BF2S Forums Feeling Safe Isn't Safe

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years. They break down as follows: 214 unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides, 83 for which the intent could not be determined, and 20 due to legal intervention. Source: 2002 edition of Injury Facts.

And your point is?

My point is that one of the touted benefits of a total gun ban is that we won't have all these kids that die of accidental shootings. As you can see, it's not a statistically significant number. Not to mention, 1,990 homicides of those under 19 years of age. Most of those are gang bangers killing other gang bangers. NHI.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

No they're not.

When I said "our officers" I meant our regular policeman.  The Armed Response Units are specialised forces and your average bobby can't get in.  They have years of training to get into the ARU.  I'm sorry that you could not differentiate this, I will be try to be more specific next time.

As I understand it, your ARU's are within 2 minutes of everywhere in Metro London. So while a beat cop or traffic cop may not be armed, your police are still dependent on those who carry firearms.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

I just opened the most recent UCR from the FBI. The homicide rate in the US is 5.6 per hundred thousand. In the area where I live (lots of guns) it's 2.67 per hundred thousand. I feel pretty safe, actually.

Let's compare to the non metro rates for California and Illinois, states with no concealed carry and tons of gun control laws: Cali's is 4.17 and Illinois is 6.0. In DC, the city that is "gun free," the homicide rate is 35.4 per hundred thousand.

I'll take my chances.

It wasn't "do you feel safe", it was pointing out that a country with gun control has a much, much, much lower homicide rate therefore you, in the USA,  have a much, much, much higher chance of being killed.  It wasn't a blanket statement about whether you feel safe or not. 

Secondly, you can not fairly compare States when there are no border controls.  This is the major flaw in the NRA's arguments about other States and trials because there is nothing stopping someone driving to another state, picking up a weapon and taking back with them.  Only if the US were to do a blanket ban on all States and ensure proper border control before you could really see if it works. 

I would be very surprised if the NRA or you would support that, even if it was a limited trial.

First and foremost, I don't have a much, much higher chance of being killed. Gang- and drug- related murders account for 60% of the homicides in this country. I don't engage in business that puts me at risk of being shot by one of these criminals. They don't shoot at ambulances here.

Second, you cannot just drive to another state and purchase a weapon there. It's against federal law for a nonresident to puchase a handgun anywhere but his or her home state. And no, I wouldn't support a blanket ban, even as a limited trial.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Homicide Rates (per 100,000)
UK 0.8
US 6.9!!!!

Feel safe with all those guns now, statistics can kill.

Homicide with what and where and by what sort of people? When you throw statistics in the air, at least do us the favor of padding them a bit with descriptors, and not just a row of exclamation points.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

I was saying compared to Britain you have a good chance of being killed.

Small island, that.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-01 22:17:59)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Homicide Rates (per 100,000)
UK 0.8
US 6.9!!!!

Feel safe with all those guns now, statistics can kill.

Homicide with what and where and by what sort of people? When you throw statistics in the air, at least do us the favor of padding them a bit with descriptors, and not just a row of exclamation points.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

I was saying compared to Britain you have a good chance of being killed.

Small island, that.

Congratulations. You managed to continue the almost endless trend of gun crime discussions in which an American forgets that crime rates are crimes per number of people and therefore have practically no relation to populace size.

Turquoise wrote:

The Gun Owners of America apparently want insane people to have guns.

The NRA is actually the voice of reason in this dilemma, oddly enough.

Personally, I would agree with Ted Nugent that gun free zones are a recipe for disaster in terms of campuses.  I don't think it would be a good idea to let high schoolers carry guns to school, but college seems appropriate for it.  Students there are adults, and they should be treated accordingly.

As a high schooler can neither apply for a concealed carry license, nor legally purchase a handgun or ammunition, this isn't the question. The question is whether or not a teacher/principal/janitor can carry a gun into school. Also, whether a parent who is a CHL holder can bring his or her weapon to, say, a school play night.

