of Texas, or California, and the "countries" of England, Wales, and Scotland are smaller in land mass than counties (no "r") in the United States. The city of Los Angeles has a larger population either than the country of Wales or Scotland. So pardon me for not really understanding the differences between Great Britain and the U.K., Scotland vs. Britain vs. Wales vs. Ireland, and what "home office" statistics are for which countries.

I'd also like to to add, that you seem to be implying that prior to the 1997 Firearms Act, the laws concerning gun ownership in the UK and the USA were similar, which as I am sure you already know they were not. If you want to have a rational discussion then please don't bend the facts to suit your agenda. If you are truly interested in the effects of gun control laws on homicide rates with guns, you need to take into account the 1920, 1937 and 1968 Firearm Acts as well as various other pieces of legislation.

The statistics that I cited previously, go back to 1857. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/international-00028.php I did not list all the years due to the size it would take up in the post. The homicide rate in 1857 was 1.26 per 100k.

The 1968 Firearms Act was in 1968. In 1987 The "Hungerford" Massacres occurred in which Michael Ryan armed with an Chinese variant AK pattern rifle, an M1 carbine, and a Beretta handgun killed 17 people. In 1988, the firearms act was amended to ban ALL semi automatic, centerfire rifles. In 1996, Thomas Hamilton armed with 4 handguns killed 18 people in the "Dunblane" massacre. In 1997 the firearms act was changed making handguns illegal.

If you look at the home office statistics, the outlawing of firearms had, statistically, no effect whatsoever on the overall homicide rate. Per your own statistics, the homicide rate in Great Britain involving firearms is 0.105 people, while the homicide rate is still (per your claims) 1.1 per 100k people...which gets back to my point, even without firearms people will find alternative means to kill each other.

Beat the government in a fair fight . . . groups of 30-odd semi-literate rednecks against the most powerful army in history . . .

See "Randy Weaver" and "Ruby Ridge". 1 man with 1 rifle managed to hold back several hundred of the United State's finest for 10 days.

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