Londoners die for want of a gun

I hope that's not directed at me. I posted an interesting article, I didn't write it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

for starters...

not arguing against guns, however they're not going to stop a riot.

 

Dam sure slow one down!!!!!

 

Really? Their cops don't have guns either?

 

Can you understand that, I cant... There is now talk of giving the Bobby's (cops) guns, about efen time!!!!! Jim

 

I will say one thing. When our power was out for 5 days here in Huntsville during the tornadoes, we had few issues. 2 looters were shot, and that was that. Similar treatment for looters elsewhere, never got very far...

 

Although I will say, the guy that came to rob me... my dog scared him off before my gun had the chance! She earned her dinner that night.

 

okay, you completely missed the point.

"But the anarchy that raged in England couldn't happen in America"

yes it could, and has. for how long? until the military showed up, just like in England (your example).

 

Guy that came to rob me knocked first to check if anyone was home... Didn't want to be shot.

Seriously, that does seem to be modus operandi for places with armed citizens (verifying nobody's home before intruding.) Say what you will, I believe it does make a difference.

(How do I know he came to rob me? First, he came to the middle of a neighborhood to a corner house with no car in the driveway (truck in garage) in the middle of a city-wide blackout at 12:30 at night "to find out where an open gas station is" / "get water for his radiator" depending which story you believe. Second, he stole my hose from outside.)

 

maybe i should've kept it that simple. how easily we forget...

 

i wasn't addressing that point... i addressed the point i quoted.

anarchy can reign for a time (both countries needed military to quell the chaos) in countries with, and without armed citizens - that was my point.

regarding thinking twice - of course.

 

As I have said for 40 years never carry looking for shit, carry so there will be no shit!!!!!

 

People say gun owners are paranoid. I don't consider myself paranoid, I consider myself prepared.

For an event like that power outage, I felt much more secure knowing that I had 60 lbs and .40 calibers of "a plan" in the event somebody like that guy came around. I did, he decided it wasn't worth it, and fortunately nothing bad happened. (except the dog getting a belly rub.)

Dog is a 60lb rhodesian ridgeback / shepherd / other mix. She looks pretty menacing, I have to say. Especially since she's ripped! (We run 2-4 miles per day.)

 

Suggesting that an armed population somehow is more protected from violent crime is not exactly supported by the violent crime rates of the two countries

 

*shrug* That gets confusing fast. The easiest way to state it based on the facts is that it's indeterminate.

A lot of what gets thrown around is gun violence and gun murder statistics. Well, I'd say, duh gun violence is lower when you have fewer guns, but what exactly makes that special?

On violent crime in general, the US is actually lower than Britain in almost all aspects, the one exception being murder, in all honesty due to gang violence. Some ridiculous percentage of US murders are from gang rivalries.

Britain also has historically underreported a lot of violent crime to try to show themselves as being safer than they really are.

In any event, there's no clear notion that arming OR disarming the populace prevents crime, violent or not. It's clear that the more people are poor and/or angry about their state in life, the more crime you have, guns or no.

Since disarming the populace shows no conclusive evidence toward preventing crime, I'd rather have the option to defend myself, thank you very much. Especially since the police have no duty to protect me.

 

I sir have never been robed, carjacked or mugged. However I have pulled the coat back from the 44 in a bad spot.. Works every time for me!!!

 

No , I was referring to England , unless there was a riot in London , Ontario I hadn't heard about

 

Up in Canook land they call this spin

 

Sure, I'm just explaining that the formula isn't as simple as "No guns = less violence."

It's really more like "guns or no, violent people are violent."

Since that is the inevitable conclusion if you look at the stats (crime goes up and down regardless of whether guns are legal, everywhere, and no ban on guns has had a lasting increase OR decrease in overall crime) I don't see the reason to keep me from defending myself. It doesn't help anything else.

The only thing that happens is gun crime becomes knife crime or whatever. *shrug* I'd rather be allowed to have a gun.

 

I understand your point , but what is being suggested here is guns = no riot , and that is not the case