If Jack Chick drew PSA cartoons...

You know how I know you're not from Texas..?

Ditto, but there are several other states that follow those laws as well.

Like us Alaskans. :D

I believe he lives in Arizona, which I believe has the highest gun ownership in the US (and the most lax gun laws too)

Good thing Georgia self-defense laws are not only easy to comprehend, for once, the victim actually has some f'n' RIGHTS. So, if some ne'er do well breaks in the house and I unload the bullpup or turn him into stew beef with various blades, there WON'T be any liberal ballyhoo about why didn't I offer him refreshments and a conversation before handing him the family valuables. Late nights I wait and pray for the opportunity to show the citizenry the latest and greatest in home defense.

Same here in Texas. Its called the Castle Doctrine.

Yay for Texas! I've always considered Texas as a state with a pair. I remember a couple years ago that there was talk about Texas wanting to secede from the union after the most recent election. It made me want to emigrate.

With what you said about guns I am a prime example with my recent GSWs (I still have the fragments in my head to prove it) but also if you don't have proper training they can take that gun from you and use it on you.... I didn't have a gun with me but with my training and my determination to survive my assailant broke off the attack.....

If they don't know you have it until they should be worried about it, the training is simple: shoot before they can grab it.

It maybe good in principle but not necessarily practical if you don't have your gun drawn first....... As what Karno said it is best to avoid the fight.... Mine was unavoidable and his gun was drawn plus it was face to the back of my head so it's a choice draw a weapon and let him keep shooting me or hand to hand and try to take as many with me.... Even a police officer knows if you try to draw your firearm when you are grappling with the perp the chances are greater of shooting yourself than them.... You even watch the police videos of them grappling the officer is trying to keep his weapon from being drawn until they can break away and then draw it....

The one part I hate about Canada...

If I have to choose a weapon I choose a forest. Every one has a ton of poisons in it and some other benefits if they are big enough.

I have to agree with you

I still don't understand how it all works down there, with just about anybody being able to have a gun. It's so much simpler here in Canada :p

Is it, now. Abandoning personal responsibility may "simplify" things in the short run ("I don't have to think, just do what I'm told"), but hey, just for fun, check how kind history is to societies that do that.

I meant that guns are illegal, except for hunting :p So no choice of which gun, no responsibility of possibly shooting people, all that, gone!

'cept for the police and the army, of course :p I'm pretty sure the policemen are really happy the civilians don't have guns to shoot them with!

you realy think most gun crimes are commited with a legal gun?? 95% are commited with ILEGAL GUNS!! A criminal will not think about gun laws. Look at England, one of the highest crime rates and guns are illegal over there.
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/...../BritvsUSA.htm
and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/n.....s/798708/posts

Thanks for the links - eyeopening, fersure!

np. I just hate it when people say England is so much better then the U.S because of gun control laws. England only has about 30 million people living there and has a higher number per 100,000.

I didn't say that! I just think that, you know, since there are a lot less guns in the country, it'd be a tad harder for non-crime organization people to get one. Might not affect burglary or assaults or whatever, but I suppose there will be less of them armed with guns.

Also, I'm in Canada, so no I don't say England is better than the US. Just Canada

You mean you meant a fantasy version of Canada?

While there are some guns that are illegal to own in Canada, there is no general prohibition, (and yes, it is quite legal to own a gun for personal protection[1]).



[1] Not that doing so makes you any safer, you just trade a small chance of being in a situation where having a gun would help you for a small chance of shooting yourself.

I thought you weren't allowed to purchase weapons unless it was for hunting or for say competitive sports.

What kind of gun is legal for personal protection? I'm fairly sure a P90 or an M14 wouldn't cut it, what kind of gun would be permitted?

My general reasoning was that since there are far less places where one can get a gun, there is a lesser chance of firearms being stolen/sold to the black market/whatever. So there would be less chances of being held at gunpoint.

