UTTER BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[glassgowkiss]

Your ignorance of how many bullets it takes to stop a zombie is appalling.

 

But I do not like this or any other gun control other than for automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I just do not beleive that honest people without guns are going to be as safe as they are with guns out there. I mean, if a robber has to wonder if he is going to be shot he will likely not rob as often. If he knows he will be up against an unarmed person almost every single time, I think robberies will increase. Purely opinion but $0.02.

 

pull the head out of your ass. during something like 75% of homicides committed with guns people know each other.

[STP]

Right. And with all due respect you are generalizing from the specific.

 

I think if you look at other cases the deterrent effect is noticable. My guess is that with South Africa there's something else that skews the results, for example, during apartheid the gun owners were primarily the white ruling class and their supporters. So yeah, if you dissect it then other underlying social causes could account for the specific case where the deterrent effect appears to be overruled.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

ivan, for one a gun is useless without ammo and i really don't think the government should be able to track it or your gun. lets says a criminal breaks into my home steals my ammo and my gun and kills someone and it tracks back to me. a criminal doesn't lose here, he wins. it's joe honest gun owner who suffers. drug laws don't stop people from doing drugs now do they.

 

i'd rather the government say their gonna wiretap my conversation, because i sure have nothing to hide. lets say the government does this and charges u .25 cents per tap to cover the cost and for your safety. why is it that some laws just protect stupid people and take away your freedoms at the same time?

 

anyway, this is crap and just another way of taking away your civil liberties.

 

ivan, is what u need is a rope gun

 

or a better pair of rock climbing shoes.

 

I'm surprised a supposed libertarian like you would espouse such a cavalier opinion about your privacy rights and the danger of giving them up, particularly the naive "I've got nothing to hide" argument.

 

This argument makes several wrong assumptions:

 

The government never makes a mistake. They won't misinterpret your conversations and ruin your life.

 

The government is always well intentioned. FBI agents get promoted by convicting people. If you look enough like a terrorist duck, some special agent just might use you to advance his career. Terrorism cases take on a momentum of their own, at some point. Once you're past that point, you're fucked. Their typical modus operandi, successful in many cases, is to threaten you with designation as an enemy combatant. Your lawyer then strongly advises you to take a plea bargain for, say, 5 to 10 years, and you know what? Everybody takes that deal, because Enemy Combatant status means deep dark hole forever.

 

The government won't intentionally build a false case against law abiding dissent groups (it has, many times). For example, we now have a democratic administration. What it they DO decide to confiscate your guns, and use all of their surveillance powers to ensure you comply? If their were a large scale attack, such as the one that just occured in India, do you really think this is such a remote possibility? "Can't happen! 2nd Amendment!" you cry. BULLSHIT. Bush has trampled all over the Constitution since he took office. Any president could do the same.

 

The final argument has to do with the health of democracy. Democracy depends on a free and unfettered press to inform the public as to what it's government is doing. For example, what's really happening in Iraq? If the government listens to every overseas conversation (which it currently has the legal power to do), and has security intel ties with other governments (which it does), then in certain sensitive areas, do you really think anyone on the other side of the phone is going to speak freely and openly, knowing that they may be detained and tortured by their own government for doing so? Invasion of privacy without probable cause, aside from being in direct violation of our highest law (we're supposed to be a nation of laws, right?), has a chilling effect on the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is at the very core of a voting public's ability to know what's actually going on, and make informed voting decisions as a result.

 

Think about it a while.

 

You're little, extremely unlikely "what if my ammo get's jacked" issue is nothing in comparison.

Edited December 1, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Look at "home invasion" robberies in the UK versus the United States. They are very common in the UK, but from a statistical standpoint, they are virtually non-existent here in the US--and the reason is clear: The homeowner might have a gun.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look at "home invasion" robberies in the UK versus the United States. They are very common in the UK, but from a statistical standpoint, they are virtually non-existent here in the US--and the reason is clear: The homeowner might have a gun.

