Guns in America: we move onward into a new level of special thinking...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21721518

into "'A teacher with a gun could have stopped him'

My absolute word.....

They should hold a motion to put an ED209 in every US classroom. That will cut down crime....and probably more.

Maybe. Possibly.

What we know for sure is that unarmed teachers were killed.

'Do your homework or else!' *click*

Armed teachers probably could have stopped him, but it does raise a whole new load of "what if"s

All I see from that is:

they arm the teachers

5 years from now some teacher wigs out and guns down his or her entire class

The same people that said we should arm teachers will be saying "why the hell did you give teachers guns.. are you crazy?"

and for the record, an armed guard in the school could have stopped him as well but they did not have one of those either.

I wish wolfram alpha would allow me to enter the following query.

Number of teachers shot dead in 2012 in the USA vs Number of students assaulted by their teachers in 2012 in the USA.

One day NLP will let me..... one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

All I see from that is:

they arm the teachers

5 years from now some teacher wigs out and guns down his or her entire class

The same people that said we should arm teachers will be saying "why the hell did you give teachers guns.. are you crazy?"

and for the record, an armed guard in the school could have stopped him as well but they did not have one of those either.

---

How many teachers have been prevented from gunning down their class because it was illegal to bring a gun into a school?

As TheAnimus just said how many teachers have been in trouble for assaulting students?

now put a gun in their hand......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

All I see from that is:

they arm the teachers

5 years from now some teacher wigs out and guns down his or her entire class

The same people that said we should arm teachers will be saying "why the hell did you give teachers guns.. are you crazy?"

---

Wrong!

THose same people will say;
"Well, if the students were armed, they could have stopped him"

Come on, you know that's how this debate works. NRA won't give an inch, won't make any concession. To be fair, if they did then it would likely open the floodgates to significant tightening of gun laws, and that's what they really want to avoid. The further to the extreme they position themselves, the further the "middle point" in the debate has to move.

Ok I see it this way.

Ignore the teacher gunning down a student cos student is irritating
Also ignore a teacher feeling under any stress or obligation to take seems lessons instead if being a passive teaching personality.

Simply ask this question; would the teacher need to carry the twin, holstered like policeman ask the time so the firearm is instantly usable anywhere needed? Ie hall way, class room , gymnasium,playing field,dining room?
If so, when do they are themselves to remove the danger of an attack? At home? Staff room immediately on arriving at school ?
And where are the guns and ammo stored? Who signs them in and out ? And how are they secured from theft by students or staff or public?

It's too messy to consider surely?

Tricky subject.

In the blue corner:
Individual freedoms and a country's constitution. Trendy lefties conveniently forget how important these two things are.

In the red corner:
A country largely full of illiterate hill-billy idiots and violent 'urban demographic' types who make TOWIE watching Brits look smart.

And not much real-world middle ground. Either people can have guns or they can't. Something cultural has happened too. 1950s America didn't have all this stuff going on (not perfect I'll grant, but not like now)

No easy answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

No easy answer.

---

ED209. Its middle name is no discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Tricky subject.

In the blue corner:
Individual freedoms and a country's constitution. Trendy lefties conveniently forget how important these two things are.

In the red corner:
A country largely full of illiterate hill-billy idiots and violent 'urban demographic' types who make TOWIE watching Brits look smart.

And not much real-world middle ground. Either people can have guns or they can't. Something cultural has happened too. 1950s America didn't have all this stuff going on (not perfect I'll grant, but not like now)

No easy answer.

---

In the 1950's we didn't have the media that we do today. Every school shooting is big news, and that virtually guarantees the next one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak33

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21721518

into "'A teacher with a gun could have stopped him'

My absolute word.....

---

That's nothing Zak...

The US state of South Dakota has enacted a law allowing school districts to arm teachers and other school staff

Or maybe just a guy with a slipper, and if that doesn't work, then the cane!!.....but of course mommy and daddy would rather sue the school for abuse than actually discipline their own child at the appropriate age before he\she became a mass killer due to lack of parental guidance??!!


Seriously, you young folks need to wise up, and stop pretending counseling is the answer to all of society's ill's, good old fashioned discipline (and yes that may include a smack around the ear) is the way to ensure appropriate behaviour. Either that, or let's arm Parents so that when a kid steps out of line we can kill the little swine and end the problem there and then!! :)

Dingo that kind of parenting has created just as many violent children mate. I personally agree that capital punishmentDOES have a place. But it doesn't prevent the creation of killers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak33

Dingo that kind of parenting has created just as many violent children mate. I personally agree that capital punishmentDOES have a place. But it doesn't prevent the creation of killers

---

Did you mean to say corporal punishment there?

As in the cane in school and such

Or Actually Capital punishment which is the death penalty.

---edit---

This comment on the Story about South Dakota allowing guns sums up my original point exactly:

"MrSteve
9TH MARCH 2013 - 10:05
Having been a teacher who went through a stress-related breakdown, I cannot begin to describe how astonishingly dumb this idea is. Had I been armed at the time, goodness only knows what could have happened.
This also means that a disturbed teenager now knows precisely where to go to get a gun if there are none in their home."

I would worry about an oppressive school regime threatening the freedoms of the school pupils, so I would expect to see an amendment to the school constitution giving all pupils the right to bear arms to counter that threat.

Only one thing to say, and dont take it personal like, but - Get rid of yer frickin' guns!

Isn't it obvious? Arm the teachers to take out dangerous kids, then arm the kids to protect against the teachers. Simples.

As an aside, the resulting Arms escalation is great news for the firearms industry.

It always amazes me with the American craze for guns.... I remember when I lived there that they were amazed when I said I didn't want to "pop down to the range for lunch", and where horrified with the level of knife crime in the UK....

Nah, Dingo's not that far of the mark, there is absolutely no control anymore no matter where you look. A sad society full of 'do gooders' who achieve very little.

I am going to be brutally honest with my opinion in this post so if I offend anyone you have my apologies in advance.

American gun supporters keep saying things like hunting and shooting are just part of our heritage and Americans want to hold on to that heritage.

Sorry but that's a load of crap.

I have been to 48 of the 50 US states (never been to Hawaii or Alaska) and I have met and spoken to thousands of Americans.

The vast majority of Americans are nice respectable people that are willing to help their fellow man and go hunting and shooting because they can but would not care one little bit if gun laws got tightened up and they could not do it any more, they would just find some other way to pass their leisure time.

Then you have the other group of Americans, the card carrying NRA member, narrow minded, the constitutions says this, it's my right, guns don't kill people, redneck idiots that put up all the stink about gun control in the US. These people are actually in the minority.

Unfortunately it's that minority that keeps getting into enough positions of power to effectively block any form of common sense gun control from coming into force.

The only state I can see that needs lax gun laws is Alaska simply because up there guns are not a way of life, they are a necessity of it.

http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/re...0306193000.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

an armed guard in the school could have stopped him as well but they did not have one of those either.

---

- Like having a wee in the wind, who knows what direction it will go? 'Could' is just a waste of time. Having the army stationed at the school 'could' have prevented it. Him not having the gun in the first place however 'would' have prevented it. More guns just adds more risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

I am going to be brutally honest with my opinion in this post so if I offend anyone you have my apologies in advance.

American gun supporters keep saying things like hunting and shooting are just part of our heritage and Americans want to hold on to that heritage.

Sorry but that's a load of crap.

I have been to 48 of the 50 US states (never been to Hawaii or Alaska) and I have met and spoken to thousands of Americans.

