How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent

[spartan max2]

You are willing to dismiss something you considered sensible enough to like simply because of politics?

Isn't that kinda...building fences where none are needed?

Hmm...wait, no, that doesn't sound quite right...

The average person stopping an armed assailant with pepper spray is rather easy because it requires little in the way of precision, no mental conflict in terms of killing another person, and pepper spray, regardless of whether it hits any critical areas or not, it is an inflammatory, which means there will be a biological reaction (as opposed to an irritant, which will cause pain). Even if it turns out to be non-effective, the criminal is unlikely to seize the pepper spray and kill the person with it.

On the other hand, the average person facing down an armed assailant with a gun is going to be shaking just as badly as the person with the pepper spray, but a gun is far more likely to miss its target due to the shaking. Additionally, there is going to be the added conflict of killing a person, and even if the "average" person is okay with that, there is still the fact that they are directly engaging, directly being an imminent threat, to something that has shown a willingness to kill. Hopefully, they hit their target and don't panic-fire, or all they have done is increase the quantity of bullets flying haphazardly in the area. And in the event the assailant is missed, or hit but not incapacitated, he will now turn his direct attention on the person, which chances are good will end with the person dead.

More specialized tools don't make a job easier. They just make it more precise. If you can't take advantage of the precision, not only will the advantages be unlikely to be worth it, it may even be a disadvantage.

Oh, for heaven's sake, are we going to have to go through all this again?

For the bolded part. It kind of just sounds like your trying to fight? I mean I knew her veiws so I know her post couldent possibly of meant what I thought it meant. and it didnt

If you want someone to defend themselves with pepper spray then at that point it makes just as much sense for self defense with a gun. Your worried about them taking your weapon from you and using it against you, but regardless of what your weapon is if they are able to take it from you and close enough then your pretty much at your mercy now anyways despite what the weapon may be.

Plus pepper spray will probably just p*** people off more then stop them. Adrenaline pumped scared mad people, your risking alot pepper spraying them. Or if there are acouple of them, will you just pepper spray all of them? Plus a shooters gun will have more range then pepper spray

Thats why there are not much of any examples of shooters being stopped by pepper spray.

Edited October 1, 2014 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

So, you have no problem with Islamic states punishing the victims of rape because they allowed the rapist the opportunity to rape them?

Because that is the bottom line of the philosophy you espouse here - that whatever anyone does is okay, so long as you can do what you consider okay. And it doesn't matter if this brings harm to those who are innocent.

you know thats not what he meant. your just nit picking

Democratic countries voting on gun laws isnt quite the same thing is it

[aquatus1]

For the bolded part. It kind of just sounds like your trying to fight? I mean I knew her veiws so I know her post couldent possibly of meant what I thought it meant. and it didnt

No, actually, I was trying to point out that the reasoning you are using is kind of self-limiting. It's like you are going with a party candidate because he is your party candidate, even though you actually liked what the other candidate said. You are actually over-riding something you think is sensible in favor of going along the party lines. That's kind of...anti-thinking. It builds fences where there don't need to be any. It enforces the idea that you need to be defensive against...new ideas, or maybe the thought that people on the other side of the fence may have reason for what they do and how they think.

I mean, look at your response above; Why, in a post where someone is being extra careful to not say anything insulting or directly aggressive towards you, do you see someone picking a fight? Why make lines in the sand like that? There's nothing wrong with understanding, and even appreciating, the other side of the argument. It doesn't mean that you agree with it.

If you want someone to defend themselves with pepper spray then at that point it makes just as much sense for self defense with a gun.

Well, you say that, but I outlined several reasons why it is not so. Perhaps you can counter the points I raised?

Your worried about them taking your weapon from you and using it against you, but regardless of what your weapon is if they are able to take it from you and close enough then your pretty much at your mercy now anyways despite what the weapon may be.

No, actually, the point wasn't that they can take the weapon from you; the point was that, all else being equal, the chances of you being killed with your own pepper spray are miniscule compared to the chances of you being killed with your own firearm.

Plus pepper spray will probably just p*** people off more then stop them.

