Yes, but I didn't interpret it as a threat towards you. Just as a statement that there is no 100% safety, neither with guns nor without.
To add my 2c, I'm quite happy about our strict regulations regarding gun ownership here. We have very few people being killed by guns. On the other hand, I can understand that a country like the US can't be made gun free anymore. It's too deep in their culture and the country is already flooded with weapons so there is hardly a way to really reverse things.

Well I've never heard of an innocent gun-owner getting shot by a non-gun-owner's non-existent gun.

I'm painfully aware that, being British, my opinions must seem rather unwelcome even to some anti-gun Americans. But my father lives in the US and my job involves regularly working in the states (I'm actually in the US right now). I do not claim to have any deep understanding of American culture, nor any "right" to involve myself in the legal side of this debate. But I am somewhat affected by it, and issues of morality (as opposed to legality) are IMO not bound by borders.

Flawed argument IMHO. nothing personal but i think its a bit off kilter as it seems to make the assumption that the only way to kill someone is to shoot them.

i have heard of plenty of people beaten to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, strangled to death, hacked into pieces, the list goes on.

is any of those methods of killing someone more reasonable, more humane than shooting them?

fact is taking another persons life is a terrible thing to do, its a horrible thing to want to do, and its a horrible thing to be put into a situation wherein you may have no choice.

There are folks out there who would just as soon look at you as murder you.

and OLC

meteors?

seriously?

if a meteor were to fall on me right now, there is no way i could protect against it, let alone predict it's occurrence.

lets try to stay more grounded in reality - a fire for example is a real possibility. Is it not wise to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? A car accident is a real possibility, is it not wise to wear a seat belt?

Being a person who likes to be prepared for things large and small is one thing.

being a person who belittles a person's choice to be prepared with stingy little sarcastic comments is a whole other matter.

nobody here is putting a gun in your hand.

you have expressed that you choose not to own one because its "easier a decision" for you to make. Others have said they choose to own one for the sake of preparedness or sport.

not one person that i have seen has bashed your choice with sarcasm... in the least, return that favor. :up:

where do you stand on abortion? just curious

Sure, if that makes you feel safer. Seems rather silly to me, but what do I know? I'm just some upstart colonial with a gun and an apparently uncontrollable urge to use it.

No nerves hit here. I'm just curious as to how, yet again, you've managed to cleverly avoid speaking about that point of my statement with yet another ad hominem attack.

None of them are more reasonable and most of them are less humane than shooting, but *all* of them are considerably more difficult than pulling a trigger. Stabbing someone with a knife is, I gather, a visceral act. You feel the blade go in, the flesh tear, the bones resist. Strangling someone you feel the life ebb from their body. You don't just point and press a button.

Also there are never any innocent bystanders, nor any accidental discharges.

You could protect yourself from a small (say, bullet sized) meteor. A big one, no - but neither will a gun protect you from a guy with a nuke. As for predicting meteor strikes... are you saying you have a crystal ball that tells you when someone is going to break into your house?

Didn't I already answer this? Fire extinguishers and seatbelts save lifes. Guns only end them.

I use sarcasm, you buy guns. Which of us is being more aggressive?

Interesting tangent. Abortion is a difficult one. I generally favour abortion being legal and the choice of the mother. The long and short of my justification is this: if my mother had not wanted me, then I would rather she had been allowed to abort me. I wouldn't know any different and she, in this hypothetical scenario, would be happier (I hope). That said, things do get complicated in some circumstances. For example, what if the father wants to keep the baby and is willing to raise it alone? That one makes my head hurt.

You mean the part where you say "some choose to do more, some choose to do less"? I didn't realise that needed a reply, but if you like: those choosing to do "less" as you put it are not endangering others by their choices.

Jack the ripper must have felt horrible about all the things he did. :yeah:

Shooting someone is no easier than stabbing them - for a morale person. Thats really what self defense training is about - mostly - to train a morale person to make a life saving decision quickly... even if it is immoral to kill someone. In my world... I come first, baddies come second.

sorry, thats just the way it is.

then again... I'm not worried about morale people am i? I dont keep a gun next to my bed because i dont trust my neighbors, i dont keep a gun by my bed because i live in a high crime area, i keep it because - as i said before... an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By the logic of the anti-gun folks... i dont need locks on my doors, or a burglar alarm either.

but i've still got them;)

i cannot convince you that gun ownership is right for me no more than you can convince me that it is wrong for everyone.

its a complex issue. no doubt about it.

but know this

if you reduced mankind to the lowest common denominator - would there be a 5 day waiting period and an FBI background check before anyone was allowed to acquire a stone suitable for throwing?

would hatchets and knives be as heavily regulated as guns?

there are several constant's with mankind that shall never be removed from any society... one of which is the desire of a few to murder, rape and rob the others.

sad but true

At the risk of being a last-word freak...

To my mind, the fact that such training is necessary for guns but not for knives kinda proves the point I was making.

Edit:
This whole thread I've been trying to remember a saying. It finally came to me.
"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Don't mistake my usage of the word "less" for judgment; it is referring to quantity. In my experience, choosing to do less for their own security can absolutely increase the danger to others by creating exactly the type of environment that facilitates criminal behavior. For example, leaving exterior lights dark, or unkempt hedges against windows, can create areas of darkness that criminals exploit to gain access to a home.

Which brings us back to the responsibility issue. Don't break into my home and threaten my family, and my firearm won't hurt you. It's a simple matter of responsibility. I don't carry my gun on the streets, nor I do store it in a manner inconsistent with well-established standards of safety and responsibility. A properly-stored and locked firearm endangers no one.

I choose reasonable means to protect myself and my family. United States law provides, as an American citizen without a felony record, the right to own firearms. In accordance with that law, and the laws of the State of Maryland, I am the fully-trained, responsible owner of legally-obtained and legally maintained firearms. I lock the doors and windows of my home and my car. I minimize potential attractants that might call unwanted criminal attention to my home.

Believe me, I would much rather exist in an environment without a need to defend my family and my home from others with malicious intent; sadly, that world does not exist within my reach, and until that is different, I will react accordingly.

Having chewed on this for a while, I apologise for the sarcasm.

I'm not pro or anti-gun, because I think that's the wrong stance. I see guns as a tool, it would be foolish to say that I am pro-hammer or anti-screwdriver.
That being said, I cannot understand the arguments of the gun lobby to fight for the right to carry on private grounds where the owner of the land forbids it. What's the deal about it, don't like the attitude, don't go there or just leave the guns in the car.

Well it works in an Utopia where the police is always there to protect you, but this is not the case. Ever been in an ugly situation in Germany? If so, what was the response time?
I certainly don't want all idiots here to own a gun, but matter of fact is: many idiots own one. The latest statistics about illegal ownership in Germany are about 20%.

:up:

I not aware of any lobbying action that is focused on what you wrote. I have never heard of any gun organization that wants to insist on the right to carry on other people's private property when the property owner does not want it. Are you sure you are not confusing this with the issue on carrying on commercial property that is open to the public?

Even then, I have never heard of any gun organization lobbying for the right to carry on commercial property when the owner states that they don't want it.

Do you have a citation for this?

I think I confused it a little, the discussion was not about carrying on the body but having with you in your vehicle on other people's private property. I've witnessed this discussion when I was in Alaka in 2006, I think it was the NRA who claimed it to be an unlawful restriction of gun ownership. Though the AKians elected the braniac women, I think it was a minor discussion and was not really an election-deciding issue. I'm checking out if I can find a flyer or other propaganda.
Here are the Ak gun laws:
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/AKSL.pdf
As you can see, the only restriction regrading the ground are this:
and that regarding rights of property owners:
As I know the private (federal) rights of the property owner superceed other rights, however I think it's not a sufficent reason to ban someone from your property solely for carrying a gun, but it's legal to ban a person for many other reasons you like, like having a ****ty tie ;)

What does this 20% mean? 20% of all people have a gun (seems a bit much to me)? 20% of all guns are illegal? Something else?

If 20% of all guns are illegal, what is it compared with the total population of Germany? Compared to the criminal population of Germany? Both these numbers compared to the same statistics about the US?

Just this "20%" number without further information says exactly nothing.

Was just about to ask the same. I don't believe that 20% of all Germans own guns. :hmm2:

Ay caramba, sorry guys, I forgot to add a unit of measurement :oops:. The 20% refers to the number of all households, I think most guns stats measure this way.
I will break down the numbers for you tomorrow, as I have a busy Easter weekend and don't want write something quick without the appropriate links/referals.

Hope y'all enjoy your weekend, too at the sub-tropical temperatures we have here! :salute:

The report where they mentioned the 20% estimation is not longer online, only the website of the report: http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendunge...besitz100.html (sorry international folks: the links which I can provide are in german only)

But I can give you a breakdown of the numbers:
Germany has no central register of guns, ony the numbers of legal owners are somehow clear: it ranges mostly in the range of 3.5 - 4 million people. It is unclear how many of them live in the same household, so let's say that we are talking at least about 2-3 million households. The number of guns, these legal owners own are at least 7 million (the mimal estimate) - while most experts estimate about 10. The number of illegal guns is estimated by the police union (GdP) at about 20 million. Most other stats refer to this number. The pro-gun lobby talks about numbers up to 40 million (http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deu...id_684470.html). Lars Winkelsdorf, who wrote an anti-gun ownwership book, estimates the same 40 million (http://www.onejournal.de/item/politi...d-pr80712.html)

We have 40 million households in Germany, so these 20 million illegal guns of the conservative estimations, would be in 8 million households to reach the quota of 20% - note that in these numbers are also households of legal gun owners included who have illegal guns, but these numbers are marginal, as in most controls by the authorities, the most infractions they find are about the storage, not illegal ownership.