The vast majority of Americans are nice respectable people that are willing to help their fellow man and go hunting and shooting because they can but would not care one little bit if gun laws got tightened up and they could not do it any more, they would just find some other way to pass their leisure time.

Then you have the other group of Americans, the card carrying NRA member, narrow minded, the constitutions says this, it's my right, guns don't kill people, redneck idiots that put up all the stink about gun control in the US. These people are actually in the minority.

Unfortunately it's that minority that keeps getting into enough positions of power to effectively block any form of common sense gun control from coming into force.

The only state I can see that needs lax gun laws is Alaska simply because up there guns are not a way of life, they are a necessity of it.

---

I'm not offended by your view. You're entitled to it.

But, as expressed above, I think it's simplistic. For a start, not all Americans that regard the right to own, and even subject to permit, carry are either NRA members, or rednecks. My brother, for instance, would be one. He does, however, periodically get asked if he's "carrying" .... including just about whenever when he produces his FBI credentials at an airport security check. Another guy I know is a Florida cop, and has never had to fire his weapon in the course of duty, other than at the range, and that 's in 30 years of service.

Of course there are rednecks, and sadly, there's the occasional sad or ill individual doing something shocking and horrible. But a very large number, and I'd suggest it's the vast majority, are normal, average, working people. A lot are office workers, and guns are a combination of a hobby and a personal and/or home security method.

Where this argument starts to grt more complex, though, is when we move away from handguns for home protection, or hunting rifles, to full automatic weapons, assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and so on.

Personally, I can see a valid argument for legal handguns, hunting rifles, etc, byt far, FAR less rational argument for assault weapons, uzis or personal tripod-mounted heavy machine guns. There is an argument for such restrictions, but for overall gun control, the legal hurdles that have to be overcome to void a constitutionally protected right are huge, and the chances of it happening, short of a radical change in both public and political attitudes is, in pragmatic terms, effectively zero. The system was quite deliberately, and for very good reason, set up to make it seriously hard for any executive to remove constitutionally protected rights. Obama, for all his rhetoric, is basically powerless in this. He cannot do a thing, and even Congress has to effectively get a large majority in both houses, or the Supreme Court will simply strike it down. It's all in the implications of the practical separation of powers in the "checks and balances".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Personally, I can see a valid argument for legal handguns, hunting rifles, etc,

---

And that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

And that is?

---

Ever lived somewhere where, when you wander into your backyard, you might come face to face with a black bear? Or found one trying to get into your home? Or where a large part of the food that ends up on your table comes from hunting, because the nearest major supermarket is 60 miles away?

As for handguns, protection, for a start. You have to remember that the US is a very large country and lifestyles are incredibly diverse, from packed areas like major cities to country areas where policing may consist of a handful of officers covering dozens of square miles, and the nearest station is 30 miles away .... or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak33

I personally agree that capital punishmentDOES have a place. But it doesn't prevent the creation of killers

---

It does seriously reduce the re-offending rate, though. To, well, none. ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Ever lived somewhere where, when you wander into your backyard, you might come face to face with a black bear? Or found one trying to get into your home? Or where a large part of the food that ends up on your table comes from hunting, because the nearest major supermarket is 60 miles away?

As for handguns, protection, for a start. You have to remember that the US is a very large country and lifestyles are incredibly diverse, from packed areas like major cities to country areas where policing may consist of a handful of officers covering dozens of square miles, and the nearest station is 30 miles away .... or more.

---

Having lived in wilderness parts of Canada I can agree with the need for Hunting rifles to a certain degree. I am not against shooting a bear or deer for survival or food as a necessity, I am however very much opposed to Hunting for sport.

Handguns for home protection I can agree with as well, but lets face it you don't need a Magnum 500 to defend your home so some restriction on size of weapon for home protection needs to be in place.

Now assault rifles, machine guns and the like have no place with the general public at all and should be restricted solely for military or civil use and should not be allowed to be in the hands of private citizens.

I know this is a pretty simplistic / ill informed view on the matter, but I can't help but be reminded of this from futurama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vouI55GAx8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Ever lived somewhere where, when you wander into your backyard, you might come face to face with a black bear? Or found one trying to get into your home? Or where a large part of the food that ends up on your table comes from hunting, because the nearest major supermarket is 60 miles away?

As for handguns, protection, for a start. You have to remember that the US is a very large country and lifestyles are incredibly diverse, from packed areas like major cities to country areas where policing may consist of a handful of officers covering dozens of square miles, and the nearest station is 30 miles away .... or more.

---

Valid points - but..

This doesn't justify the gun laws allowing for an entire country to own them. I can understand the authorities having weapons, and thought i dont agree with hunters owning guns, i appreciate your viewpoint, but i don't see how any old tom, dick, or harry should be allowed them same rights. Its - its.. 'unconstitutional'! ;)

Interesting stats, courtesy of Wiki....

Guns per capita;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Gun deaths per 100,000 citizens;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Note the homicide rate in USA compared with other developed countries with high gun ownership (Switzerland, Finland for example).

It's not purely gun ownership that's the problem - there are other factors causing such a huge number of gun killings. A cultural problem, it would seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

Having lived in wilderness parts of Canada I can agree with the need for Hunting rifles to a certain degree. I am not against shooting a bear or deer for survival or food as a necessity, I am however very much opposed to Hunting for sport.

.....

---

Agreed, on all if that. But, rifle-shooting as a sport? On a range, with targets?

And while I had Canada partly in mind, the same applies to some of the northern states in the US, which is largely what I was referring to. But there's a fair bit of dangerous wildlife in some other parts of the US too, including those parts of the west, or mid-west, that can still be pretty wild,

Personally, I don't agree with the killing of anything for sport, and includes both foxes and fish, as well as hunting with rifles for "sport".

Though, thinking about it, I can think of one exception to live hunting .... I'd cheerfully declare open season on human hunters going after elephant, tiger, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

....

Handguns for home protection I can agree with as well, but lets face it you don't need a Magnum 500 to defend your home so some restriction on size of weapon for home protection needs to be in place.

....

---

Perhaps not, but if you have a handgun for home protection, does it really make much difference if it's a 38 or 357 magnum? Or, for that matter, what about a 6-round 357 revolver or a 15-round mag in a Glock 9mm?

Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

....

Now assault rifles, machine guns and the like have no place with the general public at all and should be restricted solely for military or civil use and should not be allowed to be in the hands of private citizens.

---

I don't know that I can disagree. I've tried, for argument's sake, to think of a rational justification for such weapons and, frankly, can't. Or not, at least, beyond the "fun" factor of blasting away with one, and that's hardly justification for such lethal items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

Valid points - but..

This doesn't justify the gun laws allowing for an entire country to own them. I can understand the authorities having weapons, and thought i dont agree with hunters owning guns, i appreciate your viewpoint, but i don't see how any old tom, dick, or harry should be allowed them same rights. Its - its.. 'unconstitutional'! ;)

---

But it's not, though. That's part of the problem - the right to bear arms is explictly constitutionally protected.

Remember, the history and deveopment of the US and that of the UK are very different. Even when gun ownership in the UK was far less restricted than now (which is not as long ago as you might think), it was never as culturally embedded as it is in the US, at least in part for the type of reasons briefly mentioned above.

So ... while we might like to be in a different cultural place than we are, we are where we are. Wishing otherwise amounts to "well, I wouldn't start from here".

And where we are is that it's constitutionally protected. And that means that the Supreme Court can, and believe me, WILL strike down any laws a particular government come up with if that government tries to tread on constitutionally protected rights.

It is possible to narrow the field, and impose some restrictions .... such as covering criminal records, or residency requirements.

Also, remember, it's a state v federal thing. US states all have their own governments, and they very jealously guard their areas of "competence" from federal interference by the national government.

It is, if you like, similar to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly getting very uppity if Westminster tries to dictate to them in devolved areas. Westminster would be told to bleep off, and US state governments tell the federal goverment the same thing. Which is why gun laws vary so much from state to state. In some places, getting a concealed-carry permit is pretty easy, and in others, near impossible if you aren't in law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But it's not, though. That's part of the problem - the right to bear arms is explictly constitutionally protected.

---

I know! (hence the wink).

My expression was meant as an irony.

My point is, on the whole Americans want to keep their guns, because they're afraid of not being able to protect themselves against those that intend to do harm. But as long as guns are accessible, The wrong sort are going to keep using them. America has the worst culture of gun crime in the world. The only thing that will change it is by massively reducing the access to guns, and getting rid of the guns already in circulation. You need a culture change. Two guns dont make a right. Two guns just means someone innocent may become a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

In some places, getting a concealed-carry permit is pretty easy, and in others, near impossible if you aren't in law enforcement.

---

Its largely an irrelevant point considering that you dont have border patrols between states, so getting a gun is as simple as moving to a more relaxed state to acquire a gun. Restrictions dont apply to criminals at any rate. Guns are too readily available, which means it takes very little effort for them to be obtained. Circulation is as much of a problem as your laws. The last massacre, was achieved by a young man who got the guns off his mum! Ludicrous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

I know! (hence the wink).

My expression was meant as an irony.

My point is, on the whole Americans want to keep their guns, because they're afraid of not being able to protect themselves against those that intend to do harm. But as long as guns are accessible, The wrong sort are going to keep using them. America has the worst culture of gun crime in the world. The only thing that will change it is by massively reducing the access to guns, and getting rid of the guns already in circulation. You need a culture change. Two guns dont make a right. Two guns just means someone innocent may become a victim.


Its largely an irrelevant point considering that you dont have border patrols between states, so getting a gun is as simple as moving to a more relaxed state to acquire a gun. Restrictions dont apply to criminals at any rate. Guns are too readily available, which means it takes very little effort for them to be obtained. Circulation is as much of a problem as your laws. The last massacre, was achieved by a young man who got the guns off his mum! Ludicrous!

---

But access to guns owned by someone else is due to irresponsibility of the someone that owns them. The solution to that is a decent quality gun cabinet, or gun safe, and don't give other family members, that aren't licenced in their own right, the key or combination.

Also, by the way, they're not "my" laws. I'm British, and live in the UK.

As for availability to criminals, do you think it's that hard to get illegal guns, criminally, even in the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But access to guns owned by someone else is due to irresponsibility of the someone that owns them. The solution to that is a decent quality gun cabinet, or gun safe, and don't give other family members, that aren't licenced in their own right, the key or combination.

Also, by the way, they're not "my" laws. I'm British, and live in the UK.

As for availability to criminals, do you think it's that hard to get illegal guns, criminally, even in the UK?

---

I didnt mean 'your' laws, that was an oversight. - My apologies. I tried to be careful because i dont know where anyone is from, but i missed that!

As for getting guns in the UK. Course its possible, but it's not nearly as easy. As for restrictions (gun cabinet, safe etc..), they only present a minor obstacle that can be easily overcome in all but the most vigilant of households. Responsibility is the key word. Would you trust everyone to have a home nuke in a 'nuke' cabinet in a household? No you wouldnt (i hope you wouldnt). Simply because you can trust that people will be responsible for its safekeeping - the same applies for guns. In the UK (as you well know) the government can be a bit too restrictive when it comes to shepherding people away from potential risk, and im not saying that agree with it all, but i would always say its better to err on the side of caution. On another note, this whole argument is on the brink of being taken to a whole other level. Take a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21754915

Responsibility really is the key word.

The idea that all guns in the US could ever be just eliminated is ludicrous. Criminals here will always have guns. They will always be easily available. All that gun laws achieve are to disarm the law abiding public. Saying that the vast majority of Americans are nice, and the others are gun owners is retarded. Most Americans have guns! While they would never admit to it, that nice old man you met has his WWII service weapon in the attic and an MG-42 bringback hidden in the Barn. You can't label all gun owners one way or another.

The current target of gun legislation is semi-automatic rifles. It's easy for a lot of people to say 'Why would anyone need one of those?'. The reality is that they are used very widely for competition shooting. But they are also a very effective self defence weapon. They are far easier to use, and to shoot accurately in a high-stress situation. This is especially important when you consider that it is often the weaker amongst us who need that protection the most. They can be used easily by someone without a huge amount of training.

The real nonsense of this legislation is that it targets these rifles, despite the fact that, according to the FBI rifles (of all kinds, including bolt-actions) account for only 3% of firearms homicides. The vast majority are committed with handguns. Rifles kill an order of magnitude fewer people every year than fists, knives and clubs.

We need to have a common sense discussion about the lowest rates of violent crime in 40 years, and how to make them even lower.

When it comes to the idea of an armed teacher, I think it's an entirely reasonable progression. Guns cannot be banned. They won't always be kept from the insane, although we can try. But providing 'gun-free zones' which are nothing but perfect targets for this kind of shooting is insane.

I think you want to re-read that. I did not say they are either nice or gun owners, I said there were nice Americans with guns that could give them up without problem and then there were the fanatics with the claw it from my cold dead hands mentality.

And there is no such thing as a common sense discussion with Americans about gun control because no matter how many of these discussions I get into with Americans and no matter how much proof I give that gun control is a good thing they always eventually fall back to the exact same thing "it's our constitutional right"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

The idea that all guns in the US could ever be just eliminated is ludicrous. Criminals here will always have guns. They will always be easily available.

---

Never say never. Of course you cant eliminate them all. But you can drastically reduce them. Of course it wont be easy, and it certainly couldn't be achieved overnight, but nothing is impossible my friend. Though i dont think all Americans are retarded, i do think Americans are preconditioned to see owning a weapon as a normal activity. Americas' society needs to change. The truth is, how many Americans' think that actually owning a gun would prevent them being shot? If someone has a gun, and you pull out your gun 'in defence', it just increases the likelihood that a negative action will result. Look at it like smoking... In the UK, the government is trying to decrease the smoking population. They wont ban it, because a) its a major source of revenue, and b) it may well cause an outcry like the prohibition. So what do they do? They make it 'unpopular'. There's no denying that changing how a society views something such as smoking, or drink-driving, or indeed - guns, will effect what can be achieved in legislation.

You may not entirely agree with my principles, but what you have to agree with is that something needs to be done. Peoples attitudes need to change. and making the vast majority of law abiding citizens adhere to stricter gun laws is not the answer as it will not deter the ones the cause all these atrocities (you said so yourself - criminals will always have guns).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larkspeed

they always eventually fall back to the exact same thing "it's our constitutional right"

---

- Hear hear. Americans are conditioned to see it is as socially acceptable. Its like arguing with a Catholic about contraception - pointless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

I didnt mean 'your' laws, that was an oversight. - My apologies. I tried to be careful because i dont know where anyone is from, but i missed that!

As for getting guns in the UK. Course its possible, but it's not nearly as easy. As for restrictions (gun cabinet, safe etc..), they only present a minor obstacle that can be easily overcome in all but the most vigilant of households....

---

No problem on the "your" bit. I pointed it out because my posts could gave led you to believe I was American.

As for gun safes being easy to get round, if you think that, I can only assume you haven't seen a good one. The term covers a wide range, but consider this .... a vault with two inch thick steel sides, the size if a wardrobe, weighing the same as a small car, takes four big blojes, and a couple of trolleys to move around and install, and that's before you bolt it down, and the locking mechanism includes 16 steel bars, 1 inch diameter, sliding from all four sides of the door.

As long as the key/combination isn't given to people that shouldn't have it, nobody but a competent safecracker is getting into into without either a long session with a thermal cutter, or a large block of C4. That's the sort of gunsafe I'm used to, and believe me, minor obstacle it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

- Hear hear. Americans are conditioned to see it is as socially acceptable. ...

---

Or, they just don't agree with you that it isn't. Nor do I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

The truth is, how many Americans' think that actually owning a gun would prevent them being shot? If someone has a gun, and you pull out your gun 'in defence', it just increases the likelihood that a negative action will result.

---

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

---

As a fan of Statham films, and a relatively butch individual in my own right, I'd still fancy my chances, if I darted in there quick enough with a crimmo who hadn't had military training. Break his arm/ dislocate his shoulder, headbut him square in the face and you're laughing...

I don't really have a serious point to make, apart from that I think the post-Dunblane handgun ban in the UK was utterly pointless. 'Gangstas' in my part of SE London never seem to have any bother getting guns, hence how they were able to shoot a six year old through the spine 50 yards away from where I used to be employed to stand around.

Yeah, criminals not obeying gun laws? Surely not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

As long as the key/combination isn't given to people that shouldn't have it...

---

- That is exactly the point. It could be indestructable, but it's only as good as the tight lipped keycode owner. That was the distinction i was making 'can you trust people to act 'responsibly'. More to the point, children like to explore, and teenagers like to rebel. Im sure you've heard of social engineering.. Not that it's the only way to find out a password. Its all about thinking a way round a problem. It's also what tempts people to hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

If someone has a gun, and you don't, then the outcome is entirely up to him. You clearly have more faith in the goodwill of criminals than I do. Maybe you'll only be raped...

---

Touche`. Which would you prefer? To be shot or raped? If the attacker has a gun, all you need (or can) do is comply, and hope that you will come out the other end in one piece. Soon as you pull out 'your' weapon. Violence is inevitable, and death becomes a much more likely outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

I don't really have a serious point to make, apart from that I think the post-Dunblane handgun ban in the UK was utterly pointless. 'Gangstas' in my part of SE London never seem to have any bother getting guns, hence how they were able to shoot a six year old through the spine 50 yards away from where I used to be employed to stand around.

---

Anyone can get anything if they really try. But the fact remains that the gun crime in the UK is not in the same realm as it is in the US, and thats because we dont have half a million gun shops up and down the country offering guns out like candy. Another point to make is the fact that most of these major massacres are not committed by your average gangsta style crims. They're committed by the unhinged. Im willing to bet you that an SE London gangsta stands a better chance of obtaining an illegal weapon in the UK, than does your average unhinged member of the British public. As for your point about the law change surrounding the Dunblane shooting being pointless.. Is it? How many repeats of it have we had since? It also saw the introduction of guns amnesties in which 1000's of weapons were voluntarily handed into the police. Any one of those weapons could potentially have been the next Dunblane weapon, so im inclined to disagree with you on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Or, they just don't agree with you that it isn't. Nor do I.

---

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. But let me point this out:

In America people want to own guns to protect themselves against criminals? So what do you think the criminal is going to do? Do you think they'll think twice? If a criminal is going to commit a crime knowing that every other hill billy up and down the country has a gun, do you think he might consider leaving his at home? More likely he'll think 'I need bigger weapons, or / and more people in my team. So whats next? Everyone owns an UZI and forms a military encampment wherever they go? AND THEN what will the criminals do? Do you get my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. But let me point this out:

In America people want to own guns to protect themselves against criminals? So what do you think the criminal is going to do? Do you think they'll think twice? If a criminal is going to commit a crime knowing that every other hill billy up and down the country has a gun, do you think he might consider leaving his at home? More likely he'll think 'I need bigger weapons, or / and more people in my team. So whats next? Everyone owns an UZI and forms a military encampment wherever they go? AND THEN what will the criminals do? Do you get my point?

---

What do the criminals do? Mostly, break into empty houses and cars. In areas where guns are more available to the victims, violent crime goes down while property crime goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

Touche`. Which would you prefer? To be shot or raped? If the attacker has a gun, all you need (or can) do is comply, and hope that you will come out the other end in one piece. Soon as you pull out 'your' weapon. Violence is inevitable, and death becomes a much more likely outcome.

---

The death of the rapist certainly becomes a more likely outcome. Maybe he would kill me. But the fact that his potential victims would be able to fight back makes it far less likely that he would attack anyone in the first place. Or at least, so the facts show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

The death of the rapist certainly becomes a more likely outcome. Maybe he would kill me. But the fact that his potential victims would be able to fight back makes it far less likely that he would attack anyone in the first place. Or at least, so the facts show.

---

What facts? From where i'm sitting, the facts show that in America everyone has guns to 'protect themselves', and as a result there are more gun related deaths per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Where do you get your facts from? I don't think America does have the highest per capita

Yeah, it was an ill informed generalised comment, and i was wrong. My apologies. Apparently there are some even MORE cutthroat countries out there even that the US!

Although the US IS the highest ranking 1st world country with firearms related deaths.

America is quite far down the list. Below Mexico, unsurprisingly, where guns are banned. Do you think there might be something else going on? Switzerland is near the bottom of the list, despite a very high rate of gun ownership. Maybe picking and choosing very different countries isn't a great argument for, well, anything..

My facts come from crime reports, as analysed by John Lott. The data used is freely available.

lol. I havent really relied on facts in this discussion. Mainly opinions close to my heart. Im aware of the disproportionate gun crime statistics in the US compared to with the UK (both being first world countries), but its not a subject i know in depth (statistically). Socialogically and Philosophically however, i am more at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

America is quite far down the list. Below Mexico, unsurprisingly, where guns are banned. Do you think there might be something else going on? Switzerland is near the bottom of the list, despite a very high rate of gun ownership. Maybe picking and choosing very different countries isn't a great argument for, well, anything..

My facts come from crime reports, as analysed by John Lott. The data used is freely available.

---

Mexico is in the middle of something akin to an insurgency due to its drug war. For a rich country,with no large scale civil war or insurgency the US has a problem,which is deep rooted. If anything Switzerland highlights the major issues the US has.

Perhaps instead of people reaching for a gun first,like an idiot, to solve their problems,perhaps more dialogue or other methods maybe??

It sounds like a failure of the education system to me.

I would certainly agree that America has many problems.

While the gun-violence rate is much higher than the UK, the violent crime rate is not. While direct comparisons like the daily fails 'Six times higher' are obviously not correct, the recent slew of fact-checking these government statistics suggest like-for-like violent crime in the UK is around twice the US.

I would agree that one of the biggest problems the US has is a horrific education system. Many parents use schools for day care rather than to educate their children, and ignorance breeds.

The thing is though a gun is a ranged weapon designed to kill,which is much harder to defend against than a knife,and you do probably have a better chance of survival too in the latter case.

The US had 13000 homicides in 2012 with a population of 314 milllion,and the UK had 722 homicides for a population of 63 milion. Not all of these would have been down to guns or knives though,but it sort of indicates an issue - in the US if a violent crime is done against you,there is a much bigger possibility of you dying.

This is why if a country,has relatively free availability of guns,there needs to be better education,regarding the usage of guns. People should think of guns as a last resort,not a first resort. Easier said than done,but at least someone needs to set the ball rolling.