No, it will most likely stop them. Very few people can resist incapacitation by pepper spray, despite what TV and movies would have you believe. Remember that because it is an inflammatory, not an irritant, the subject sprayed doesn't have a choice in the matter; their eyes will swell shut, radically diminishing their vision, and their nasal and throat passages will constrict and flood, making breathing more difficult.

Adrenaline pumped scared mad people, your risking alot pepper spraying them.

We are talking about a person who has opened fire in public on random people. Any adrenaline that is going to pump has already been pumped.

Or if there are acouple of them, will you just pepper spray all of them?

Why not? I would submit it is easier to incapacitate two people effectively with pepper spray, which does very little to the points that I mentioned, than it is to shoot the two people, which radically increases all the factors I pointed out.

Plus a shooters gun will have more range then pepper spray

Yeah, have to give you that. That said, how many massacres occur at significant range? Keychain pepper sprays are good for about 8 feet or so. The regular sized cans are good for 15-20 feet. You can get squirters instead of foggers that can extend that to 30 feet.

Thats why there are not much of any examples of shooters being stopped by pepper spray.

Is...is that another ones of those things that are said and assumed to be true, without anyone actually checking up on them?

That seems to be happening a lot lately.

[spartan max2]

No, actually, I was trying to point out that the reasoning you are using is kind of self-limiting. It's like you are going with a party candidate because he is your party candidate, even though you actually liked what the other candidate said. You are actually over-riding something you think is sensible in favor of going along the party lines. That's kind of...anti-thinking. It builds fences where there don't need to be any. It enforces the idea that you need to be defensive against...new ideas, or maybe the thought that people on the other side of the fence may have reason for what they do and how they think.

I mean, look at your response above; Why, in a post where someone is being extra careful to not say anything insulting or directly aggressive towards you, do you see someone picking a fight? Why make lines in the sand like that? There's nothing wrong with understanding, and even appreciating, the other side of the argument. It doesn't mean that you agree with it.

Well, you say that, but I outlined several reasons why it is not so. Perhaps you can counter the points I raised?

No, actually, the point wasn't that they can take the weapon from you; the point was that, all else being equal, the chances of you being killed with your own pepper spray are miniscule compared to the chances of you being killed with your own firearm.

No, it will most likely stop them. Very few people can resist incapacitation by pepper spray, despite what TV and movies would have you believe. Remember that because it is an inflammatory, not an irritant, the subject sprayed doesn't have a choice in the matter; their eyes will swell shut, radically diminishing their vision, and their nasal and throat passages will constrict and flood, making breathing more difficult.

We are talking about a person who has opened fire in public on random people. Any adrenaline that is going to pump has already been pumped.

Why not? I would submit it is easier to incapacitate two people effectively with pepper spray, which does very little to the points that I mentioned, than it is to shoot the two people, which radically increases all the factors I pointed out.

Yeah, have to give you that. That said, how many massacres occur at significant range? Keychain pepper sprays are good for about 8 feet or so. The regular sized cans are good for 15-20 feet. You can get squirters instead of foggers that can extend that to 30 feet.

Is...is that another ones of those things that are said and assumed to be true, without anyone actually checking up on them?

That seems to be happening a lot lately.

I like a post if I agree with it, someone makes a good point or of its funny. I didn't agree with it so I didn't like it lol

The pepper spare not stopping much shootings is assumed. But if someone wants to find numbers showing other wise feel free.

Pepper spray has no chance of collateral but it still seems dangerous to bring pepper spray to a gun fight. A blinded shooter might cause even more damage by randomly firing.

And there are many examples of guns working as self defense. We have a whole thread of them actually. If I had to defend myself it'd be with a gun.

If they are as close range as they are in your scenario the odds of missing are low. Everyone dosent shake and panic. Those people are the ones who probably left in the first place. Not to mention if most people shake from a gun then by that same logic most people would be too scared to spray and then psychically take the person down

That takes alot more effort and nerves then to pull a trigger. And it's a lot more unnecessary danger to yourself.

Plus a lot of people may be weaker then the guy they sprayed and want to take down. With a gun this is not a problem.

Edited October 1, 2014 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

I invite you to go to the "gun saves lives" thread read one of the many news stories posted and in your mind give the defendant pepper spray instead of a gun and tell me if you think the outcome would of been the same

[Guest]

I invite you to go to the "gun saves lives" thread read one of the many news stories posted and in your mind give the defendant pepper spray instead of a gun and tell me if you think the outcome would of been the same

That whole thread is not an argument for guns - its an argument that when guns are endemic you are left with little choice but to arm yourself.

That represents a downward spiral which leads inevitably to the situation where everyone is 43x more likely to end up dead.

Br Cornelius

[dr no]

That whole thread is not an argument for guns - its an argument that when guns are endemic you are left with little choice but to arm yourself.

That represents a downward spiral which leads inevitably to the situation where everyone is 43x more likely to end up dead.

Br Cornelius

Its a strange kind of logic that says to combat gun crime we need more guns.It's totally alien thinking to us over here

[F3SS]

Thanks Spartan. I didn't realize I was being so all encompassing with every current affair in the world.

So, you have no problem with Islamic states punishing the victims of rape because they allowed the rapist the opportunity to rape them?

Because that is the bottom line of the philosophy you espouse here - that whatever anyone does is okay, so long as you can do what you consider okay. And it doesn't matter if this brings harm to those who are innocent.

But for arguments sake I'll just give you a yes. What the hell and why not? After all, everybody knows me as Mr. Sharia around here.

Seriously, where did you really want to go with this?

[itsnotoutthere]

My old man (a retired copper) disarmed a nutter with a gun with a can of Coca-Cola once.

Yup, that s**t will clean rust off chrome too.

[spartan max2]

That whole thread is not an argument for guns - its an argument that when guns are endemic you are left with little choice but to arm yourself.

That represents a downward spiral which leads inevitably to the situation where everyone is 43x more likely to end up dead.

Br Cornelius

Once again if you can see it that way if you want to assume the homicide and crime rate is caused by guns. And ignore all other factors.

Just like the U.K has other factors effecting its violence, but you choose to ignore any other factors going on in the U.S other then guns because its convenient for you to see it that way.

And with stats Idc if its a greater chance of death by a gun I care if its a greater chance of death, Idc what with. I just say this because alot of times people use statistics about gun violence when its the violence level we care about.

Its a strange kind of logic that says to combat gun crime we need more guns.It's totally alien thinking to us over here

A gun is to protect you from CRIMINALS.

Edited October 1, 2014 by spartan max2

[Guest]

Spartan - guns are amplifiers of bad outcomes.

A robbery ends in either the robbed or robber dead - rather than just a little poorer.

A fight ends in a person been dead rather than having a simple injury.

If you cannot see that your massively higher murder rate is attributable to the ease of killing with a gun you are frankly so ideologically driven that you will never get it.

You are really trying to extend the argument that Americans are intrinsically a more brutal and criminal group of people than Europeans. I aint buying that as an explanation and I am frankly shocked that you would try to propose it of your fellow citizens.

Br Cornelius

[Insaniac]

A gun is to protect you from CRIMINALS.

Using a gun typically makes one a criminal.

[aquatus1]

I like a post if I agree with it, someone makes a good point or of its funny. I didn't agree with it so I didn't like it lol

That's not what you said.

The pepper spare not stopping much shootings is assumed. But if someone wants to find numbers showing other wise feel free.

It's enough for me to know that you acknowledge your support to be faith-based rather than factually verified. I am not trying to change your point of view, after all. That would just be a benny.

Pepper spray has no chance of collateral but it still seems dangerous to bring pepper spray to a gun fight.

Bringing anything into a gunfight is going to be dangerous. That's why the average civilian gets out of there as soon as possible. If there wasn't a gun involved, things would be a heck of a lot safer all around.

A blinded shooter might cause even more damage by randomly firing.

But, all things being equal, a shooter who can't see, can barely breath, and is wracked with pain, is far, far, far less likely to cause more damage than one who can see, can breath, and is feeling no pain.

And there are many examples of guns working as self defense.

No one denies that.

We have a whole thread of them actually. If I had to defend myself it'd be with a gun.

And I would use pepper spray. But personal opinions aren't really relevant in this particular situation.

If they are as close range as they are in your scenario the odds of missing are low.

They are pretty high. Come on now, you've been on the range. You've seen people under perfect conditions completely miss a target at 10-20 feet. Put them in a situation where not only are they dealing with the distance, they are dealing with all the other factors mentioned, and the chances of them missing rise dramatically. Are you going to argue that this is an assumption?

Everyone dosent shake and panic. Those people are the ones who probably left in the first place.

The average person shakes. A lot. And that's considering the average person to be a regularly practicing shooter. A person who owns a gun, but doesn't practice regularly with it, is as likely to panic as anyone else.

Not to mention if most people shake from a gun then by that same logic most people would be too scared to spray...

Come on, don't be silly. Don't stretch. The key to any comparison is "All else being equal". A person shaking in fear with a gun and a person shaking in fear with pepper spray are both perfectly capable of engaging a shooter. Don't be disingenuous and try to claim that fear only causes people to shake if they have a gun, but completely incapacitates them if they have pepper spray. The only difference, when you keep all other factors equal, is that the pepper spray doesn't require the precision marksmanship of a handgun.

and then psychically take the person down

Meh, different topic for a different forum.

That takes alot more effort and nerves then to pull a trigger.

I agree. Indeed, pulling a trigger is so easy it creates the aforementioned danger of friendly fire (so to speak).

And it's a lot more unnecessary danger to yourself.

You seem pretty confident that shooting a person puts them down and keeps them down. This has not been my experience. If anything, I tend to be (rather, I used to be, back when I was a MP) more cautious of someone who has been shot. You just don't know how they are going to react. You still, however, have to restrain them. The advantage of pepper spray is that the reactions are fairly predictable and rather easily read. The disadvantage is that you will probably be affected, albeit on a lesser level, by the spray when restraining them.

Plus a lot of people may be weaker then the guy they sprayed and want to take down. With a gun this is not a problem.

When you are engaged in a fight, particularly one where lethal force is involved, you aren't really analyzing who is stronger than whom. It doesn't matter if you are a waifish, 100 lb weakling or a rock-hard football player; once you have made the decision to engage, things kind of take a momentum of their own. Once either sized hero sees the bad guy drop the gun, they will sprint over and tackle them. You can find account after account of police having to pull off a tiny little defender from the person who was the original attacker. There's a reason why the old cliche "If she was any more helpless, she'd have killed him!" is a cliche.

I invite you to go to the "gun saves lives" thread read one of the many news stories posted and in your mind give the defendant pepper spray instead of a gun and tell me if you think the outcome would of been the same

You are making the same mistake you made with DOT.

[aquatus1]

But for arguments sake I'll just give you a yes. What the hell and why not? After all, everybody knows me as Mr. Sharia around here.

Seriously, where did you really want to go with this?

Gotta agree with F3SS here, Leo. You look like you are going out of your way to pick a fight here.

[aquatus1]

Its a strange kind of logic that says to combat gun crime we need more guns.It's totally alien thinking to us over here

You think that's bad? The same logic has been applied to school shootings, with people demanding that teachers be armed in the event of a shooter.

That's pro-gun logic for you: The solution to gunfire in schools is to increase the amount of gunfire in schools.

[psyche101]

That's so funny! You've just stated only the criminals in your country have access to handguns and you think that's OK!

Organised crime tends to not affect the general public. Organised crime is more concerned with other organised crime, the public are their laundry.

[psyche101]

So we should disarm with such clear and present danger? I think not.

Things is, many see that statement as:

So we should disarm with such clear and present danger? I think not. so

[aquatus1]

Once again if you can see it that way if you want to assume the homicide and crime rate is caused by guns. And ignore all other factors.

The argument has never been about the crime rate being caused by guns. The argument has been that guns increase the rate of homicide because they are very good at doing what they are designed to do, i.e. kill things, such as people. Keeping all factors the same, and removing guns, will still leave you with a high criminal rate, but the amount of homicides will drop dramatically, because killing people without a gun takes far more effort and intent than with a gun.

Heck, half the time, the actual killing is an accident.