 

MY best friend is from the UK, we've discussed this issue at length, and, yet again, you're dead wrong.

 

The problem in the UK is a) Much laxer laws against violent crime, which allows all kinds of hooliganism; bar fights, muggings, etc, to take place there that wouldn't fly here and b) The greater difficulty of bringing civil suits, which produces the same result. Gun ownership has little or nothing at all to do with it.

 

If gun ownership were more lax in the UK, the result would be utterly predictable: the hooligans would be the first to own them, and more innocent people would die.

Edited December 1, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[denalidave]

that's your lizard now dave, take care of him. he's a good rope gun.

Plus, he saved me a ton of money on my climbing insurance. Thanks.

[kevbone]

[

 

You sound like you're using the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about..." argument?

 

Well....since this is the the right wing nut job argument about why it is ok for Bush to listen in on your conversation without a wire tap....then you should be ok with it.....

[Bug]

But I do not like this or any other gun control other than for automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I just do not beleive that honest people without guns are going to be as safe as they are with guns out there. I mean, if a robber has to wonder if he is going to be shot he will likely not rob as often. If he knows he will be up against an unarmed person almost every single time, I think robberies will increase. Purely opinion but $0.02.

 

Some decent comments for once, but do you really understand what the elimination of semi-autos would leave? Bolt action, lever action, pump action, single fed. That's it. Did you really mean to say this? How about revolvers? Some consider them semi-auto, some don't.

No. Not every Semi-automatic. Just those that are clearly designed to take out dozens of people. It does not seem like a good idea to have anybody spraying bullets indescriminantly. If someone tries to burglarize my house, I can put two in the chest and one between the eyes from 50 ft no problem. And my 357 is not going to be slowed down a lot by a flimsy modern door or drywall.

Owning a gun requires responsibility. If you are going to pull one out and pull the trigger, you should have taken the time to know what you are going to hit. If you can do that, you don't need a military clip full of ammo. And for most people (without good aim), the best defensive gun in a house is a shotgun.

[Bug]

Your ignorance of how many bullets it takes to stop a zombie is appalling.

 

But I do not like this or any other gun control other than for automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I just do not beleive that honest people without guns are going to be as safe as they are with guns out there. I mean, if a robber has to wonder if he is going to be shot he will likely not rob as often. If he knows he will be up against an unarmed person almost every single time, I think robberies will increase. Purely opinion but $0.02.

 

The South African experience proves you dead wrong. Crime rates in Joburg are among the world's highest. Because of this many homeowners are armed. Because of this, many burglars enter and shoot the first person they see, assuming the owner is armed. Out of desperation, homeowners contract with private security firms, who respond to tripped alarms. They fire two shots in the lawn, then come in blasting. Many homeowners are shot by their own private security firms every year due to false alarms. The proliferation of guns has turned what would be simple property crimes (which suck, admittedly) into homocides.

 

Just sayin. The 'common sense' that's behind many of these gun arguments is very often 180 degrees wrong.

 

Almost everyone I knew in Montana growing up loaded their own ammo. I see this as a corporate run for monopolistic practices.

The essence of this law will make large weapons corporations the only place to get ammo and they will then control the price more easily.

 

I am talking about keeping gun laws and ammunition access pretty much the way they are.

 

I doubt that you are arguing that if we keep going with the laws that currently exist, we will end up like South Africa. Right?

I would argue that there are other variables in the mix that make S Africa a different scenario.

[ivan]

wouldn't it be possible for folks to continue to load their own ammo by this scheme? i've never loaded a round, but i imagine you still have to buy the components (at least the shell casing?) - couldn't these be sold w/ the barcode or whatever the tracking mechanicsm is?

[pink]

Your ignorance of how many bullets it takes to stop a zombie is appalling.

 

But I do not like this or any other gun control other than for automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I just do not beleive that honest people without guns are going to be as safe as they are with guns out there. I mean, if a robber has to wonder if he is going to be shot he will likely not rob as often. If he knows he will be up against an unarmed person almost every single time, I think robberies will increase. Purely opinion but $0.02.