The problem is though,the two sides,ie,the extremely pro-gun and the extremely anti-gun people,don't seem to really want to work together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

The thing is though a gun is a ranged weapon designed to kill,which is much harder to defend against than a knife,and you do probably have a better chance of survival too in the latter case.

The US had 13000 homicides in 2012 with a population of 314 milllion,and the UK had 722 homicides for a population of 63 milion. Not all of these would have been down to guns or knives though,but it sort of indicates an issue - in the US if a violent crime is done against you,there is a much bigger possibility of you dying.

This is why if a country,has relatively free availability of guns,there needs to be better education,regarding the usage of guns. People should think of guns as a last resort,not a first resort. Easier said than done,but at least someone needs to set the ball rolling.

The problem is though,the two sides,ie,the extremely pro-gun and the extremely anti-gun people,don't seem to really want to work together.

---

A frickin' A1 awesome comment!

I just deplore violence. Nothing anyone will ever say will justify the right to own a gun to me. I respect the reasons why some people feel they need to own them, though i dont agree with it philosophically. I believe there's always another way, it just depends on the strength of people to try to find an alternative, instead of resorting to a last ditch method. Why do armies have guns? To protect the nation from its potential aggressors and deter them from aggressive acts. But of course, this incites the 'potential aggressors' to also arm themselves, in what they justify as being the same reasons. To me it's just a ridiculous ideology. The more people who arm themselves against imagined aggression, the more likely things will get ugly when that aggression occurs. China is fast becoming the largest economic power in the world. In fact it wont be long at all before it overtakes America as the number 1 superpower. So what is America going to do? Are people going to sit silent if / or / and when America steps up its military capabilities? Would that resolve a conflict further down the line? If you ask me, the future does not look good. Nor does it look orange.

Spend a few weeks in Alaska and you will understand why people need to own a gun.

It is cultural and deep rooted. It will take them many decades to undo it culturally.

The context for allowing guns in the first place is no longer there for many therefore negating the argument that is a constitutional right. However, I think there are places/context where it is needed/preferable. Just not densely urbanized environments as a rule of thumb.

If 200 or so years ago our monarch fearing future uprising didn't have weapons confiscated/ban in place we would have an entirely different history in the UK today. Instead it doesn't enter our conversation unless we are talking video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

Spend a few weeks in Alaska and you will understand why people need to own a gun.

---

A typical comment made by someone who can clearly 'not' think of an alternative solution :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

- That is exactly the point. It could be indestructable, but it's only as good as the tight lipped keycode owner. That was the distinction i was making 'can you trust people to act 'responsibly'. More to the point, children like to explore, and teenagers like to rebel. Im sure you've heard of social engineering. Not that it's the only way to find out a password. Its all about thinking a way round a problem. It's also what tempts people to hack.

---

If, as I said, you have a responsible owner, you are not going to social engineer, or hack, a a gunsafe "password" out of them.

Put it this way, you are not going to hack or engineer my credit card PIN out of me. I tell nobody, but NOBODY, that number, including any and all bank staff, even in a branch. Not even my wife knows my PIN number,s nor do I know hers. And that's just my credit card, let alone my safe, and my safe isn't a gun safe.

My original point was that if a child, or any non-authorised user for that matter, gets hold of a gun in a home, it's because the owner didn't responsibly secure them. And you said they're easy to get round. Only if you have an irresponsible owner.

Let me ask you a question .... do you drive?

Do you thing all cars ought to be banned, because some people drink drive? Or do you think there ought to be rules, and penalties for those that break them?

What about alcohol itself? Maybe we should ban alcohol because some people are irresponsible, drink to excess, and cause problems in town centres at night. Never mind that many, do doubt the vast majority, drink occasionally, often at home, socially or with a meal, let's ban alcohol because some people abuse it, right when we're banning guns because some people abuse them.

It is to all intents and purposes impossible to ban all guns in the USA. The way the laws and checks and balances are set up, short of a dramatic change in the attitude of the population, it simply is not going to happen. There are, for the remotely foreseeable future, going to be guns. And that's just the legal ones. Even if you do ban them, there are going to be illegal ones, and the chances of getting all guns off the streets, and even out of homes, is as close to zero as makes no difference. #

What you can do, and in many states is done, is restrict the types available. We've already mentioned that. You can impose carry restrictions. Many states do. You can limit immediate access, and again, many states do. You can restrict high capacity magazines and full auto, and again, such restrictions exist.

What you cannot do, and almost certainly never will be able to do, is to prevent every single nutcase, mentally ill person, criminal and/or psychopath from getting hold, one way or another, of any type of gun.

A lot has been said about assault-style rifles after the Lanza shooting, but honestly, I have to wonder just how much difference it made in that case, to the outcome. My bet would be, little, or none.

Had the not been carrying that Bushmaster, he still had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Assume legal, 15-round magazines for each, and as he had, multiple magazines. One cop on the scene said "several hundred rounds".

So, no rifle, but two fairly powerful pistols, each with 15 round mags (for simplicity' sake), and each where you can change mag in a few seconds. Unless there is someone on the premises that is armed, or unless police can get there very, very quickly, the outcome, given his clear intent, would almost certainly have been exactly the same. The rifle, in that situation, is more about ego, about show, maybe about machismo, than about effectiveness. Now, if we were talking about something like the Beltway sniper, then rifles are far more of a threat. But that isn't the current context.

So, you are not going to take every handgun, or even just the legally held ones, out of every home in the US because the legal difficulties of doing it are extremely hard to surmount, and given the level of opposition, impossible to surmount. "It's our constitutional right" isn't just a redneck mantra, it's a simple, cold, hard FACT, and not only that right, but a fairly broad interpretation of it has been upheld, repeatedly and recently, by the Supreme Court.

So if you can't get the Constitution amended, and as said, that is next to impossible to do. It's a hard thing to do even if almost everyone does agree on something. And was deliberately set up to be extremely hard to do. That's the whole point of a constitution .... it takes basic rights out of the whim of the current administration. And if it was easy to change, what gets change next? The right to a freedom of speech (up to a point, anyway). Or the right to a lawyer? Or a fair trial?

From a pragmatic point, you are not going to get guns banned. In anything other than the fairly long term, and probably not even then, it simply ain't going to happen. It would also be next to impossible to enforce if it did happen. So people with evil intent are going to be able to get guns. You might be able to make it a bit harder, but you aren't going to stop it. And it's pretty clear there is going to be a regular stream of people wanting, under whatever sick of perverted logic, to "shock" by going and doing something more extreme than the last case. Sooner or later, it'll happen again, with or without a ban on assault-style rifles. It'll continue to happen for just as long as you've got a handful of sick and desperate individuals that have made the decision to, basically, suicide, and make a stand, a statement of an extremely unpleasant kind, first.

And if they couldn't get hold of guns, they'd build a bomb, or hijack a school bus, or poison an air-con system, or drive a bus into a queue or schoolkids, or whatever other sick and twisted exhibitionist scheme they manage to come up with. That, I'm afraid, is mankind for you, and will continue to be until we come up with a way to detect and either cure or indefinitely detain those with murderous and/or suicidal inclinations. And on that, I'd advise not holding your breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

A typical comment made by someone who can clearly 'not' think of an alternative solution :p

---

With or without smileys like that, I've lost track of how many times I've suspended, and sadly, banned people over an exchange that started over personal jibes, because it has a habit of escalating.

A word of advice, from a board admin to a new member who may not appreciate our rules, or the way we do things .... don't go down that route. It won't end well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

lol. I havent really relied on facts in this discussion. Mainly opinions close to my heart. Im aware of the disproportionate gun crime statistics in the US compared to with the UK (both being first world countries), but its not a subject i know in depth (statistically). Socialogically and Philosophically however, i am more at home.

---

The UK is a great example actually. Belfast is the second safest city in the world after Tokyo ( link ). Thanks in large part to groups of armed paramilitaries keeping their communities in line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

A typical comment made by someone who can clearly 'not' think of an alternative solution :p

---

When one of these comes at you

http://alaskatrophyadventures.com/D00108_Hyde.jpg

You'll understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

The UK is a great example actually. Belfast is the second safest city in the world after Tokyo ( link ). Thanks in large part to groups of armed paramilitaries keeping their communities in line.

---

Except they were illegally holding a manner of weapons from rocket launchers to C4 explosives. That is why over a 1000 British and policemen solders died during The Troubles,nearly 2000 civilians dead and over 45000 people were injured.

The world is not a computer game. Perhaps you want to fantasise about Mexican druglords and their paramilitaries or FARC while you are at it?? :rolleyes:

Many of those organisations don't answer to anyone apart from themselves. Its bad enough trying to get our own elected officials to answer for what they do,let alone armed gangs who elect themselves.

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/s...psf59c6bfc.jpg

Interesting debate here, just wondering why Canadians need to own guns out there? is it because of rampant Wild Moose rushing towards you?

In terms of the gun debate, you say everyone has right to bear arms/ defend themselves. So you shoot the burglar by the sheer rush of adrenaline/ Fear, the outcome will still be poor. I'm not sure about the U.S but in the U.K someone did just that with a shotgun and got jailed for disproportionate acts of self-defence, article here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csgohan4

is it because of rampant Wild Moose rushing towards you?

---

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1x...f_c_964792.jpg

Not all Moose are rampant,some are quite friendly TBH and only want to talk about pond weed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Not all Moose are rampant,some are quite friendly TBH and only want to talk about pond weed!

---

http://babyboomerme.com/wp-content/u...1/12/Moose.jpg

Or perhaps to prevent them stealing your car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Except they were illegally holding a manner of weapons from rocket launchers to C4 explosives. That is why over a 1000 British and policemen solders died during The Troubles,nearly 2000 civilians dead and over 45000 people were injured.

The world is not a computer game. Perhaps you want to fantasise about Mexican druglords and their paramilitaries or FARC while you are at it?? :rolleyes:

Many of those organisations don't answer to anyone apart from themselves. Its bad enough trying to get our own elected officials to answer for what they do,let alone armed gangs who elect themselves.

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/s...psf59c6bfc.jpg

---

Take it easy on the rude tone of your posts please.

I grew up in N. Ireland and moved to mainland Britain as an adult. Never experienced any 'street' violence in NI, within a year of moving to mainland UK had been assaulted by large gang of yobbos. Overall I actually agree widespread gun ownership isn't a good idea - I just don't like the simplistic and often smug attitude that they don't fix some problems too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

The UK is a great example actually. Belfast is the second safest city in the world after Tokyo ( link ). Thanks in large part to groups of armed paramilitaries keeping their communities in line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Take it easy on the rude tone of your posts please.

I grew up in N. Ireland and moved to mainland Britain as an adult. Never experienced any 'street' violence in NI, within a year of moving to mainland UK had been assaulted by large gang of yobbos. Overall I actually agree widespread gun ownership isn't a good idea - I just don't like the simplistic and often smug attitude that they don't fix some problems too.

---

I lived in a country with an insurgency,and moreover I also have known people from NI who had experienced problems there too.

I was perfectly fine too,but I saw the effects of it ,and the people that it hurt. There were bombings in the cities FFS that killed loads of people. I knew no one who thought the situation was fine,irrespective of whether it affected them or not.

Even a dictatorship will have plenty of soldiers,secret police,etc with no elected government. Very safe. As long as you are not hurt,who gives a monkeys about those who are,right???

That is why you mentioned the illegal paramilitaries? Unelected groups who have killed and maimed so many people ,via rule of the gun, are OK for you.

Perhaps you should go up to the families of those murdered by the paramilitaries in NI,and say "hey,you must feel really safe,now??"

Its another case,"it does not affect me so I don't care what happens to the others" syndrome.

You might want to support the existence of illegal military organisations,but not me.

Its bad enough with the elected lot in many countries.

Another brief warning here guys, be nice to each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

When one of these comes at you

http://alaskatrophyadventures.com/D00108_Hyde.jpg

You'll understand.

---

Still not thinking about other ways of dealing with a situation then? ;)

Maybe a stick and a loud shout? Maybe you can tell me what you think will stop one?

Lots of things. Want a list? :p

If you're in a forest and one surprises you, even a gun wont be much good.

Yes a list of viable ways to stop one please.

A large caliber round to the head will kill one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

When one of these comes at you

http://alaskatrophyadventures.com/D00108_Hyde.jpg

You'll understand.

---

Looks like it wants to play fetch. A half chewed tennis ball will sort that out, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

Looks like it wants to play fetch. A half chewed tennis ball will sort that out, right?

---

See there, now you're thinking... ...might not be the absolute best solution but its a start! A stick may serve just as well!

Can we assume that there's a picnic basket in the back of the van?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

See there, now you're thinking... ...might not be the absolute best solution but its a start! A stick may serve just as well!

---

A gun would be useful though in that case,as a backup.

However,this was still quite interesting though:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/gun...nst-bears.html

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...#ixzz1p8MhZj7M

Quote:

---

A study conducted by BYU professor Tom Smith has generated a rather surprising result. He studied reported bear attacks in Alaska from 1883 to 2009 and said the outcomes of 269 attacks were similar regardless of whether a weapon was fired or not.

“We look at those who never fire a shot and they had about the same ratio of injuries as those who did fire. We found no difference in the outcome. We did find a difference in the outcome for bears though; 172 were killed when firearms were used.” (Source: Herald Extra)

Of particular concern for the safety of people is the false sense of security carrying a gun provides, because it may lead to a belief a gun is all that is necessary for defense, and cause a disregard for learning important things like the appropriate and inappropriate behavior when encountering a wild bear. Some of the things that are advised when walking in bear habitat are:

constantly make noise to prevent startling a bear, which is one of the main causes of bear attacks
don’t walk in known bear country alone
don’t feed bears or knowingly camping in areas with bears that have been fed, and stay out of areas where it is known mother bears with cubs frequent.
don’t run when a bear charges

If you still think a gun might be useful, consider the fact that some people can’t aim and fire accurately when being charged by a bear due to fear, which may cause trembling or a loss of concentration. Also, guns sometimes jam, or gun operators fumble with the safety to switch it off, and lose their best chance to fire. The BYU research found about one-fifth of the gun carriers couldn’t bring themselves to fire at a bear that was close to them, because they didn’t want to kill it.

With pepper spray on the other hand, people had no hesitancy to use it. And bears may learn to stay away from humans if they associate the tremendous pain of pepper spray in the eyes with them. It seems the most sensible approach is simply to stay out of their territory altogether and leave them in peace.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/gun...#ixzz2Ni71N5KB

---

Quote:

---

PROVO -- BYU professor Tom Smith has been studying bears and bear attacks for years, but his latest study has results that may surprise you. Smith has found that firing a gun during a bear attack may not protect a person anymore than bear spray or simply being smart in bear country.

The study is based on reported bear attacks in Alaska from 1883 to 2009. Smith said the outcomes of 269 bear attacks were relatively similar regardless of whether a person fired or even carried a gun.

