News itemDead Right There: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-11-01 at 20:22:29   (48 comments)

On 2009-11-01 at 20:30:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
I love this site. It seems that libs would inform their followers that there are people out there that can defend themselves from predators. They are too interested in keeping the truth from the masses. The city in which I live, Kennesaw, GA has a mandatory homestead gun law. Each homestead must have a gun for self-defense. This law had the effect of reducing crime by at least 50%. It seems that predators have a little more respect when they know you can dispatch them to their maker. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634/
On 2009-11-01 at 20:41:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
Clayton Cramer is an interesting guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer
On 2009-11-01 at 22:31:28, BorgClown wrote...
Ha ha, the blog has some hilarious articles: "Great-grandmother who shot robber says 'God was with me'"
On 2009-11-01 at 22:32:45, BorgClown wrote...
I'm for compulsory concealed guns, but I'm not sure if it would work the same in every city. Would you see the same Kennesaw effect in Los Angeles or New York?
On 2009-11-02 at 01:18:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
I say "Hurray!" for the great-grandmother with a .357 magnum. Kill the bastard right there, save the taxpayers court costs and prison costs.
On 2009-11-02 at 01:27:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: A .357 Magnum earns the same respect in New York that it does in Kennesaw. If everyone carried a gun, there would be much more respect shown for one another in public. Would you rather the great-grandmother had been robbed and raped, or killed? I would rather that the predator be killed. All the police are going to do is clean up the mess.
On 2009-11-02 at 11:48:57, Lee J Haywood wrote...
This argument is misleading, as not all gun deaths relate to crime. Accidental deaths and suicides count greatly against the widespread ownership of guns - not to mention that it's a lot easier to commit murder with a gun. As I said in a previous topic about guns, it seems the best options are for everyone to have guns or for no-one to have them.
On 2009-11-02 at 17:09:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
In a perfect world, we would not need guns. I assure you, our world is not perfect. Gun owners should be responsible and learn how to own and use a gun safely. Safely for all but the predators, of course. I like this website because it shows people defending themselves, as they should. You cannot depend on the police, it is not their responsibility to protect you.
On 2009-11-02 at 17:11:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: How are you going to insure that no-one has them? There is no way. Impossible.
On 2009-11-02 at 19:15:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
What are you talking about? There are plenty of countries where virtually the entire population does not own a gun, mine included. Maybe it made sense to have a gun in the Wild West, but the only reason the US 'requires' them now is a historical accident. In the UK, as you should know, the only people with guns are either hardened criminals - very few in number - farmers, and the occasional gun collector. I've seen one handgun in my life, and that was owned by someone who liked the Wild West culture. (I have also seen an air gun, but that doesn't really count). People do get shot here, even in my city, but it's almost always a drug-related incident and the numbers are very low. Simply owning a gun would prompt people to use them for murder, everything else being equal, so having the main population without them can only be a good thing.
On 2009-11-02 at 19:35:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Oooh, I found a cool table. Mad countries at the top, smart ones at the bottom. (-; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
On 2009-11-02 at 19:38:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
And the second table is even more enlightening. It shows the US as having a gun-related total death rate over 30 times higher than the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
On 2009-11-02 at 20:06:38, DigitalBoss wrote...
That is if you believe the numbers.
On 2009-11-02 at 20:08:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
"this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation." Read the article.
On 2009-11-02 at 20:10:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: I would bet that there are many criminals that have guns, and you do not. I would rather it be the other way, that law abiding citizens had the guns.
On 2009-11-02 at 20:34:25, BorgClown wrote...
Mmmh, the table doesn't correlate to reputation, for example, Switzerland is the third, Sweden is the ninth. Anyway, concealed guns would deter crime where there are no gunshots or dead victims, like mugging, theft or rape. Witnesses of a crime would be more willing to assist if they had guns, as a gun makes physical fitness irrelevant.
On 2009-11-02 at 20:45:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.: http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
On 2009-11-02 at 20:47:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
"modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual's right to personal safety." This is unacceptable to anyone that believes in liberty and freedom.