And I don't know how likely one is to shoot oneself, is one uses proper precautions...

What you're thinking of are the firearms that aren't even restricted weapons. Of course, since the long-arm registry came into existence, there are few practical differences between a restricted and a non-restricted firearm.

For personal protection, I was referring to the classic bit of owning a gun to protect yourself from criminals. This would generally mean a handgun of some sort. Standard M14s and P90s would be prohibited weapons due to them being capable of fully automatic fire.


As for the likelihood of shooting yourself: The US runs at about 20k accidental shootings a year, mostly by people who think that they know what they are doing and are taking proper precautions. Digging up some more detailed stats gives the following, (2006 stats):

If you assume that the only weapon ever used to resist a crime is a firearm, and resistance is always successful: There were 76,000 violent crimes prevented with guns.

If you assume all gun suicides would have succeeded through other means: There were 14,000 non-criminal firearm deaths. Best case scenario, an innocent person dies for every 5.5 crimes prevented.

Note again that this is deaths, not trips to the hospital, less than 10% of accidental shootings result in death. Note also that this is for violent crimes in general, over 70% of which would not result in injury. Guess what that does to the ratio?


(Woops, forgot to click "reply" first.)

"The US runs at about 20k accidental shootings a year, mostly by people who think that they know what they are doing and are taking proper precautions."
I wonder how much of those is people actually shooting themselves, and how many are people shooting others...


"If you assume that the only weapon ever used to resist a crime is a firearm, and resistance is always successful: There were 76,000 violent crimes prevented with guns."

What was the statistic exactly? Because you make it sound like you found out 76,000 violent crimes were prevented, and you assumed they were all prevented with guns. Not saying you're lying or anything I just don't really know what to take from this.


"If you assume all gun suicides would have succeeded through other means: There were 14,000 non-criminal firearm deaths. Best case scenario, an innocent person dies for every 5.5 crimes prevented."
Wait, you're comparing the rates of violent crimes prevented (and we assumed with a firearm) with the rate of suicides?


"Note again that this is deaths, not trips to the hospital, less than 10% of accidental shootings result in death. Note also that this is for violent crimes in general, over 70% of which would not result in injury. Guess what that does to the ratio?"
I honestly have no idea.

I wonder how much of those is people actually shooting themselves, and how many are people shooting others...

That includes both, all too often someone shooting his own kid.

What was the statistic exactly? Because you make it sound like you found out 76,000 violent crimes were prevented, and you assumed they were all prevented with guns. Not saying you're lying or anything I just don't really know what to take from this.

The 76,000 number was the number of violent crimes where the victim resisted. I was giving the best case scenario for gun advocates, that such resistance was always done with a gun and that it always succeeded.

Wait, you're comparing the rates of violent crimes prevented (and we assumed with a firearm) with the rate of suicides?

While such would be a valid comparison, (using a gun makes an attempt far more likely to succeed), I did forget to mention that this was assuming that all firearm suicides would have succeeded through other means, (it go clobbered in an edit and I forgot to put it back in).

The 76,000 number was the number of violent crimes where the victim resisted. I was giving the best case scenario for gun advocates, that such resistance was always done with a gun and that it always succeeded.

Unfortunately, one could turn this 180° and say none of those cases involved guns and that they always succeeded in their defence through other means. So now it's for every suicide with a firearm, 5 crimes have been stopped without using a gun.

Without solid statistic, one can't get any good conclusions.

But still, out of the 14,000 non-criminal firearm deaths, how many would have been avoided with more severe gun restrictions? Sure, suicidal people can find a heck of a lot of alternative means to kill themselves, but if it's harder for a guy to get a gun to shoot himself with, wouldn't it be harder to find one to shoot their fellow students with too? Wouldn't it be harder for a desperate guy to find one to go rob a bank or something?

Sure, the black market will still sell firearms. But you need to have access to the black market, which is not typical of everyday citizens.