[psyche101]

No I need a weapon to defend myself from criminals. Thats called common sense

Everyone is not Bruce lee

Hi Max

I honestly get the impression that you need a weapon to allay that fear, not react to a real threat. May I ask what is the likelihood that you will actually use your weapon, and have you ever done so, or have your parents had to? How real is your fear of home invasion?

[aquatus1]

Organised crime tends to not affect the general public. Organised crime is more concerned with other organised crime, the public are their laundry.

Additionally, I am much less worried about a criminal with the intelligence and discipline to obtain and carry a firearm in an environment where merely having a firearm in his possession would automatically be cause for arrest and conviction. A person like that is much less likely to accidentally kill innocent bystanders than some young hood who can just waltz into a pawn shop and buy a gun.

[psyche101]

No, your tortured logic and convoluted rationalizations--all off the top of your head--just makes my point. Here in this oh so dangeous U.S. I'ved been armed for fifty years and never been shot at or fired a personal weapon in anger. Your fears are misplaced.

If you have never had need for a gun, how real is the perceived danger though? Most people seem to say this, and then say the threat of him invasion is very real, it's contradictory.

[psyche101]

Okay....

I'm not going to even try and post past comments,

Saw a comment about unarmed peasants. Really, unarmed?

In case you have not been informed by the strong Gun Proponents here, according to some in the US, if you do not have a gun, you are weak, and too cowardly to defend your family.

Apparently having a gun changes that in the US according to some.

You really have to wonder don't you............

Obvious no Rocket Scientists amongst that mob.

Edited October 2, 2014 by psyche101

[+Hammerclaw]

People using the reason to own a gun(s) as a means of defense in a home invasion, often are using that excuse in the same vein as a teenage girl being prescribed birth control pills to regulated her period. They're both valid reasons, but may hide different agendas. I own guns because it's a family tradition and considered a rite-of-passage from boyhood to manhood. I don't hunt and rarely practice anymore, it's just something that's been a part of my life and no more out of the ordinary than owning a car. It's just an extention of the old adage that--if a man can ride and shoot, he should well in life--into modern era. Others have their own reasons, some not so good perhaps, but I'm neither judge of nor spokes person for them, I'm just a Yank expressing an American opinion and point-of-view.

[psyche101]

People using the reason to own a gun(s) as a means of defense in a home invasion, often are using that excuse in the same vein as a teenage girl being prescribed birth control pills to regulated her period. They're both valid reasons, but may hide different agendas. I own guns because it's a family tradition and considered a rite-of-passage from boyhood to manhood. I don't hunt and rarely practice anymore, it's just something that's been a part of my life and no more out of the ordinary than owning a car. It's just an extention of the old adage that--if a man can ride and shoot, he should well in life--into modern era. Others have their own reasons, some not so good perhaps, but I'm neither judge of nor spokes person for them, I'm just a Yank expressing an American opinion and point-of-view.

Indeed you are pleasant to converse with, if Aztek GreenDude or Thor join in, posters will see the really negative side of Gun Culture and why so many are opposed to the ideal. And I find you reasons as tradition and collection valid, but again I argue home defence, if you have not ever had to use a weapon for home defence, how valid is that reason? A teen girls will eventually have sex, nothing will stop that, but there is no reason to think you will have to defend against a home invasion if you have not even been privy to such in your life, and the only reason comes from a statistic, I have finally ordered a copy of that book, but it is still two weeks away (along with Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing") but surely it is time to reconsider traditions that are simply reassurance in this day and age. Gun Control would protect your gun rights further the way I see it, bettering odds that any person with a gun is responsible and would take the perceived negative edge away from Gun Culture.

Edited October 2, 2014 by psyche101

[F3SS]

Organised crime tends to not affect the general public. Organised crime is more concerned with other organised crime, the public are their laundry.

I'm sure I or others have told you the same about the U.S.. Most of our gun crimes are committed by an inner city criminal culture. They might not be mafia but they are gangs and many are well organized. Though some are not well organized but that doesn't take away from the point that it's mostly criminals settling beef with criminals. If that's something you can brush off in your country then why not ours?