Turquoise wrote:

Still, we definitely need to fix the mental health situation.  I'm sorry, but I give a lot less of a shit about an unstable person's privacy than I do the security of our society.  Unstable people should not be allowed guns, period.  Mental health records should be disclosed properly to agencies that do background checks, and institutions that don't comply or don't properly file the info should be fined accordingly.

But see, that's the problem. How do you define unstable person? If you had one bout of postpartum depression when you were 22 years old, are you unstable? If you were an alcoholic who was the recipient of an intervention, and you quit drinking after being committed against your will, are you unstable?

The act of committing someone against their will is not that hard to do. All you need is a couple of signatures and a notary public. A physician by him or herself can do it. A single police officer or paramedic can do it.

And herin lies the rub. Do these records expire? Is there an appeals process? Are there different levels of crazy?

G3|Genius wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

Gun Control laws only affect those who follow the law.  A lawful man will not own a gun if he's not allowed.  An unlawful man will use a gun regardless of the law.

The whole Gun Control debate is full of fallacies.  It's an appeal to pity.  It's an illogical argument, but it invokes emotion, so the argument is considered.

Your whole statement is based on assumptions and you are omitting the evidence that it clear to see from other nations.

Started reading through, render my opinion when I finished reading (expect some edits)

I am not trying to be bias, if I offend anyone in anyway, I apologize now.  These are my thoughts and opinions which everyone is entitled to.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Unless you have no faith in your border control, limiting guns is possible.

1.  I'm sure EVERY American out there thinks that nothing gets into the country that we don't want.  That's why we have a huge amount of illegal drugs coming in from middle/south America, Illegal immigrants coming in faster than we can extradite, so what's to say that guns becoming illegal (which will never happen), none will get in?

2.  Is anyone else wallowing in the ironic fumes that are flying everywhere in this thread.  What game do we play, Battlefield 2.  Go on to that section, what do you see?  3,000 posts about people flaming other people who say rules are dumb, and you should do whatever you want as long as it's possible.  Now I read through this thread and keep hearing the same "It's better to live here because we ban something that can kill."  I dare you to go make a post in the BF2 section saying "My server's better to play on because we don't allow bunnyhopping."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so after reading every word in and linked to this topic, this is what I have to say:

There is absolutely NO way that you can compare the United States to the United Kingdom.  Get a quick history lesson, does the UK have a period in time where people from Africa was shipped to America and forced to work without pay by punishment of death?  I'm pretty sure there wasn't.  The United States is a TOTALLY different culture here, and cannot be compared to any other country by any means.

With all these gun related crimes and so forth that is ever so present in our country, I have yet to see anyone even flash a gun at anyone else in my entire 21 years of life.  Crime is based upon making money (Mostly).  If you drive around in a 12 year old pickup truck, you will be much less likely to be robbed than someone driving around in their Corvette.  Many people who are killed (Not all, but try to understand this statement) by guns are those who chose to either engage in a criminal act (drug dealers, gang members) or flaunt how much cash they have.

To prove this point:  I live in Center City Philadelphia.  We are currently in the deadliest years in the city's history.  But I have yet to see/hear/witness a crime yet.  It is about choices.  Even with the United Kingdom's gun ban, will you knowingly walk down a back alley where you know there is normally a high crime rate?

And in a response to the guy's post of being a small island.  The United States might have a huge 298,986,957 population compared to the UK's 60,551,804  (almost 5 times as many people), but the size of your country DOES have a big influence on this issue.  The UK has a population density of 246 people/kilometer compared to the US of 31 People/Kilometer.  This has many things that are unable to be calculated into the argument.  Because the UK has it's population living in a relatively small area, response time to crime/emergencies are generally faster (This is a generalized statement).  When a crime happens, there is eight times as many people that can witness the crime, therefore making it that much easier to keep criminals off the street.  In the US, there are still parts of the country that are 50 miles from the nearest hospital, let alone a police station.  My parents live in the middle of nowhere, and the only police force that is present is the State Police.  If you call a cop, one will arrive in a few (15-20) min.

And since the one person living in Great Brittan thinks it's safer to live there, the total deaths since the year 2005 show as: 1,410,253 UK compared to 5,520,228 US  (only 4 times the deaths compared to the 5 times the population size).  So if you are comparing these stats, it's actually safer to live in the US...

So there is no right or wrong answer here.  If you like to live in the country with strict gun laws, go live in it.  Be happy.  If you don't see any difference, go live in a country that doesn't restrict all guns, just don't complain about it or say that your way is best.

Last edited by Drexel (2007-05-02 21:55:25)

Switzerland's gun laws are really lax, hell most guys there have used a gun by the time they're 18. Remind me again how many drive-bys and school shootings and other gun-related homicides happen there?

Drexel wrote:

And since the one person living in Great Brittan thinks it's safer to live there, the total deaths since the year started show as: 1,410,253 UK compared to 5,520,228 US  (only 4 times the deaths compared to the 5 times the population size).  So if you are comparing these stats, it's actually safer to live in the US...

Where the hell are you getting your statistics?

Homicides (since we're discussing gun deaths) per capita

pos   country   stat
24     USA     4.2 (per 100,000)
46     UK       1.4 ""

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … per-capita

As for last year (dunno where your getting this year's from), there were 765 murders in England and Wales (and that includes the 52 who died on 7/7).  Show me the stat where it says the US had less than 4427 then.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

I doubt Briton has the wonderful slums that we have here. In Rochester NY 30 have already been killed in the city. All of these homicides have occurred where drugs and gangs are predominant. Most if not all the deaths were because of bad choices not some bone head shooting up a school.

The argument that the UK is somehow safer is pure bull shit.

no matter what way you slice it, Europe's ideas of gun control will not work in this country. period.
im so tired of seeing this sad debate where people compare stats from their country, and expect the solution to be so simple....its not that simple....no matter how many numbers you put up for everyone to see.

most people that dont live in this country lack the understanding to look at the problem as a whole. the people that post from countries that dont allow firearms couldnt even begin to comprehend this......thats why the fact that we carry firearms sickens them. they dont have the issues we do, so they couldnt comprehend why we would want to carry.

our countries are different.
i realize that more everyday. im sure that england never makes any mistakes *cough* karl marx *cough* but here, we made our mistakes about this issue long ago, and now its up to the US to deal with it.





edit: and enough with the knives...your making me look bad

Last edited by Parker (2007-05-02 22:24:04)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Well according to your compatriots, he would be gunned down by one of your gun-toting citizens taking the laws into his own hands.  Besides, what does it say when a guy can't make light entertainment without being put in prison?

No, I do not think that he'd be shot, but I do think that this guy would be at least reprimanded for causing people to think they were actually going to die, just to stand there and laugh at them.

blisteringsilence wrote:

As a high schooler can neither apply for a concealed carry license, nor legally purchase a handgun or ammunition, this isn't the question. The question is whether or not a teacher/principal/janitor can carry a gun into school. Also, whether a parent who is a CHL holder can bring his or her weapon to, say, a school play night.

At the high and middle school levels, most schools already have full time policemen on campus.  The number varies, but I figure at least one armed cop per campus is enough security for most schools.

Therefore, high school teachers don't really need guns.  Pepper spray could be a good weapon of choice for the teachers though.

blisteringsilence wrote:

But see, that's the problem. How do you define unstable person? If you had one bout of postpartum depression when you were 22 years old, are you unstable? If you were an alcoholic who was the recipient of an intervention, and you quit drinking after being committed against your will, are you unstable?

The act of committing someone against their will is not that hard to do. All you need is a couple of signatures and a notary public. A physician by him or herself can do it. A single police officer or paramedic can do it.

And herin lies the rub. Do these records expire? Is there an appeals process? Are there different levels of crazy?

There are different levels of deviancy indeed, but I'm mostly referring to behaviors that are violent or harmful to others.  Still, we certainly need to further reform our mental health system.  Like social workers, we have far too few psychiatrists per capita to handle the needs of most communities.  Once we fix things like that, we'll be better able to identify people that shouldn't be allowed guns.