On 2009-11-02 at 20:49:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
"There are plenty of countries where virtually the entire population does not own a gun, mine included." Bullshit.
On 2009-11-02 at 21:59:29, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Your responses are predictable given that you're living (and presumably grew up) in a country where you're surrounded by guns. I'm well aware that the statistics aren't entirely accurate, and it doesn't help to point it out. In this case, it's your personal experience that's of interest. What percentage of the people that you know do you know to own guns? Perhaps not 90%, but I'd guess that it's still quite high. In the UK, even if you have a special permit you are not permitted to carry a gun and so there's little point owning one, and although there are probably plenty of people who have guns in their homes I doubt the figure is anywhere near as high as 5%. As I said before, I've only personally known one person (in 1993) to own a handgun - which by any consideration is a very low figure indeed.
On 2009-11-02 at 22:05:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: In the US, it certainly makes sense to consider owning a gun to protect yourself from others with guns. In the UK, having a gun in my home would make me feel much less safe simply because it's far more likely to be used against me than by me - I could come home to have an intruder in possession of it. Carrying a gun around on the street is not only illegal but would provide me, if properly trained, with protection from a crime that is unlikely to ever happen. Violent individuals exist regardless of the presence of guns, and I don't buy the idea that they'd suddenly disappear if they thought their victims were armed. But neither of our countries will change - there's too much historical precedence. The regular police here don't carry guns! I could quote articles at odds with the ones you post, but it wouldn't further the discussion much. If someone dies from a gunshot here it's news because it happens so rarely. In the US, I'd guess that it's only the details that make a shooting newsworthy.
On 2009-11-02 at 22:42:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The article makes some interesting points about self-defence in the UK. It's true, for example, that I cannot carry an empty glass bottle around with me on a night out. But that makes sense - why would I need one, if not to attack someone else? A bottle by itself would be little use for self-defence - I might want to take it home as a souvenir but not defence. Maybe there is, on average, a higher chance of being mugged in the UK. The great thing is that the whole affair is unlikely to end with death or serious injury, regardless of what that somewhat-biased article suggests. Certainly no-one will be shot - muggers don't use guns, as they're opportunists and gun ownership is incredibly rare. Yes, you could fend off a mugger with a gun and keep your possessions... or you could be shot by the mugger with your own gun. It works both ways. It's ridiculous to say that just because we had guns a hundred years ago we should have them back today, the country has totally changed - we don't need them!
On 2009-11-03 at 00:08:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sounds like a great big nanny state. I feel sorry for you and your loss of freedom. Your government has taken away so much of your freedom, you can't even defend yourself. And they build-in statistical lies to justify it. This is classic liberal government control technique: "the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible." (taken from previous linked article). They cannot reasonably explain why they want to take away your most valuable liberty, to be able to defend yourself, so they skew the numbers. Sad.
On 2009-11-03 at 00:11:37, DigitalBoss wrote...
"it's far more likely to be used against me than by me" That is another liberal justification bullshit for controlling your life, that you can't even manage to live your life safely. That makes you sound like a bumbling fool. Hogwash.
On 2009-11-03 at 00:15:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
Nobody you know may have guns, but the criminals do, you can believe that. They do not care about your precious gun control laws. Don't you think that some people are not going to tell you that they have a gun, they are illegal, after all.
On 2009-11-03 at 01:07:06, BorgClown wrote...
Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure I'm unskilled enough as to lose my knife, so carrying one around would make feel more insecure against a mugger. A gun is easier to operate though, and at close range (about 5m) is almost impossible to miss even for first-time users. Make it 10m and missing is more probable, make it closer than 5m and the gun could be taken out of your hands if you don't hit a vital spot.