 

The South African experience proves you dead wrong. Crime rates in Joburg are among the world's highest. Because of this many homeowners are armed. Because of this, many burglars enter and shoot the first person they see, assuming the owner is armed. Out of desperation, homeowners contract with private security firms, who respond to tripped alarms. They fire two shots in the lawn, then come in blasting. Many homeowners are shot by their own private security firms every year due to false alarms. The proliferation of guns has turned what would be simple property crimes (which suck, admittedly) into homocides.

 

Just sayin. The 'common sense' that's behind many of these gun arguments is very often 180 degrees wrong.

 

apple meet orange. travsh in the u.s. we have drive by shootings, in the south africa they have drive by rpg bombings.

[ivan]

 

apple meet orange. travsh in the u.s. we have drive by shootings, in the south africa they have drive by rpg bombings.

 

what's your point? we'd have these in the usa too if the nra could get rpg's legalized.

[pink]

ivan, for one a gun is useless without ammo and i really don't think the government should be able to track it or your gun. lets says a criminal breaks into my home steals my ammo and my gun and kills someone and it tracks back to me. a criminal doesn't lose here, he wins. it's joe honest gun owner who suffers. drug laws don't stop people from doing drugs now do they.

 

i'd rather the government say their gonna wiretap my conversation, because i sure have nothing to hide. lets say the government does this and charges u .25 cents per tap to cover the cost and for your safety. why is it that some laws just protect stupid people and take away your freedoms at the same time?

 

anyway, this is crap and just another way of taking away your civil liberties.

 

ivan, is what u need is a rope gun

 

or a better pair of rock climbing shoes.

 

I'm surprised a supposed libertarian like you would espouse such a cavalier opinion about your privacy rights and the danger of giving them up, particularly the naive "I've got nothing to hide" argument.

 

This argument makes several wrong assumptions:

 

The government never makes a mistake. They won't misinterpret your conversations and ruin your life.

 

The government is always well intentioned. FBI agents get promoted by convicting people. If you look enough like a terrorist duck, some special agent just might use you to advance his career. Terrorism cases take on a momentum of their own, at some point. Once you're past that point, you're fucked. Their typical modus operandi, successful in many cases, is to threaten you with designation as an enemy combatant. Your lawyer then strongly advises you to take a plea bargain for, say, 5 to 10 years, and you know what? Everybody takes that deal, because Enemy Combatant status means deep dark hole forever.

 

The government won't intentionally build a false case against law abiding dissent groups (it has, many times). For example, we now have a democratic administration. What it they DO decide to confiscate your guns, and use all of their surveillance powers to ensure you comply? If their were a large scale attack, such as the one that just occured in India, do you really think this is such a remote possibility? "Can't happen! 2nd Amendment!" you cry. BULLSHIT. Bush has trampled all over the Constitution since he took office. Any president could do the same.

 

The final argument has to do with the health of democracy. Democracy depends on a free and unfettered press to inform the public as to what it's government is doing. For example, what's really happening in Iraq? If the government listens to every overseas conversation (which it currently has the legal power to do), and has security intel ties with other governments (which it does), then in certain sensitive areas, do you really think anyone on the other side of the phone is going to speak freely and openly, knowing that they may be detained and tortured by their own government for doing so? Invasion of privacy without probable cause, aside from being in direct violation of our highest law (we're supposed to be a nation of laws, right?), has a chilling effect on the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is at the very core of a voting public's ability to know what's actually going on, and make informed voting decisions as a result.

 

Think about it a while.

 

You're little, extremely unlikely "what if my ammo get's jacked" issue is nothing in comparison.

 

i thought bout it for a second ya wind bag, how do you and ivan get any climbing done when you partner up. do you have some sort of hour glass set up so you both get your fucking turn.

 

tvash let an FBI agent make his career off of me, i'll be the first to tell you ate all his twinkies.

[pink]

 

apple meet orange. travsh in the u.s. we have drive by shootings, in the south africa they have drive by rpg bombings.

