Thanks.

I love the sift because it shows me things like this which take away the rose tinted glasses on some things.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Hey I thought this was a really great comment.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
What this shows more than anything was that it was never really the 'house of the future' as it was touted, but moreso a whopping big ad for using plastics for everything...

Thanks. But people who love their guns will take no manner of logical arguments to sway them.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
Nope, it's not just you. I thought about jumping in, but I gave up on this argument some time ago. My basic response to the "you can kill someone with all sorts of household items" argument is that none of those items were specifically designed to kill humans. I'll never understand the insane kind of logic that compares a hammer with a gun.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Yeah, I knew you'd bring up that you don't use it for protection... damn you!

But a lot of people use that as an excuse.

Look, for my money, no sport is worth having a very deadly weapon in the house for. Sure, you can kill someone with all manner of items, but dangit, if a gun just isn't a really efficient way to do so. Just me I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Hmm. I see your point there, but I don't keep a gun for protection. I have it for hunting. However, you can simply hide the key where they aren't going to find it, like in the basemet ni yuor tool chest, or maybe in their mom's underwear drawer. After all, what kid wants to touch their moms underwear?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

Yeah, it makes me shudder to think of a setup like that with kids around... and while you don't so it's cool, there are people who DO have that. Man, the thought of any of my kids (all under 5yrs) finding it, and playing with it until an accident... uuuurgh.


In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
But I'm not saying I wouldn't use it for protection. I won't ever need to, break-ins around here just aren't that frequent. I do however keep my ammo in my gun case unlocked and under my bead. I have the foam cut out for two racks of ammo to sit in there. It looks bad-ass .

I am, however, 22 and have no kids.

Yeah, I knew you'd bring up that you don't use it for protection... damn you!

But a lot of people use that as an excuse.

Look, for my money, no sport is worth having a very deadly weapon in the house for. Sure, you can kill someone with all manner of items, but dangit, if a gun just isn't a really efficient way to do so. Just me I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Hmm. I see your point there, but I don't keep a gun for protection. I have it for hunting. However, you can simply hide the key where they aren't going to find it, like in the basemet ni yuor tool chest, or maybe in their mom's underwear drawer. After all, what kid wants to touch their moms underwear?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

Look, I understand that there pretty much will always be those that think the best deterrent against someone with a gun is for yourself to have a gun. My view is to keep guns out of as many hands as possible.

"Bad guys will always be able to get guns" I hear you cry (I do really, it's a weird power I have)... But strict gun control laws and a general feeling that guns are damn hard to come by mean that far fewer crimes are committed with them, far fewer deaths result because of them. And while you say that there are many ways to kill someone, shooting them dead seems to still be the quickest and most effective. I know I'd feel like I had a bit more of a chance against someone with a knife vs a gun. (I could run away for starters).



In reply to your comment:
“well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””””

And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””

It's ok... I understand that there is a general 'The east is evil' attitude prevailing within the states at present.

In reply to your comment:
“Apologies. Didn't mean to come off so passive aggressive. Cheers

In reply to your comment:
“Farhad2000: I got that view by the boy who said he'd beat her if he were her sister, from the soldier who stayed nice and close to her as she walked, but the men that expressed frustration at her views and lack of veil. Any society, not just from the Middle East, any society that is so closely bound with organised religion will tend to want to remove those that fly in its face.

That's why I said what I did.

And I don't watch Fox news, I despise what I've seen of it, which is very little what with me being Australian.””