On 2009-11-03 at 10:44:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Do you really think that an attacker would let you get your gun out in time? Carrying a gun might give you a (somewhat false) sense of security, but it's not guaranteed protection. I don't buy the idea that I'm unable to defend myself just because I don't have a gun - maybe that'd be true if I were likely to be attacked, but I'm not. Say there's a 1/1000 chance of being attacked in the UK as opposed to a 1/2000 chance in the US - but so what if I'm twice as likely to be attacked, when it's so unlikely in the first place? Again, having a gun just makes it more likely that someone will be killed and doesn't guarantee your defence. @DigitalBoss: You say I've lost my freedom, but that'd only be true if I were actually unsafe in the first place. I'm not. I'm actually reluctant to visit the US precisely because of the prevalence of guns. We simply have different cultures - it's not about justifying our laws, it's about being happy with the state we live in.
On 2009-11-03 at 18:34:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
Read the blog. Evidently someone is getting their gun out in time. Does your government wipe your ass for you too?
On 2009-11-03 at 18:35:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
I like my chances much better with one, rather than without. I hope you stay safe... but I am worried for you.
On 2009-11-03 at 18:37:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Cliché, but true.
On 2009-11-03 at 18:47:06, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I should point out that even if guns were readily available and could be carried on the street, I still wouldn't buy one. At least, not unless everyone else had one and was going around using them. I wouldn't mind so much if I could carry pepper spray or similar - at least that would be a non-lethal and effective form of protection. A gun would be a waste of money in this country though, and far to much effort to bother with.
On 2010-02-21 at 14:49:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leehaywood/4376034606/
On 2010-02-22 at 01:39:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
What a shame. A government with so much power as to not even allow it's citizens to defend themselves.
On 2010-02-22 at 08:02:36, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's great - you can walk along the street knowing that the people you pass won't have weapons to randomly attack you with. And the presence of police and CCTV surveillance helps too. What happens in the US when someone gets drunk and decides to randomly attack you with the weapon they happen to already be carrying? They have neither the self-control nor sense that a weapon demands.
On 2010-02-22 at 13:32:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
"It's great ‒ you can walk along the street knowing that the people you pass won't have weapons to randomly attack you with." Law-abiding citizens, that is. "What happens in the US when someone gets drunk and decides to randomly attack you with the weapon they happen to already be carrying?" In a perfect world, an armed sober citizen would be on the spot to dispatch the offender unto his maker.
On 2010-02-22 at 13:34:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
The only reason that the attacks of 9/11 were successful, is that the terrorists knew that they would be the only ones armed on the planes. They knew that citizens were not allowed to defend themselves.
On 2010-02-22 at 14:09:29, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Not just the law-abiding citizens, but the majority. Even those who are violent or commit other crimes aren't stupid enough to carry around weapons illegally. The number who do carry weapons are a very tiny minority and there's a strong social pressure to conform to the law. If an individual is seen carrying a weapon they will quickly find that other citizens will berate them for it.
On 2010-02-22 at 15:37:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
The simple fact remains, you have no means of defending yourself against the ones that choose to break the law and carry a gun. You may argue that there may only be one person that carries a gun, but that is one person from whom you have no defense; you are but prey.
On 2010-02-22 at 15:39:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Cliché, but true.
On 2010-02-22 at 15:41:11, DigitalBoss wrote...
As long as I am not infringing on other's rights by force or by fraud, I should be able to do as I wish. Another thing that I think is reprehensible, is that the media, the local newspapers and the local television news, will cover stories about accidental deadly shootings of kids and so forth, but will not cover the cases involving the proper use of handguns to defend ones self, even though, if you read the linked blog, there are obviously several instances in a week of some predator being shot in homeowner self-defense. If they do cover it, they put it on page 21 in a small box. They will only cover stories that make handguns look bad, not the stories that show people defending themselves against predators. This is why the local tv news and local newspapers are losing so much business. They deliberately bias the news stories they cover and most Americans are sick and tired of being lied to.
On 2010-02-22 at 17:55:26, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The chances of me actually meeting someone with a gun are tiny, and the idea that they'd actually use it on me is ridiculous. Guns are involved in drug-related or gang-related crime here and that's it. Since I'm involved with neither I've got more chance of winning the lottery than being shot. Your idea that I'd be better off carrying a gun around, for the sake of some highly unlikely event that will never happen in my lifetime, is ludicrous. Even carrying a knife around wouldn't be any better, since I'd merely risk injuring myself. Also, we have a country where we can be nice to each other and confident that strangers aren't about to attack us. Yes, there are still dark places you don't go, but on the whole it's a great, safe place to live. And there are plenty of common events that don't appear in the news, e.g. house fires are common yet some of them still make the news because they involve someone 'special' in some way and fill airtime. Less such news would be better, not more.
On 2010-02-22 at 20:06:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
You are still missing the point, I am guessing by design. I hope you never meet a predator that is armed, and you are not. The simple fact is that any serious criminal in your country knows that no one will be armed, and can carry out their plans without concern that an armed law-abiding citizen by-stander could stop them with one shot and not even be prosecuted by the authorities. The chances of your house burning down is pretty slim also, but you still have a fire department.
On 2010-02-22 at 20:13:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
On a side note, my ex-wife carries a gun everywhere she goes. When asked if she had a permit, she said no. She said that she would gladly take the pain of a fine or jail time if she got caught with it. Just the knowledge that she could take-out a predator when she needed was enough compensation. oooh-rah. She doesn't play with it, or show it off, it is just there for when she needs it. I pity the guy that tries.
On 2010-02-22 at 21:15:16, Lee J Haywood wrote...
That's a poor analogy - the fire station is one building for the whole community, it's not everyone owning their own fire extinguisher nor their own fire-fighting equipment. If potential criminals know that they can get away with anything then surely they'd be out committing violent crimes in high numbers and anarchy would ensue? There's zero evidence of that - zip - because that's not what happens here. Of course there are statistics but they're not comparable, and besides you'd have to actually live here for several years to even begin to appreciate the lack of need for weapons. There's not much outward difference between someone with a concealed weapon (in the US) and someone with no weapon (in the UK) so it's mostly psychological.
On 2010-02-23 at 09:01:00, Thelevellers wrote...
I would also point out that you are far more likely to be shot yourself if you carry a gun - if someone unexpectedly pulls a gun on you they will shoot you if they have reasonable suspicion (or even unreasonable) that you are making a move for your gun - if you have no gun you will be far more likely to survive. Unless of course the person is intent on killing you, but again, if they have surprised you you wont have a chance to defend yourself with your weapon any way. Also Lee has a good point - there just isn't a significant number of weapons in this country, and I feel perfectly safe walking everywhere without a weapon. The only places where I feel unsafe would be LESS safe if I was armed, for the reason given above. The cultures of our two countries really are very different in many respects.
On 2010-02-23 at 14:00:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I think you need to read the blog. Yes, they are very different. One is a nanny-state, and the other is not now, but probably will be if our communist friends (Democrats) stay in power.
On 2010-02-23 at 14:31:00, Thelevellers wrote...
From what I could see, the blog was a list of stories about people using their weapons to defend themselves? If I missed something, let me know and I'll re-read. But based on that reading of it, I don;t see what that changes? Like I say, I like living in a country where I don't feel the need to arm myself to survive - I personally define nanny-state-ism to be the EXCESSIVE control of society: The removal of children's playground equipment on the grounds they might hurt themselves, ensuring that the hoops companies have to jump through to run things like climbing walls are so excessive many places don't even get off the ground. Controlling devices designed specifically for killing people/animals is not excessive, humans are naturally idiots, and tend towards trying to kill each other, so controlling a means of them doing that makes perfect sense to me.
On 2010-02-23 at 16:39:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
As I've said before, that blog is completely biased and unrepresentative and so easy to dismiss with no hesitation. Of course there's no correct answer to any issue because each option has its pros and cons. Banning smoking makes perfect sense to me - as Thelevellers points out it's a case of the state protecting people from their own stupidity - yet smokers will see themselves living in a nanny state. Perhaps if the government were to ban, say, coffee on the grounds that it might cause health problems few people would say that was reasonable. The same doesn't apply to guns, smoking and drugs precisely because they are harmful to people other than those using them - i.e. society. I might support some restrictions on alcohol for this reason, for instance.