 

what's your point? we'd have these in the usa too if the nra could get rpg's legalized.

 

eric, are you smoking crack these days or inhaling to much crispy lichen.

 

yeh, and there is some sort of NRA in S.A. shelling out rpg's.

[pink]

[

 

You sound like you're using the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about..." argument?

 

Well....since this is the the right wing nut job argument about why it is ok for Bush to listen in on your conversation without a wire tap....then you should be ok with it.....

 

 

read this kevbone:

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/09/06/gun-rights-fit-in-with-liberal-ideals/

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Your ignorance of how many bullets it takes to stop a zombie is appalling.

 

But I do not like this or any other gun control other than for automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I just do not beleive that honest people without guns are going to be as safe as they are with guns out there. I mean, if a robber has to wonder if he is going to be shot he will likely not rob as often. If he knows he will be up against an unarmed person almost every single time, I think robberies will increase. Purely opinion but $0.02.

 

The South African experience proves you dead wrong. Crime rates in Joburg are among the world's highest. Because of this many homeowners are armed. Because of this, many burglars enter and shoot the first person they see, assuming the owner is armed. Out of desperation, homeowners contract with private security firms, who respond to tripped alarms. They fire two shots in the lawn, then come in blasting. Many homeowners are shot by their own private security firms every year due to false alarms. The proliferation of guns has turned what would be simple property crimes (which suck, admittedly) into homocides.

 

Just sayin. The 'common sense' that's behind many of these gun arguments is very often 180 degrees wrong.

 

Almost everyone I knew in Montana growing up loaded their own ammo. I see this as a corporate run for monopolistic practices.

The essence of this law will make large weapons corporations the only place to get ammo and they will then control the price more easily.

 

I am talking about keeping gun laws and ammunition access pretty much the way they are.

 

I doubt that you are arguing that if we keep going with the laws that currently exist, we will end up like South Africa. Right?

I would argue that there are other variables in the mix that make S Africa a different scenario.

 

No, that wasn't my argument. I simply gave an example of a society where the popular wisdom that 'an armed society is a polite society' has seriously backfired. Our own society did the experiment as well; during the 'winning of the west', when the habit of carrying a personal firearm was at a it's all time historical high...and so were violent crime rates, at least in as much as they were iomperfectly tracked at the time. Of course, there were other factors, such as the dearth of women (to mitigate the violence levels) in many western settlements at the time.

 

Mods, it's really about time somebody fixed the fucking quote problem. Is it really that hard to pre-place the cursor after the last

? Not to whine, but it's going on years now. WTF?

 

 

[billcoe]

i'd rather the government say their gonna wiretap my conversation, because i sure have nothing to hide. lets say the government does this and charges u .25 cents per tap to cover the cost and for your safety. why is it that some laws just protect stupid people and take away your freedoms at the same time?

 

anyway, this is crap and just another way of taking away your civil liberties.

 

I'm surprised a supposed libertarian like you would espouse such a cavalier opinion about your privacy rights and the danger of giving them up, particularly the naive "I've got nothing to hide" argument.

 

Sarcasm, like Pink lays out so well, often doesn't translate well Pat. I'd like to commend you on both a well thought out, and non-attacking response too!

 

My take is that it's really like boiling frogs. You toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it will jump right out they say. While if you put in in warm water and slowly crank the heat up, it will eventually boil to death. Like that here, a little bit at a time and pretty soon your cooked. Gun rights are but a small part of this government intrusion into our lives. Slowly the institutions we are use to seeing in place are being attacked very slowly and gradually. Hopefully it will change under our new gov't, however, our rights have not been one of their issues, and the gun restrictions are on their agenda even if the other items are not. Politicians, by their nature, tend to seek power for it's own sake, often at someone else's (in this case-ours) expense.

 

 

Often these take years to get through the courts to be found unconstitutional. The wiretapping challenge which was earlier won in a lower court by the ACLU was overturned in district court as the defendants could not prove they WERE being wiretapped, and thus have no standing to challenge the law. Back to square one for that one. Today's news is the federal governments intent to crank the heat on us frogs one more degree on a new burner. Here's that story originally from the Washington Post.