"We look at those who never fire a shot and they had about the same ratio of injuries as those who did fire. We found no difference in the outcome," Smith said. "We did find a difference in the outcome for bears though; 172 were killed when firearms were used."

Data shows that when people use a gun in a bear attack the outcome is successful more than 75 percent of the time and Smith says that rate is likely higher because successful incidents aren't always reported.

Smith says the take-away of the study should not be that guns aren't a useful tool in warding off bear attacks but that there are other methods that are just as effective.

"The main point is that if you ignore conventional wisdom for how to be safe in bear country, the next mistake is thinking you are going to shoot your way out of bad situation," Smith said. "Guns are cumbersome and heavy, a kill shot is difficult and you will be under severe pressure. The main focus is if you avoid bear encounters you won't have to worry about making a perfect kill shot."

John Shivik, mammal program coordinator for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, says bear attacks in Utah are rare but that people still need to be cautious of the predators that call Utah's mountains home.

"Bears, lions or wolves are out there and the real take-home message is that these are predators, they kill things for a living so we should respect them but not fear them," Shivik said. It's a better approach to not get into a tough situation, and Shivik says he thinks Smith's research highlights that.

Some of the tips for staying safe in bear country include hiking in groups, making appropriate noise, keeping food and food odors away from tents and people and carrying some sort of deterrent with you whether it be a gun or bear spray.

Keeping calm is also a good idea, experts say.

"Talking in a calm voice, not moving when the bear's coming toward you, giving the bear a chance to think things over and realize you're not threatening," bear expert John Hechtel, a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist, told The Associated Press. "A lot of times that will resolve the situation."

Smith says in more than 650 documented cases of bear encounters in Alaska there is not a single case where a bear attacked a group of two or more people. He also says that making noise as you round bends and enter areas of poor visibility will help keep from startling animals.

Smith says when hiking he carries bear spray, which is much like pepper spray that makes a loud hissing noise and creates a mist that often scares bears away.

"Utah has been fortunate to have very few black bear encounters but people have to assess their own risk," Smith said. "There is a chance that a bear could see a single hiker and want to kill them, so why wouldn't you want to be prepared for the rare but possible chance? Carrying bear spray is a layer of protection so if you run into something you can spray it."

Both Smith and Shivik agree that those trained and skilled with guns should carry them if it makes them feel safer but not to rely on the gun as an out of a bad situation.

"If people are well trained and safe a gun is a tool, just like your voice is a tool. If you are using a gun they are a tool, not an end all," Shivik said. "Seeing a bear is not a dangerous thing; in fact, that is a neat thing and people need to respond appropriately to the situation and not overreact and just start shooting. These are animals that we should respect but not fear and if you keep in the frame of mind you will probably act appropriately."

---

Ok. Viable you say... Well, im not an expert in bear avoidance tactics, but as there are bears in zoos' i can see there must be ways to control them. So, heres a few ideas....

1. A sonic emitter (detterant).

2. A tranquiliser dart.

3. Avoiding areas with dangerous animals.

4. Building an interlocking steel fence around towns in polar bear regions.

5. Driving in vehicles that are designed to prevent attacks by large animals. (http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b721df1...Island_ATV.jpg)

6. Scientific study to best determine different methods of deterring them. (Things like having a bottle of Tigers urine for example).

These are just off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

constantly make noise to prevent startling a bear, which is one of the main causes of bear attacks
don’t walk in known bear country alone
don’t feed bears or knowingly camping in areas with bears that have been fed, and stay out of areas where it is known mother bears with cubs frequent.
don’t run when a bear charges

---

Educating people! A good one i should have thought of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csgohan4

Interesting debate here, just wondering why Canadians need to own guns out there? is it because of rampant Wild Moose rushing towards you?

In terms of the gun debate, you say everyone has right to bear arms/ defend themselves. So you shoot the burglar by the sheer rush of adrenaline/ Fear, the outcome will still be poor. I'm not sure about the U.S but in the U.K someone did just that with a shotgun and got jailed for disproportionate acts of self-defence, article here.

---

You are aware, I presume, that the shotgun Tony Martin used was ILLEGAL.

Martin's case was very much a one-off. First, part of the reason he went to jail was for firearms offences. Second, his murder conviction was quashed by the appeal court. Third, there were several very dubious decisions taken by his defence lawyers in the original trial, not least that of not challenging Fearon's testimony, despite it having changed several times, something the trial jury were never told. Fourth, the prosecution case was based on a theory of Martin having deliberately ambushed the burglars, and forensic evidence failing to show shotgun residue where Martin claimed to have fired from casting doubt on his version. But, by the time of the appeal, subsequent forensic testing did indeed show shotgun residues exactly where it would have been had Martin fired from where he said he did. Again, the jury never knew this. Finally, the reason the conviction was quashed was on the basis of medical evidence, accepted by the appeal court, of the diminished capacity of Martin due to his mental state at the time.

So .... a conviction that was quashed on the basis of use of a shotgun held illegally by a man with diminidhed mental responsibiluty is hardly a convincing argument for gun control laws, as he was already bsnned from holding guns, and ina vountry that already has very strict gun laws, and where, even then, forensic evidence at the least casts doubt on the original prosecution theory of deliberate ambush.

Would Martin be convicted again, today, based on the same facts? Very doubtful, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

Ok. Viable you say... Well, im not an expert in bear avoidance tactics, but as there are bears in zoos' i can see there must be ways to control them. So, heres a few ideas....

1. A sonic emitter (detterant).

2. A tranquiliser dart.

3. Avoiding areas with dangerous animals.

4. Building an interlocking steel fence around towns in polar bear regions.

5. Driving in vehicles that are designed to prevent attacks by large animals. (http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b721df1...Island_ATV.jpg)

6. Scientific study to best determine different methods of deterring them. (Things like having a bottle of Tigers urine for example).

These are just off the top of my head.

---

1 may equally well scare or antagonise a bear. That one needs research. You volunteering for the trials? ;)

2. The tranq. Well, first off, it's a single shot weapon. So don't miss. Second, The amount of tranq. required to stop a charging bear, in a few seconds you have, given the bear could be half a ton of 8 foot tall muscle, claws and bad attitude, would probably kill near anything else. And you need a tranq that drops it more of less on the spot, not one that takes a minute or two to work. Exact dosage will be critical. Enough to drop a big bear may kill a smaller (or female) one, and one suited for a smaller bear may merely pee off a big one.

3. Good idea. Unless the bear wanders into your back yard.

4. Fence? Really? I wonder what several miles of fence capable of stopping half a ton of black bear would cost? And, what about roads .... cars have to get in and out of town. Suppose the bear goes round the fence where the cars go through?

5. Not a help unless you're in it.

6. Maybe. Please advise, a) where to find a tiger in northern US states, and b), how to convince it to pee in a bottle.

Okay, I'm not wholly serious with 6. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

1 may equally well scare or antagonise a bear. That one needs research. You volunteering for the trials? ;)

2. The tranq. Well, first off, it's a single shot weapon. So don't miss. Second, The amount of tranq. required to stop a charging bear, in a few seconds you have, given the bear could be half a ton of 8 foot tall muscle, claws and bad attitude, would probably kill near anything else. And you need a tranq that drops it more of less on the spot, not one that takes a minute or two to work. Exact dosage will be critical. Enough to drop a big bear may kill a smaller (or female) one, and one suited for a smaller bear may merely pee off a big one.

