How many people are seriously afraid of firearms?

Post Reply New Topic

You assume the shopkeeper in the UK won't be prepared for any sort of attack for some reason, which doesn't really make much sense to me.

He is prepared. He's insured and he has instructed his workers to fully cooperate with robbers. You know this perfectly well.

Or try this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ings_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... ne_of_duty

50-something police killed on duty in America each year. A couple of hundred killed in Britain SINCE 1900! Which ones have guns? The fact is guns drastically increase the chance of murder because they raise the stakes.

Directly at which viewer? If it were an image posted once in a specific thread, there would actually be a probability of the digital image of a sonic assault rifle being pointed at a specific individual, but being in an avatar there is no specificity possible.

I only have one word to respond to that with: what?

I have no problem with guns aside from a little fear of the kickback and sound when firing one.
But the image of a gun doesn't bother me at all.

For the person bothered by the gun in the avatar, how do they react to all the guns on TV?

I'd be curious to see how the feelings towards guns break down in a country by country basis.
I think our attitudes towards guns has a lot to do with the culture we we're brought up in.
Here in the US, areas with the most gun freedom, have the least amount of crime.
If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will carry guns. Do you think a person planning on committing a crime really cares if the gun they are carrying is legal?! !

Specifically this, from which the avatar derived. In the first episode, Commander Taylor went outside the fence and fired his non-lethal sonic assault rifle into the air to serve as a distraction so that a couple of incoming vehicles could make it safely to the compound and then was picked up and sped away before the therapod could reach him. (Although he was preparing to shoot at the dinosaur if necessary absolutely, but didn't because he didn't need to do so.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6aNEIZwPFc[/youtube]

You should try a .22 caliber if you're afraid of recoil or noise, they aren't so bad for that.



Well, I think that parental attitudes, school curriculum, and attitudes of locally available media would be more to the point. Each person is educated in their opinions individually. Nation wide stats would only show a broad overview and would have little to do with each actual individual.

I've been interested in seeing the movie for that.

RE: restrictions and the nature of violence:

You just have to look at Oz, where there was very little restriction to a lot overnight.

Studies have been done; they show that whilst the overall murder rate with firearms is down, the rate of murders via other means is up, so it's effectively the same. Oz is quite free of many of the impoverished and past abuses of immigrant minorities (the indigenous population was effectively wiped out, and its structure and pride, are gone), so it's probably the best example.

Unbiased researchers and professional opinion said there was no point.

Ok, I'll rephrase it: Another immmediate effect is that law-abiding citizens get robbed by criminals because they are sitting ducks and have nothing to defend themselves with.

If criminals don't plan on using their guns, why would they have them in the first place? You don't have to actually fire the gun to use it for criminal purposes, you know. And it's alright for criminals to have guns, as long as law-abiding citizens don't? Ordinary people don't just go out waving their guns around. Criminals do; ban or no ban.

More guns does not equal more gun related violence. Canada has a higher gun ownership rate than the UK, yet Canada is safer. Switzerland has a far higher rate yet, and it's one of the safest countries in the world. Even Ghandi advocated private gun ownership.

What do you suppose is the ratio of robberies prevented by the presence of guns to robberies escalated into murders by the presence of guns? And do you think those are equivalent?

Many of you may not know this, but back in 2007 I had made a thread about firearms and gun control and it was flamed and trolled to death. This thread actually has civility and for that I salute ye who are here now:

When firearms are illegal, only the criminals would have access to such weaponry or would be able to use less modern weaponry if the shopkeepers are not able to have firearms legally, but if firearms are legal then there is a greater risk of loss of life for the criminal. So, that would be 2 instances where a criminal would have an advantage and one where the shopkeeper would have the ability to defend themselves (although it could be argued that they also could carry a knife or sword or crossbow or whatever). So, on that basis, about 2 to 1 for robberies prevented by the possibility of a law abiding citizen owning a firearm.

Now, if a person is intending to steal it is likely that they would intend to live to enjoy what they have stolen. If the shop keeper is not legally allowed to have a means of defense, then there is no risk of stealing but there is a risk that they may later be identified so they may kill for that reason. If the shopkeeper is permitted to own a means of defense equal to or greater than their assailant, then there is a chance they may die and so they may shoot them also for that reason in addition to possible future identification.

Yes. Look at Britain. The police and public don't have guns, only criminals have guns. Who gets shot with guns? Criminals and associates of criminals. This is a perfectly reasonable situation, and it's probably an equilibrium situation so long as politicians don't get panicky.

What? I suppose it doesn't matter that the only thing necessary to fit into the category of "associate of a criminal" would be to make their acquaintance, willingly or unwillingly?

I am going shooting some time this week.

Acquaintances of criminals don't get shot. Look at who actually gets shot. I mean in the real world. In Britain, if you aren't criminal or knowingly associating with criminals you have to be astoundingly unlucky to get shot. I like those odds.

People like to have the illusion of control, that's the problem. Without thinking rationally most people would rather have a gun in a dangerous situation, because they think they're the one in control. Meanwhile everyone else is thinking the same. Idiots.