 

Link

 

"8:46 p.m. PT, Sun., Nov. 30, 2008

 

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

 

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

 

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement."

 

Each one of these can be difficult to argue on their own. Sure they are tapping every phone call in the US, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here).

 

Sure they are going to start inserting federal troops into civilian areas in violation of a 130 year old law, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

Sure they will be restricting your ability to own firearms...but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

It's true that they can suspend habeus corpus,....that the president can order you and your loved ones held without a trial, or as long as he damn well feels like doing so: in clear violation of our laws since our very founding, but don't you want to be safe? (insert ANOTHER sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

 

I guess the question is, don't we all want to be safe from all these real or imagined things? (insert final sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

I guess I'd like to be safe and left in peace by my own damn government. I want this for all of you as well, because if you don't get it, I sure as hell won't, despite the fact that I'm a lot more establishment than some of you yazoos on this board. Last night, in the dark of night they're kicking in the door and dragging some poor American off to be tortured because the poor bastard has an Arabic name, but tomorrow it's us. (this nightmare is currently really happening to some poor bastard at this very moment. If the bastard is guilty of terrorism, no sane judge would let him off. Except that the NSA would have to provide the details of how he was caught, and they got that illegally, so they CAN"T go before a judge. So dude is hauled off and tortured. IN OUR COUNTRY, AND IT'S UTTER BULLSHIT AS PINK SAYS. So it continues.

 

This might be a good time to send some money to the ACLU, they must be working overtime.

 

ACLU Web site link

[kevbone]

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement."

 

Each one of these can be difficult to argue on their own. Sure they are tapping every phone call in the US, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here).

 

Sure they are going to start inserting federal troops into civilian areas in violation of a 130 year old law, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

Sure they will be restricting your ability to own firearms...but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

Maybe it's true that they can suspend habeus corpus,....that the president can order you and your loved ones held without a trial, in clear violation of our laws since our very founding, but don't you want to be safe? (insert ANOTHER sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

 

I guess the question is, don't we all want to be safe from all these real or imagined things? (insert final sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

I guess I'd like to be safe and left in peace by my own damn government.

 

 

Nice post Bill.

[pink]

as long as trvash is around, i feel safe. he'll just talk our way out of any threats.

[rob]

i'd rather the government say their gonna wiretap my conversation, because i sure have nothing to hide. lets say the government does this and charges u .25 cents per tap to cover the cost and for your safety. why is it that some laws just protect stupid people and take away your freedoms at the same time?

 

anyway, this is crap and just another way of taking away your civil liberties.

 

I'm surprised a supposed libertarian like you would espouse such a cavalier opinion about your privacy rights and the danger of giving them up, particularly the naive "I've got nothing to hide" argument.

 

Sarcasm, like Pink lays out so well, often doesn't translate well Pat. I'd like to commend you on both a well thought out, and non-attacking response too!

 

My take is that it's really like boiling frogs. You toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it will jump right out they say. While if you put in in warm water and slowly crank the heat up, it will eventually boil to death. Like that here, a little bit at a time and pretty soon your cooked. Gun rights are but a small part of this government intrusion into our lives. Slowly the institutions we are use to seeing in place are being attacked very slowly and gradually. Hopefully it will change under our new gov't, however, our rights have not been one of their issues, and the gun restrictions are on their agenda even if the other items are not. Politicians, by their nature, tend to seek power for it's own sake, often at someone else's (in this case-ours) expense.

 

 

Today's news is the federal governments intent to crank the heat on us frogs one more degree on a new burner. Often these take years to get through the courts to be found unconstitutional. The wiretapping was just overturned in district court as the defendants could not prove they WERE being wiretapped, and thus have no standing to challenge the law. Back to square one.

 

Link

 

"8:46 p.m. PT, Sun., Nov. 30, 2008

 

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

 

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

 

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement."