3. Good idea. Unless the bear wanders into your back yard.

4. Fence? Really? I wonder what several miles of fence capable of stopping half a ton of black bear would cost? And, what about roads .... cars have to get in and out of town. Suppose the bear goes round the fence where the cars go through?

5. Not a help unless you're in it.

6. Maybe. Please advise, a) where to find a tiger in northern US states, and b), how to convince it to pee in a bottle.

Okay, I'm not wholly serious with 6. :D

---

All good points, but i think in your answer, you've missed 'my' point. Merely that there are always other ways at looking at a problem. Not just the 'shoot first, think later' approach, which is no more effective than most of the options i have suggested. As for the fence idea: firstly, i'd like to see a bear traverse a cattle grid. Secondly, the fence doesnt have to be heavy duty necessarily, it was only a thought. Merely being electrified would probably work well enough, and thats a pretty inexpensive solution.

Oh, and your answer to 1: yeah probably, but scaring it is what the intention! Antagonise - certainly, i agree it would have to be tested. It may be very effective. Or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

All good points, but i think in your answer, you've missed 'my' point. Merely that there are always other ways at looking at a problem. Not just the 'shoot first, think later' approach, which is no more effective than most of the options i have suggested. As for the fence idea: firstly, i'd like to see a bear traverse a cattle grid. Secondly, the fence doesnt have to be heavy duty necessarily, it was only a thought. Merely being electrified would probably work well enough, and thats a pretty inexpensive solution.

Oh, and your answer to 1: yeah probably, but scaring it is what the intention! Antagonise - certainly, i agree it would have to be tested. It may be very effective. Or not.

---

Having a gun doesn't mean you have to have a "shoot first, think later" attitude, any more than having one at home means you have to blast away at burglars .... or your girlfriend if she goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night. But it does mean you have an extra option, over your choices if you have a burglar and don't have a gun in the home.

Unfortunately either way Guns have a poor outcome when it enters an equation, Pistorius for example or victims being jailed for defending their own properties.

No matter how much you educate your citizens about responsibility, there will be some muppet who is trigger happey and guns down innocent civilians. Having more restricted access or stringent background checks and up to date ownership licenses i.e current address, number e.t.c so people can track you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Having a gun doesn't mean you have to have a "shoot first, think later" attitude, any more than having one at home means you have to blast away at burglars .... or your girlfriend if she goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night. But it does mean you have an extra option, over your choices if you have a burglar and don't have a gun in the home.

---

If you take a gun in the woods because of bears, just in case - it so you can wave it at the bear and say 'SHOO!' is it ;) Im not saying that people who have a gun will use it. Im saying the People who have one to 'protect themselves' are either reluctant to consider alternatives, or just bloody minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Having a gun doesn't mean you have to have a "shoot first, think later" attitude, any more than having one at home means you have to blast away at burglars .... or your girlfriend if she goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night. But it does mean you have an extra option, over your choices if you have a burglar and don't have a gun in the home.

---

Interesting Devil's Advocate there. As South Africa claims to have a degree of vetting regards gun ownership, and Pistorius held a police license for the pistol he shot and killed his partner with (and had allegedly held 6 other unlicensed firearms which he'd applied for licenses for) where does this leave the whole argument with regards the idea that responsible gun owners are nothing to worry about?

I'd say that if Pistorius didn't hold that pistol (which was licensed) he'd have found it much trickier to shoot his girlfriend to death accidentally. Maybe he'd have used a golf club or similar? If so he'd have had to have got much closer, and that would make the mistaken identity angle much harder to sell.

yay double post!

EDIT - ah, sod it. My post count has gone up by one so I might as well make my point.

Had Dick Cheney (again, licensed) not been playing at Elmer Fudd then he'd have struggled to shoot Harry Whittington in 2006. No scary bears or terrismists involved.

I've never carried a gun beyond a laser pistol. I've never fatally nor seriously injured anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

Interesting Devil's Advocate there. As South Africa claims to have a degree of vetting regards gun ownership, and Pistorius held a police license for the pistol he shot and killed his partner with (and had allegedly held 6 other unlicensed firearms which he'd applied for licenses for) where does this leave the whole argument with regards the idea that responsible gun owners are nothing to worry about?

I'd say that if Pistorius didn't hold that pistol (which was licensed) he's have found it much trickier to shoot his girlfriend to death accidentally. Maybe he'd have used a golf club or similar? If so he'd have had to have got much closer, and that would make the mistaken identity angle much harder to sell.

---

Please stop referring to Pistorius. He's not yet been found guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

If you take a gun in the woods because of bears, just in case - it so you can wave it at the bear and say 'SHOO!' is it ;) Im not saying that people who have a gun will use it. Im saying the People who have one to 'protect themselves' are either reluctant to consider alternatives, or just bloody minded.

---

And that's where we disagree, pretty much all through this thread. You keep attributing simplustic motivations to entire groups. It's rarely that simple. Some people may think a gun in the woods means they're invulnerable. Others will be well-trained, disciplined, and treat it as a last resort, once and only once all else has failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

And that's where we disagree, pretty much all through this thread. You keep attributing simplustic motivations to entire groups. It's rarely that simple. Some people may think a gun in the woods means they're invulnerable. Others will be well-trained, disciplined, and treat it as a last resort, once and only once all else has failed.

---

My 'generalised' comments i agree are a bit too simplistic. But we arent talking about individual behaviour of gun users, we're talking about the reason why 'people' have a need for guns. Its hard to be specific about a cultural behaviour. If we were talking about the motivations of an individual however, it would be a different kettle of fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

Interesting Devil's Advocate there. As South Africa claims to have a degree of vetting regards gun ownership, and Pistorius held a police license for the pistol he shot and killed his partner with (and had allegedly held 6 other unlicensed firearms which he'd applied for licenses for) where does this leave the whole argument with regards the idea that responsible gun owners are nothing to worry about?

I'd say that if Pistorius didn't hold that pistol (which was licensed) he's have found it much trickier to shoot his girlfriend to death accidentally. Maybe he'd have used a golf club or similar? If so he'd have had to have got much closer, and that would make the mistaken identity angle much harder to sell.

---

One place it leaves us is with a question over whether he was responsible or not?

Just as not all legal gun owners will be responsible, not everyone that owns a hunting rifle is a redneck yahoo. The same argument, as I pointed out earlier, applies to cars and booze. Not all people that drink do so responsibly, and not all drivers drive responsibly, yet I don't see anyone calling for either booze or cars to be banned. By the same logic, neither the school shooting nor the Pistorius case, whatever it proves to be in the end, make the case for why all gunowners should be penalised for the crazy acts of an individual or teo, however excessive their sad attention-seeking is.

Bears aren't a problem in my state. Packs of wild dogs are. Killed a kid a few weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

Bears aren't a problem in my state. Packs of wild dogs are. Killed a kid a few weeks ago.

---

I bet its more common a problem with domestic dogs. Perhaps everyone in the world should be armed (just in case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xodianbarr

My 'generalised' comments i agree are a bit too simplistic. But we arent talking about individual behaviour of gun users, we're talking about the reason why 'people' have a need for guns. Its hard to be specific about a cultural behaviour. If we were talking about the motivations of an individual however, it would be a different kettle of fish.

---

But that's it exactly .... the "why" for people varies hugely. And the vast majority of legal gun owners are exactly that, normal, well-balanced respectable people, and the "why" willvary, be it sport, hobby, self-protection, hunting for food, or whatever. There is no one, single "why".

Why do you want a car? Maybe you need it to get to work. Why do I want one? Maybe because I'm too lazy to walk to the shops, or maybe because I have arthritis and can't walk to the shops. The "why" varies.