 

Each one of these can be difficult to argue on their own. Sure they are tapping every phone call in the US, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here).

 

Sure they are going to start inserting federal troops into civilian areas in violation of a 130 year old law, but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

Sure they will be restricting your ability to own firearms...but don't you want to be safe? (insert sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

It's true that they can suspend habeus corpus,....that the president can order you and your loved ones held without a trial, or as long as he damn well feels like doing so: in clear violation of our laws since our very founding, but don't you want to be safe? (insert ANOTHER sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

 

I guess the question is, don't we all want to be safe from all these real or imagined things? (insert final sarcasm sad face emoticon here)

 

I guess I'd like to be safe and left in peace by my own damn government. I want this for all of you as well, because if you don't get it, I sure as hell won't, despite the fact that I'm a lot more establishment than some of you yazoos on this board. Today they're kicking in the door and dragging some poor American off to be tortured because the poor bastard has an Arabic name, but tomorrow it's us. If the bastard is guilty of terrorism, no sane judge will let him off. Except that the NSA would have to provide the details of how he was caught, and they got that illegally. So it continues.

 

This might be a good time to send some money to the ACLU, they must be working overtime.

 

ACLU Web site link

 

 

Bill, your "frogs in the pot" analogy would be a great one, if only we were frogs, and if gun control were a pot of boiling water.

 

I really don't get the point of this popular little analogy. "Frogs will sit in water and boil to death if the temperature is increased slowly. This proves that the gummint will take away our guns eventually."

 

I don't get it. It sounds like pretty retarded logic. Are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy?

[billcoe]

Bill, your "frogs in the pot" analogy would be a great one, if only we were frogs, and if gun control were a pot of boiling water.

 

I really don't get the point of this popular little analogy. "Frogs will sit in water and boil to death if the temperature is increased slowly. This proves that the gummint will take away our guns eventually."

 

I don't get it. It sounds like pretty retarded logic.

 

Here's something new for you to try Rob. Read the entire post. Do so with an open mind and without prejudging the contents. Then lets see if you have a different response.

[rob]

I read yr whole post, Bill. I guess I just don't subscribe to the chicken little school of political science, wherein the federal government is sekretly trying to unburden us of our civil rights. I agree that civil liberties need to be constantly defended. Yeah, and sometimes it takes time to challenge disenfranchising lagislation. But it happens, and we do what needs to be done.

 

In the end, things always seem to come out right. Our country is better now than it has ever been, IMO. Sure, we've got our problems -- but we always will. We'll get through these, too, and I don't see any evidence that things will stop getting better.

 

How's that?

[rbw1966]

Wow--our country is better now than it has ever been? Do you watch, read or listen to the news? Huge bailouts, tanking economy, 2 wars being fought simultaneously, massive foreclosures, diminished status with respect to the rest of the world, etc., etc.

 

I agree with a few of your points but that one is a bit off base.

[ivan]

Wow--our country is better now than it has ever been?

'least folks don't talk all faggoty n' educated n' prance around in dem short pants like they used to

[Fairweather]

Look at "home invasion" robberies in the UK versus the United States. They are very common in the UK, but from a statistical standpoint, they are virtually non-existent here in the US--and the reason is clear: The homeowner might have a gun.

 

MY best friend is from the UK, we've discussed this issue at length, and, yet again, you're dead wrong.

 

The problem in the UK is a) Much laxer laws against violent crime, which allows all kinds of hooliganism; bar fights, muggings, etc, to take place there that wouldn't fly here and b) The greater difficulty of bringing civil suits, which produces the same result. Gun ownership has little or nothing at all to do with it.

 

If gun ownership were more lax in the UK, the result would be utterly predictable: the hooligans would be the first to own them, and more innocent people would die.

 

Disagree re UK. I have some family there and believe I have it down just about right as an apples-to-apples comparison. The counter to your S.A. analogy would be the current carnage in Mexico, where the average citizen cannot (legally) own the types of guns used by traffickers now stacking up bodies in overflowing morgues.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico