The one on the right, of course.

Agree with Blackspots.

Well, the one on the right would likely discourage a criminal.

There's not much that will discourage a lunatic, though. They've already lost their grip on reality by definition.

Thank you! XD

You'd be surprised how rational some more dangerous "lunatics" thinks in the moment, otherwise, he'd be just a babbling fool flailing his arms in his/her own world.

i'm one of those lunatics that are also called genius... and trust me difference between a "lunatic" ya were thinkin of and my kind is... i am far more prepared than that one... Gun skilled zone? Hone skills and wear armor X3 its certanly stupid to walc in untrained and try to play a "lunatic"...

Sorry, but what I'm hearing sounds less 'genius lunatic' and more 'internet ego'.

Think what ya want its irrelevant to me. In fact the more others underestimate me the more successful i can be if i wanna do somethin (be it good or bad). That's what gives the "loons" the edge over others... most people think they are incompetent idiots (some are), while in fact a good number of them are in fact the exact opposite.

And what makes most of them fail their tendency to overestimate their own capabilities. Go beat your epeen somewhere else.

"boom, head shot" -snoipah

Armed? Maybe the second one, though customers might be wary of crossfire. It's something for statisticians to debate once the data is in. It also might encourage escalation, either higher-powered hunting weapons fired from hardpoints or from hiding or large-capacity automatic weapons sprayed immediately to neutralize the known armed threat. Also, those gangsters obsessed with being "hard", the kind usually initiated by gang beating or killing a rival, will take the sign as a challenge.

Lunatic? None. By definition someone with that level of antisocial personality or psychopathy (those most likely to be inappropriately violaent; I am technically a "lunatic" because I have many anxiety disorders like Social Anxiety Disorder and OCD. Not all mental illness is created equal...) who has no more grasp of the real world will be unlikely to care about a little sign, no matter what it says.

Actually, lunatic, as it was intended to be used, might cover psychosis, schizophrenia or several sociopathic disorders. People with Social Anxiety Disorder aren't usually violent, anyway, unless it's just one of a number of issues. Social Anxiety Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder are in the class of neuroses that seldom result in seriously aberrant or dangerously antisocial behavior. I also have OCD and I was diagnosed with ADD (known as ADHD since the 1994 revision to the DSM) more than forty years ago.

I haven't kept up with the DSM since I switched my major from Psychology to English. I didn't like the prospect of being potentially capable of accidentally hurting people I needed to help.

Do you need medication? Or are your rituals enough? Thus far my rituals suffice, and my compulsions are limited to counting out even numbers and balancing things, like touching a thing with both hands or stepping on the same number of cracks.

As far as crossfire, assuming that nobody in the middle of all this is keeping their head down, I'd much rather have a couple well placed shots going to end someone who's going to have enough time to take as many shots he needs when otherwise it's a fish-in-a-barrel situation.

take the sign as a challenge? good. less idiots in the world.

Guns are welcome on premises.
Please keep all weapons
holstered unless need arises.
In such a case, judicious
marksmanship is appreciated.

I should make this as a sign and post it in my lobby.

hell yeah.

"This way absolutely no-one can tell who is intending to kill the others until everyone is dead"

Do gun fanatics ever think things through? Let me explain this - in this situation, every single person who has drawn a gun when a sht has been fired, looks like they could be the gunman, and will have everyone else shooting at them.

While there've been multiple instances of good people stopping violent criminals from continuing to be violent criminals with a gun of their own, has there ever been an instance of what you're conjuring up actually happening? I believe the closest that anything has ever come to that has been Joe Zamudio when Giffords was shot, he went to help and saw a man with a gun and obviously didn't shoot him.

Quite recently a woman was shot by police after having to shoot her abusive husband, but that was a literally one in a million outlier and she wasn't complying with orders to drop the weapon. Poor lady, but...

The crossfire fantasy is simply that. Fantasy. 99.9% of the time, by the cops arrive, the badguy has already left a blood trail and is long gone, or has been bleeding out somewhere nearby for the past 10 minutes.

You look, an sound like someone who has naver held a firearm in ther life. After a crirm has happened your assumption is eavryone is gona keep ther weapon drawn.(brandished) a person that has ther ccw, or open cary 9times out 10 has more RESPECT for the LAW. An will cooperate with law enforcement.

And. If you have any more questions about this call them each has a free 800 number.
Gun owners of America
National rifle association

The town i live has a vary vary high firearm percentage an we have money lots of it, but gess what a super low crime rate. Have no issues with peeping toms, no issues with muging, rap. Thefts..non at all.. Why you ask how can this be, the ancer is the woud be law braker knows his gona get dead.
Hell we dont even have to lock our doors, to our homes.. Why how can this much frendly openess happen? We RESPECT each othe. And god forbid a criminal gos to rob, rape, trespass, or werse thers . Armed citizen Ther put a damer on this crime.

sry for going off, but the truth is ther you just have to open your mind. Guns are not scarry not evile not one bit...
I'll end with quote


Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
You leave the home ready, pry to god you dont have to use your sidearm, but be ready to defend your self and others. Cuss you know thes someone else's son, daughter..

When a gun is drawn first, there may be confusion, but the bad guy mowing people down, or attempting to stab/kidnap/rape generally stands out. This is why when guns are in wide use crime becomes less.

Thats the best way to put it. be warned brake the law, you mite get shot...this simple way doing things worked in the old west.... Not a single mass shooting, eaver happened. Would you a criminal walk up to a bank knowing that eavy person inside was ararmed ? No you won't cuss you're gona get shot...

Neither, probably.

Neither. They'd miss the sign, and try to shoot up the place anyway.

The difference between the two is the difference between mass murder... and just a broken arm and leg.

In a recent newspaper here, they said the number of Firearms Permits has doubled and the title of the article was Gun Permits on the Rise as if practicing your 2nd amendment right was akin to the outbreak of the Ebola virus.
I love how much evidence there is to prove that an armed populace is often a far more peaceful one and so many bury their heads in the sand.
England outlawed nearly all firearms back in the late 90s and their violent crime rate is still on the rise even with their "CCTV cameras" on every block.

and as a bit of a counterpoint Australia did the same(only hunting rofles in the out back are legal from what my memory says) and their crime rate is a tenth as bad as it was in the 80s.

Then a further counter point, the 'stand your ground' law was enacted in Florida and the violent crime rate dropped.
Furthermore in a study done in Chicago more than 75% of all firearms used in crimes were illegally obtained/owned.

I wonder, is there a statistic of the 'stand your ground' law about how often firearms were used and how many have been hurt because of it? Of course I mean cases were there was no need for it.
And the illegally obtained firearms, were did they come from?

Mind you, it does not affect me at all, I am just wondering. Statistics are such nice things that can say anything, depending on what and how you ask.

I'm sure someone could come up with a statistic that says it would be a good thing to sell nukes to civillians.

>is there a statistic of the 'stand your ground' law
>how often firearms were used and how many have been hurt because of it?
Guns are used 2 million times a year to help de-escalate or control active crimes/criminals.
95% of these isntances the guns are never fired.
A certain percentage of these incidents never get reported.

gunfacts.info

That's exactly why I don't like statistics. You answered only the first part of my question and not:
>Of course I mean cases were there was no need for it.

Define, "no need" because need is a powerful word that has a varying defenition by lots of people.

Did you mean...
Need to hurt someone else/
Need to defend yourself?
Need to not escalate a situation?

Cause now we are just getting into the realm of being arbitrary and cherry picking for specific scenarios.

No need means that there was actually no reason to defend himself, much less using a gun.
No need means someone thought he was threatened, but was not.
No need means someone innocent of any wrongdoing or intended wrongdoing got hurt or killed.
That there was no need to 'stand your ground'.

BTW, this does not mean that the person using a weapon was breaking the law.

As if, like, the Treyvon ordeal, from the prosecutors aspect. (not that I am siding with the prosection) Yeah I highly doubt that happens often at all, who just pulls a gun on someone like that and fires.

I'm just saying that mistakes and misinterpretations happen.

Australias crime rate was already decreasing prior to the weapons ban. The weapons ban has had almost no influence on that.

It'd discourage some criminals, but likely wouldn't impact the lunatics too much. If anything, you'd see a significant rise in suicide-by-store-clerk, as opposed to suicide-by-cop.

The one on the left, obviously!





Said no one with any common sense, ever.

I must respectfully disagree, widespread proliferation of firearms would cause an increase in violent deaths from crimes of passion. Applying this idea to every (i.e. everyone should always have a gun) means that that 1 in 1000 people who get upset that you accidentally cut them off in traffic, now instead of being limited to fists or maybe a bat, not has a machine designed specifically to kill at their disposal.

Additionally this wouldn't stop an armed lunatic who by definition has lost all reasonable cognitive abilities but encourage vigilante justice and bypass a fundamental foundation of the USA's legal system: the separation of judge, jury, and executioner.

Not trying to start any drama here, but I believe that if proper discussion is not had, and people merely talk into an echo chamber where everyone always agree with them, then people's idea's will spiral further and further to the extremes.

You're not wrong. But you gotta keep in mind that everyone having access to a gun keeps them all on equal terms. Sure, you could get angry at someone who cuts you off in traffic and shoot them. But what about their family? If they were pissed enough to retaliate, wouldn't they be just as able to hunt you down and cap you back? If you considered that, chances are you'd probably decide not to shoot others just because they were upset. Nobody will ever have a perfect solution, but personally I'm for the idea of people not being helpless as another person brandishes a firearm to get what they want or do harm to others. I think if people are trained in their use, made to understand just how immensely dangerous guns really are, they could develop a better appreciation for them and use them responsibly. Of course, it also ultimately depends on the person using it.

Perhaps I just have less faith in the rationality of human beings, when you say
"But what about their family? If they were pissed enough to retaliate, wouldn't they be just as able to hunt you down and cap you back? If you considered that, chances are you'd probably decide not to shoot others just because they were upset."
I'd ask you, ever read Romeo and Juliet? Family feuds over a perceived wrongful death would be common place. I'd love it if everyone was rational enough to not misuse firearms but if that were the case then we wouldn't need firearms in the first place.

On the extreme ideas side, (and this is a bit sarcastic but good for idea generation) every gun should have 2 digital cameras, one facing forward and the other facing backward, a gps chip and basic data connection. Every time the gun is discharged outside a designated firing range, the two images are immediately uploaded to an emergency service along with the GPS coordinates. I can see no reason why this would harm an innocent legitimate use of the weapon and expedite the authorities response to any incident.

Counter-counter arguments:
"Prevent the weapon from firing in a critical situation": No, the firing mechanism and imaging system are separate systems with just a common trigger. Failure in one does not cause a failure in the other.
"Add too much cost/weight": weight would be nearly nothing, cost would be about $30 bucks.
"Recharging batteries would be way too cumbersome" You mean responsible gun owners don't clean or service their guns every couple of months that may now include swapping out a AA battery?
"Too easy to bypass/ defeat by covering/disabling the camera" you wouldn't tamper and disable the trigger lock feature of a gun, why would you tamper with this system unless you didn't want the police to see when you fired at someone and while a bad or blank image wouldn't be sufficient for conviction, a clean image of a properly applied use of force would expedite the case in favor of the defendant

Several years ago, someone went and did a study on violent crime rates. The reason for the study was that they were trying to prove that the then recently liberalized laws on concealed carry weapons permits in texas was gonna turn the state into a bloodbath, with shootouts over traffic altercations and so on.

No such increase of homicides or cases of threatening with firearms manifested. Similar predictions were made before florida changed their laws from 'may issue' to 'Shall issue', which also failed to turn into the shootout capital of america. If I recall correctly, the lead in the study was completely expecting an increase in firearm related crimes and deaths, and rechecked the data carefully when the result was contrary to expectations.

The thing that caught my eye in that study was the per capita violent crime rates of two populations in texas. Police officers versus non-police licensed concealed carry weapon permit holders. While both of them were pretty low, the rate of police officer violent crime rate was something like ten times greater. Food for thought.

A study was done on people who conceal carry, CCW holders are 7 times less likely to commit felony level crimes.

So you're one of the people who believe 100% of all firearms should be illegal and banned so that the only ones with access to any firearms are law enforcement who seem to have a killer vendetta against the American public and will happily murder you then lie and cover it all up to get off scot-free, and criminals who would like usual obtain them on the black market. Basically at the mercy of 2 homicidal lunatics but only one gets a license to murder card on his uniform. There are videos of police on Youtube directly stating that you don't have the right to expect shit from police if you're ever in trouble.

I must disagree with everything you just said.
I do not believe that all guns should be banned, but that reform of gun laws can be a healthy and productive thing for both the gun carrier and the non gun carrier
I do not believe that only the police, who you describe in some colorful language, should have firearms. Nor do I believe that all police abuse their position because a few bad apples get all the press, the news likes to make stories and in a country of 300 million people, there will always be some story somewhere. The actions of a few should not be mistruded for the sentiments of all.
I do believe that with the miniaturization of basic video technology that police should be required to wear some sort of recording device, however the polices surrounding such a system far exceed the scope of this thread.

You do realize that even with body camera's the police will have 100% control of the footage and will be quite easy to alter whenever they want. Even with the cameras they have now, the memory cards from some of their cameras just magically disappear when it could have been used against some officers. Plus the police are willing to scape goat certain officers just enough to placate the public.

You do realize that there are already systems on the market that instantly upload the footage to a third party, thus placing it outside of police control.

You know, this sentence tells me how little trust you have in the police. If this view is common in the USA, you have a much bigger issue than gun control. And as the police is the extension of the gouverment it should bring up the question how much you can trust said gouverment. In the end you would need to question what kind of country you have.

No, the police are an extension of the rich elite.

I'm probably one of the several who took major offense to that. Before I make a statement about that, which country are you from exactly?

Even if that is true, does that invalidate my question?

You have to Remeber the police rarely stop crime, by the time they arrive it's either over, or in progress. I dont personally not trust them, I mean on average they are decent people, my uncle is a cop, other relatives are in agency's around the area.
But they aren't spiderman, there is no pre crime awareness and so there's only so much they can do,
Seconds matter, they do their best, but I mean c'mon,

True and no argument here.

But Rokabur's comment sounded like he had a distrust about the police someone could consider either as paranoid or something from a conspiracy theorist.

Yeah I agree, I'm taking it in the more broad direction
Kind of panning back to a bigger point is all

We had a double dumbass road rage elimination out here late last year. Couple guys escalated a road rage incident until they got to gunplay and killed each other in a shootout. I've little doubt that they both kept escalating sure in the knowledge that they each had the ultimate solution to the problem being caused by "that asshole in the other car."

Trigger discipline isn't keeping your finger off it until you're ready to shoot. It's making sure you shoot only what you want/need to when you're holding the trigger.

These seem right up your alley Karno :http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008V0FOB6/ref=s9_simh_gw_p236_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0C8A15E0BEDMG9AFVB7A&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475182&pf_rd_i=desktop
and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004WM6ADS/ref=s9_simh_gw_p236_d0_i12?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0C8A15E0BEDMG9AFVB7A&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475182&pf_rd_i=desktop

Dunno why, these both seem so..you

the free gun zone protects the crimenal "i am with the gun" i prefer a place where who's get a shot isn't the victmin

I like!

I think gun skill zone, will make a criminal back off.

I'd say neither would deter them, but they'd know not to give you a chance to draw if they saw the second one. By the time you know they're robbing you they already have their weapon drawn.

+1
I'd also say the second sign would deter *me* from entering, knowing that if an armed attack took place I'd be highly likely to get caught in the crossfire. Frankly, if I saw anyone openly carrying firearms in an urban area who wasn't either police or military, I'd be getting the hell out of there!

I personally never saw the appeal of open carry. I don't have a problem with private ownership, but having worked in a customer service position I know first hand how common it is to find someone who gets combative at the drop of a hat, and that means open carry would make me very uncomfortable.

I don't quite get the need to have people see your gun. Unless you need it for ego or confidence or some such. In which case it would also make me uncomfortable. Concealed carry should be a much better deterrent, if only because someone who might be deterred by the possibility can't tell who's carrying until it's too late. Does everyone have a gun? You can't tell! The unfortunate truth is that people who misuse their firearms rarely think that way, just as most people on both side of this debate rarely think of it that way either.

I don't always carry a concealed firearm. But when I do it is a Colt 1911-A1.

Neither.
The right one just says, "Hey...we have guns...go next door and rob them instead...or when we aren't here, break in and steal our guns from us".
And the left one, well...says guns aren't here...so please come in, we aren't dangerous. You probably don't want either one. I would just have a NRA sign instead or write, "Beware of dog" or [insert city name]PD officer lives here.

I don't care about your politics. I just know that your illustration on the right maintains that the proper way to handle a firearm is with pinkies extended...

...like a real man.

Some compact pistols are too short to get a full grip on, and others with extended floorplates on the magazines can be pinchy, so for those it's usually best to have your pinky flying free.

the sign that reads armed carry is permitted judicious marksmanship appreciated.

sincerely i unno, no civils here with heavy guns or at least a magnun of high caliber (except the corrupt army but sshhhhh)

I live in a country where even the police don't regularly carry firearms and carrying handguns in public is illegal - but I feel safe as houses. I'm far more likely tobe involved in a car accident than a shootout.
Geez, anyone would think you guys lived in Somalia...

The perceptions of threats of violent crime and the actually documented threat of violent crime for a given area are often widely at variance with each other.

The social science and criminological science on firearms availability has been heavily politicized, and much of the science was funded by groups looking to reinforce their preconcieved position. This makes extracting reliable data that much more difficult. Look for things in peer reviewed journals that have stood up to the attacks of the opposite side for a couple of years at least.

That being said, the availability of self defense firearms to ordinary decent citizens is actually a rather small factor in the threat environment. Economic disparity, racism, monocultural versus multicultural society, and a dozen other factors are far larger in impact. Here in the US, the single group that has the highest homicide rate, both as victim and perpetrator, is young men (18-24) who are members of a illegal drugs gang. Remove those homicides and suddenly america is one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

But that's in the macro view. Look at the microview. One time in my life I was involved in a firearms crime. I happened to be in a store when the criminal walked in with a gun, shot into the ceiling and announced this was a holdup. I hit the deck and hoped he wasn't going to see me. I never felt so helpless and defenseless in my life than I did at that time. Criminal took the cash from the register and ran out the door. I found out later that the guy was so far into withdrawal from heroin when he did this, that he was very unlikely to hit whomever he was aiming at.

That experience convinced me that I never wanted to be that helpless again. I was already a competitive target shooter at the time. But I paid the fees and took the courses and passed the background checks and tests to get a concealed handgun permit as soon as I could. I don't always carry a gun, and I've never needed to draw it in a threat situation. But it is nice to know that I have that option available to me, in extremis. I don't want to kill anyone, but I don't want to be defenseless when confronted with someone intent on killing me. I have no idea if I could bring myself to actually fire upon someone else, even if they are shooting at me. Hopefully I will never find out.

I live in a country with one of the most severe gun control laws. The result?
I am over 40 years old.
I can't remember seeing a real gun, except in the holsters of the police.
I have not been the witness of a violent crime (though I hear about brawls in the news sometimes).
I have not even heard a real shot being fired.

Maybe these facts have something to do with each other, maybe not. Maybe I was just lucky, I don't know.

The only firearm I ever owned was a tear gas gun, because I was allowed to buy one when I turned 18 and used it once to shoot some fireworks on New Year's Eve. It was nice to look at it, as it was a replica that looked like a real one.

I won't try to compel you to own, use or carry a firearm. YOu are a grown adult who is responsible for your own decisions, and the consequences of them.

But, a firearm is a tool, a dangerous tool that if misused can do terrible harm. But, in my current situation, I go into high crime rate areas from time to time. I also have bears that come to where I live and raid the garbage bins and empty the bird feeders. That dangerous tool can also defend me against an attacker.

If either four or two legged critters decide I am their prey, I have tools that I can use to discourage them. Calling for the police to come help is one of them. Pepper sprays are another. I should mention, that until last year, where I live, the license for a pepper spray was the same license as a firearm.

Those are not things that will definitively stop the critter. Nor will locked doors, all they do is discourage and slow down the attacker. The only thing that will absolutely stop an attacker is lethal force. And a firearm is the best tool that I can use to deploy lethal force to defend me and my loved ones. Until someone invents a star trek stun gun, those are my options.

and don't mention tasers and those anti-mugger shocking devices. They are illegal for regular people to posses and use where I live. I do try my best to follow the laws, well at least the ones that are not totally silly, like the law prohibiting taking a bath on sunday, or the law requiring all males over 16 to bring their musket with them to sabbath services.

To be honest, I'm not argueing for other against gun ban. In that regard I can live with how things are in my country. True, criminals can still arm themselves with firearms, but as even the transportation of them is very strictly regulated, anyone carrying one will be asked to show his permit to carry one. And anyone seeing one carry one will call the police. It makes it rather easy to weed out the stupid criminals.

On the other side, I can ignore arguments that turn violent, as I can simply keep my distance and will not be in any danger of getting hurt. Something much more difficult if everyone is wearing a gun.

As for the need to defend yourself against wild animals, I'd say that is something completely different from a general ban on firearms. You can get hunting rifles in my country and even for clubs with a shooting range.

Like it has in public, this discussion can go on forever. While I understand it if someone wants to feel secure, especially if they were the close witness or even the victim of a crime, I simply have to wonder if a armed society is really the best way to be more secure.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that if we would have a much more polite society if we reintroduced the codex duello.

As for silly laws, I think we still have the one were it is a death sentence if you jump onto a moving car with the intention to rob it.

The fact is that the vast vast majority of our violent crime is limited to certain streets in certain neighborhoods, that everyone knows is not a good place to be.

Nearly the entire population of the US has the same experience as you, never witnessing, experiencing, or being in the proximity of violent crime, because they don't go to those places. You take those out, and we're a safe or safer than the rest of the developed western countries.

It really makes it clear that what we have is a society problem, a socioeconomic problem, a culture problem. It's not a gun problem.

I hoped that ,ost in the USA share my experience. Some things are not mentioned in the new, less so if the news are from another country. Which reminds me about a Batman comic, were several crimes are shown on the news finishing with an incident that did not make it into the news simply because no one died.

Yeah. Heavy news coverage has greatly skewed public perception of what goes on, especially foreign perception.

I am not trying to fight you on anything, but the stereotype that America is a huge shootout location couldn't be anymore inaccurate. We have lots of places in America where our crime and homicide rates are significantly lower than other countries. Also the US is 50 countries flying under one flag, anyone who compares the US to a single country is pants on head retarded, Europe to the US is a better juxtaposition.

the stereotype that America is a huge shootout location couldn't be anymore inaccurate.
And yet the constant screaming from certain Americans that the only way to protect yourself is to arm yourself to the teeth with lethal force at all times, coupled with the nearly annual school shooting sprees that seem to happen with depressing regularity in the US but once-in-a-blue-moon-if-ever in other Western countries, does little to dispell such a stereotype.

Also the US is 50 countries flying under one flag
Hmm, I never hear THIS perspective coming up when people are bragging about how *good* the US is... it sounds a bit like special pleading to me. Especially when unlike the EU which really *is* a bunch of different countries under a single flag, all the US "countries" have a common currency (the Euro isn't in all EU countries), a common foreign policy, and a common (federal) defence.

anyone who compares the US to a single country is pants on head retarded, Europe to the US is a better juxtaposition.
Even with that comparison, you hardly hear of school shooting sprees, theatre massacres etc happening in all of Europe on a frequency anything like the US... let alone of cases where EU citizens have been shot by trigger-happy EU cops like what's been happening in US states of late.

>only way to protect yourself is to arm yourself to the teeth with lethal force at all times
You're straw-manning, that's not how pro 2a people fight. Even the minority that does believe that is not that loud.

>nearly annual school shooting sprees
But ultimately are not annual. Nor are they predictable. As with most all of these "rampage killers" the guns are almost always acquired illegally anyway. So if you want to politicize this then by all means offer a solution. I am all ears. Please take action and give me a counterargument that's not so emotionally loaded either. It does little to dispel any discrepancy, in any argument, of any kind.

>I never hear THIS perspective
because amateurs don't know the laws or numbers. Also you are from fucking new zeland, which has nothing to do with either perspective of whats going on here.
>bragging about how *good* the US is...
Are you saying its not? Last I checked its the best country on the planet, I don't care about your opinion.
>special pleading to me
And your anecdotal references and emotional appeal are sound arguments, lol

>blablabla Europoors, blablabla
A.) We have states bigger then some of their countries
B.) The US Population is as big as the biggest 5 countries in Europe
C.) The Federal Government itself controls cashflow, foreign policy and basic human rights, as well as several other things. The last clause of the constitution delegates all the remaining power to the rest of states.
D.) Like C, the states are very different in politics, laws, culture, climate, and many other areas. To assume they are all the same is retarded as said before.

>you hardly hear of...
Probably because the world doesn't rotate around their shitty economy, and doesn't care for what's going with their investments in their shitty banks. Where as America still has a foot in everyones ass, so everything we do is kind of everyones buisness. In the world we are 112 right now for homicide rate. And we are defenitley less violent then Europe. So this illusion that america is a violent deadly crap hole is wrong.

As a few other folks have noted, C. None of the above. A person who has already committed to breaking the law isn't going to care about no steenking sign!

Guns prevent crime. Period.
I don't know whether the sign would stop it or not, doesn't matter. The issue remains, at this point, EVERYONE should be packing lethal force, if you aren't, don't say you weren't warned. In a post 9/11 world where terroist attacks on soft targets are common, you never know when a day at the office can become a bloodbath, and by the time police arrive, it's too late.
Remember, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
There is so much violent crime, People are at the point where honestly all they are concerned with is living. Fortunately I live in a state where it's legal to have ALL lethal and non lethal weapons, other states don't allow such. (Which is a seperate argument, NJ banned all pepper spray under 3/4 oz and tasers, but you can have a gun, so great idea, take away non lethal force options and leave only the deadly one. Weapons are simply tools, different ones are needed for different issues, you don't shoot someone who's hitting you, etc. don't tell me what I can/can't have, I'll decide when or if I use my taser, gun, mace, truncheon or whatever I'm carrying)

Because when you live in a state where last Christmas tree lot employees were robbed and shot, and we've had over 59 murderes this year and it's only April, you realize the police aren't good enough, you have to be your own police or you'll be the next statistic.
Remeber police get there in minutes when seconds matter.

I like to see a metastudy comparing safety between now, and selected points in history based on location and other factors. Like being Native American in an area that settlers want. Being Mormon outside of the later-established Mormon Kingdom. Being Quaker in Puritan territory. Protestant in a Catholic kingdom. Catholic in a Protestant kingdom. Chinese on the Mongolian front. Gay... nearly anywhere.

Doubtless, there are good reasons to have weapons. But historically, there were WAY more dangerous places to live, and with lesser degrees of freedom that we take for granted.

The United States is safer then it has been in almost 100 years. As gun laws are becoming more logical we find places like texas becoming significantly safer.

gunfacts.info

I take your point, though I believe you may be using the Anti-Tiger Rock example. We also have more braces, more smartphones, gay marriage, and fewer pirates. Correlation and causation need a lot of data. Preferrably from a .EDU rather than a .INFO

You mean like the ones found, on that site.

Violent crime
appears to be
encouraged by gun
control. Most gun
control laws in the
United States have
been written since
1968, yet the murder
rate rose during the
70s, 80s and early
90s

-National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics, Revised July, 1999

There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level.
If gun control worked, then we should be free of crime. Yet the U.S. government “found
insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or
combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes” and also concluded in one study
that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law – federal, state or local –
that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun
laws."224

-Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
estimate and reported via James Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Kathleen Daly, 1983

-First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, CDC,
Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Oct 3, 2003 – a systematic review of 51 studies that
evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence

-Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2006

I think your gun ownership is giving you a false sense of security?
If your state already has easy access to guns and yet has had 59 homicides this year then it doesn't seem to be doing much deterring? You're saying "Guns prevent crime." And providing an example that it hasn't prevented crime.

If someone is pointing a firearm at you to rob you, how will the gun in your holster/pocket/etc. stop them from shooting you? Assume you manage to draw without getting shot, now the situation has escalated to a standoff.

As much as I am OK with private gun ownership, I feel both sides of this argument do themselves a disservice by taking to extremes and ignoring the reality of what guns actually mean for security.

I actually don't even own a gun yet,
But I am planning on getting a few over the summer, I'm talking in a broader sense.
And here's what I'm saying, it is impossible to ban guns, that was the point of my statement about "only outlaws will have guns"
See, if I want one, an I have no limits, there are a million and one ways to get one, you could kill a cop, steal one, smuggle it, inherit it, I've even heard of inmates making guns out of bicycle handles.
So you can't ban them, what you can do is make it so the average person, w/ morals and no criminal connections can't get one, so then crime continues and I have no way to defend against those carrying illegally. And all this doesn't even count corrupt authority figures abusing their weapons for gain and control, like what happens in china, n. Korea, etc.
So, the murders will continue, until enough people fight back,
This IS the "wild west" only worse, and unfortunatly that's reality, so I'm not saying widespread gun ownership prevents crime, at least not right off.
At first all it does is give you a chance to live and kill/wound your assailant, and get away.
Later though, it creates a chilling effect in the criminal community.

If you wanted to make "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" the point of your post, you are really bad at presenting that? Maybe open with that instead of burying it in the middle of the post?

And you completely seem to be ignoring the bulk of what I wrote? A bullet-proof vest is a defense against someone with a gun, not having a gun yourself. Very few people would be fast enough to draw and shoot an armed assailant before they themselves are shot, but drawing your gun will almost guarantee they will shoot rather than just rob you.

I feel like I'm being fairly plain here. I have no quarrel with gun ownership, but I expect people who have guns to understand it most likely won't save your life. Getting to cover might save your life. Armor might save your life. Your assailant being a really really bad shot might save your life.

My post doesn't really have a point, lol,
Just that I specifically think guns and other non lethal force is imperative where I live. That specifics vary by area, and that here all the thugs and gangbangers have guns, so I feel I have one too,
I'm not here to attack anyone, if I sound extremist it's because I live in an extreme city right now, and truthfully now where is "safe" nowadays anyway 100%

I know you're not trying to attack anyone. The amount of violence where you live is pretty shocking relative to the rest of your state. I would just like to think that you'll try avoiding the bullets before you think about returning fire, because the mindset you have going into a situation like that will have a tremendous impact on whether you survive it or not.

Yeah, I mean lethal force should always be the last line of defense. I carry tons of non lethal, stuff, when I do buy a gun it's still last defense. I belive people should Carry guns AND non lethal such as tasers/stun guns, pepper spray or a expanding baton, etc.
Just like the police do. Weapons are tools, if all you carry is a hammer, everything is a nail, I don't like to see people shot for knives or fists or anything like that.
I try and shape everything and the way I think and would react based on the equal force, lethal force demands lethal response, if you can get away or subdue than those options should be used,

Terrorists prefer to use bombs, they are more effective at spreading terror as well as more effetive. One in a crowd does more damage than any firearm ever could.

As I stated above, I live in a country with pne of the most severe firearms laws. In 2013 we had 282 murders in a country with 1/4 of the population of the USA. I don't know if the two facts are related.

if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns and there is no doubt at all who is an outlaw.

Terrorists prefer to use bombs, they are more effective at spreading terror as well as more effetive. One in a crowd does more damage than any firearm ever could.
Heck, even the implication of a suspicious package is enough to cause major disruption - no actual explosive required :-/

I know. And for myself I had a thought about that a while ago. I'm thankful no one had the idea I had in that regard.

Well, at first I was going to point out how guns lead to more violent crime and will cause escalation of a serious crime while also leading to gun owners threatening people over misunderstandings followed by them calling that "stopping a crime", but then I saw you wrote period. That answered all problems I had with your dumbass statement.

I also like how the solution to there being too many guns in America is MORE GUNS and MORE PARANOIA!

Hey, you know what, you don't know what it's like to live where I live, until you live in a place where it's not safe to go out to your car without getting a gun held to your head and throat then getting violently beaten even when you comply with the demands of the thug [somthing that just happened in the "nicer area" of the city I live in], you have no right to call my comment dumbass,
Have you been mugged, assaulted, had your house broken into 6 times in less than 18 yrs?
Do you live on a street that's seen around 30 shootings, three homocides and 2 rapes in less than 10 years?
You can't judge what response is resonable, if you think you can move to my house and try it a different way, your welcome to it.
People don't get it, just because you live in a nice area doesn't mean the world is like this, the world is full of predators, and when they come for you and your children, you'll wish so bad you had a gun.
You just don't understand, which is fine, but don't judge people who are for more guns until you understand why they are saying it, odds are they are either victims or family of victims of brutal and senseless crimes.

There is no such thing as "too many guns" it's really simple, I have a right to a million of them, constitutionally.
It's not about the quantity, it's about how they are being used, your average thug, felon or assailant has a gun, just read the papers, if you don't, he has your way with you, if you do, you kill or wound him,
Does it suck? Absolutely, but until the violent crimes, hate crimes, homophobia, terrorism and race crimes stop, what choice do we have?

And how do I tell the difference between you carrying a weapon with good intent and a "thug" about to use his weapon? Maybe if I had a gun I'd better shoot you *both* immediately so I can be safe. :-P

Simple, you won't see the criminals weapon until he's ready to use it, that's where proper training comes in.
Why would you find open carry unsettling, it's a tool, you may see a person open carrying and find out they are off duty cop or probation officer or military,
Why should they be allowed to do it and not the rest of the country, and unless they told you, you wouldn't know they were "authorities" either.
Yeah you can't tell by looking, but if someone's going to hurt you they won't announce it to the world by walking about everywhere with an exposed side arm then you turn up shot and they pull the surveillance tapes and see some person walking around with a gun, you get the idea.
Thugs stick to the shadows, they are predators.

I dont even own a gun yet, but My issue with all of this is that I plan to, and when I do I want to open carry, because Delaware isn't a nice place to be nowadays, and for that matter the world is getting pretty nasty. 15 years ago this wasnt important, but I mean turn on the news and see riots, terrorism, hate crimes and rampant rapes and carjackings and beatings, consistent threats by Isil an other groups to attack the US,
How could you NOT want a gun?

Eh i would say neither. The true AMERICAN way to deter thugs is to weld 2 Assaultrifles to the cctv mound and let software track every customer. As soon anyone draws a weapon ... BOOM headshot.
I mean cooporations are people and people have the 2nd amendment right, so if my cctv-system that is part of this person and shoots an armed lunatic in selfdefence its entirely justifiable.

No i am naturaly not serious. What should deter thieves is regularly emptying the cashregister, prominent cctv (the unarmed kind), alarms and depending on what kind of establishment you serve bulletproof glass. Advertise all of it, make the place unattractive not because of the gun threat but because it would be a huge waste of time to rob it out.

And if you need to be armed maybe consider a Taser first could be better for subduing a single target if you have to. better atleast then shooting into a crowded shop.

Frankly, I'd be terrified to patronize the second place, as would most anybody I know...

I mean, the narrative of "Criminals don't obey rules" isn't really a shutdown here. Criminals are people who have more to gain than to lose by disobeying the rules. They know what'll happen to them if they pull out a gun in that area.
And no matter how well trained the staff are, I would actually feel safer in a no guns allowed period sign place. When there are guns period, the criminal will always have the advantage of shooting first - and if he takes out the armed staff like anybody good with a gun could, we'd be absolutely fucking defenseless. We'd actually probably have a better chance WITHOUT guns, since it doesn't turn the staff into immediate targets and gives us ways to incapacitate the shooter.

The logo on the left attracts criminals, and can be seen and recognized from a long distance off.

The logo on the right would deter criminals, IF they could see it clearly before they were close enough to the intended targets to be committed to the deed.

In other words, the gun skill image has to be as easily seen and recognizable as the gun free image from just as far away in order to have the desired effect.

Good idea, otherwise.

I thought about getting one that says "hidden booby traps at all entry points" or something

I love how your postings on firearms immediately frightens the sheeple into bleating about how their countries gun control laws are so great. However, Hartless hit the nail on the head here with a better alternative to gun free zone as far as text goes.

If you want to be simplistic about the imagery though, you could have the same "gun free zone" sign, but not ban icon over the pistol with the text, "Armed Carry Permitted On Premises."

I love how you can tell when you have a gun loony, they use words like sheeple unironically.

The fact that you jumped to using the word "sheeple" immediately invalidates any argument you have as mere posturing.

Hmm, I dunno. Some armed criminals might indeed be discouraged - there are easier targets if all you want is some loot, but if you are in it for fame and glory -- for a lunatic this might be more a challenge than a deterrent ;) Look, those guys think they are great shots, let's show them!

I , too, life in a country where guns are very strictly regulated, you need a permit to own one, and even then there's strict rules to adhere (you are required to keep it in a secure weapon locker when not in use among others, but you also need to undergo mandatory weapon training on a shooting range, to make sure anyone owning a gun is qualified to use it safely)

There might be arguments in favor of unregulated ownership, and banning them does by no means completely prevent lunatics and criminals from getting a hand on a gun. We have amok-runs and armed robberies and even gang wars like any other country. But if you just look at the numbers:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country.....d-States/Crime

especially the murder rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.....-crime/Murders

for example the united states have a homicide rate 20 times higher than that in Germany - 12,996 homicides per 100k versus 690 homicides per 100k people

the availability of guns does play an important role there. Even if you have an armed robber entering a shop, if that guy is determined and has to assume that the clerk has a loaded pump gun waiting under the counter, he'll be MUCH more trigger happy and shoot the clerk at the first sign of disobedience - or just to prevent getting shot in the back on the way out. Even if the clerk was just reaching for the silent alarm button.

If you can assume the clerk to be unarmed, then holding the gun in his face will usually be enough - there's no reason to pull that trigger and kill him. (of course there's also no way to kill the armed robber, unless you're really good at martial arts, but then again that's what you have insurance for. Insurance isn't very helpful if you're dead.)

Also those who commit armed robbery usually don't have a very long criminal career, sooner or later they get caught. Police has much bigger problems currently with burglars who strike stealthily in the middle of the night. Mostly because these are organized in multi-national groups. You have a burglary in the night and by the time the victim finds out and calls the police the next morning the stolen stuff has already been brought across the border out of the country. But again as long as there's no casualties, you can learn from that and get a better lock/alarm system ;)


The problem might be that without guns, how do you defend against a corrupt regime?

Well, unfortunately, history has shown that having guns doesn't really help that much against "the man". Look at the USA - does having guns helped any of these recent murdered-by-police black citizens? Would it have helped them if they had had gun with them and shot that one bastard trying to kill them? I doubt it, by then they'd just have been framed as cop-killers and shot on sight even by the "good cops" (if any)

Also meanwhile the police in most US states has "armed up" with military equipment. Assault rifles, helicopters and even tanks. What chance would you stand if you had to start a resistance against that power - even if you have a gun?

"The man" will simply program their predator drones to treat anyone armed as an enemy and shoot you and anyone trying to resist from the safety of a control bunker a thousand miles away in a different state.

Being able to resist oppression with free and available guns is a wet dream of the US rifles association and similar lobby groups, but unfortunately the reality is - their guns are worthless against the oppressor. But their availability also means every idiot and moron who's too stupid to shit on his own can run around waving a gun and take two dozen innocents with him before he accidentally kills himself.

Its a double bladed sword, except that the blade facing away from you has long become blunt and only the one pointed at yourself is still sharp.


I might not have a gun, but I was trained to use assault rifles during my military time, and in my free time I'm programming and flying my own unmanned aerial vehicles for fun. I dare claim that if the revolution comes, I might stand the better chances here in the "gun free" country than in the states - once martial law has been enacted ;)

<applauds>

And there's also the fact that when the police DO get to the scene of an armed altercation, how can they tell who the bad guy is if both are shooting it out with each other?

If you arrive on the scene with two people with handguns, one is lying in a pool of blood with the other standing over them pointing the gun at the person on the ground... how do you know if the person standing is the intended victim who has got control of the situation, or the perpetrator who has got the drop on their victim? And do you want to risk being the next target of the perpetrator because you thought that might be the victim - or immediately gun down what you thought was the perpetrator which turned out to be the intended victim?

How many cop on civilian shootings in the US have happened recently because the cop "feared for his safety" because of the high likelihood of handguns being present? It's not like criminals have a "BAD PERSON" sign on them...

Actually, our criminals armed with firearms do have that sign on them. We have so few people with a license to carry a gun, that the police can assume that the idiot waving one around is a 'bad person'. Those few with the carrying license have more sense than waving their firearm around simply because all the courses they have to take to get said license.

BTW, another thing is that the criminals with guns usually don't have any training with their guns at all. For that they would be in a gun club, which requires them having expensive weapons lockers as Blackraven2 mentioned. Those things cost more than most robbers with guns can afford.

Given, we have one huge advantage over the USA. Hunting has even more regulations attached than just owning a firearm. Also, there are so few possibilities for hunting, that it is a hobby for very few people.

True. And the situation is similar in my country (albeit with more hunters about). However, in the USA...

I know

If they're white?First one, since they know that the typical gun owner will assume any blackan or hispanic man MUST be the criminal.

Or am I supposed to ppay along with your belief that you can flawlessly know everything about the situation and react in a way that doesn't get innocent bystanders killed?

Many gun owners are "blackan" or hispanic.

And as I was saying on another comment, there's never been an instance as far as I can find, of all the shootings and other crime that've been prevented with a firearm, of anyone just going in and shooting randomly. The aforementioned Joe Zamudio actually didn't have all the information, and came across a shooting incident and saw someone with a gun, and he specifically didn't shoot that man, and this is in a state where no licenses or training are required, and he didn't have any; the worst person to be in a bad situation still didn't blow it.

i need to put one in my store.

pleas ...

And i woud glady shop in that store.

Go right ahead!

My sign would be like:

"Attention all criminals, Feel free to try and rob us. We concealed-carry supporters could definitely use the target practice."

or something like this:

"Try and rob us, our bullets thirst for blood!"

My personal favourite:

"You're a 2-bit untrained punk with 5 round clip, We're a trained concealed-carry group with 10 round clips, Do your worst!"

Not on discourage, but I think it'd make other people feel safer knowing theres people protecting their business whos licensed to protect against rogue gunners. More than waiting for police to make the scene.

It wouldn't make me feel safer. Rather than saying "theres people protecting their business whos licensed to protect against rogue gunners", it says to me "You are standing in a Third World-like area where law and order has broken down to the extent that people have to resort to deadly force to protect themselves on a day-to-day basis. Expedite your departure to civilisation immediately."

A disarmed populace is a hallmark of civilization? So....Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Gulag were high points of civilization?

New Zealand has tighter gun control than the US, yet ranked #1 in 2013 in the international freedom index AHEAD of the gun-soaked and supposedly. "leader if the free world" USA .
And where were the Second Amendment "defenders against tyranny" when the NSA was discovered doing Stasi style surveillance ?

Outside of the US, New Zealand has some of the loosest gun regulations in the world. They're up there with Canada and Czech Republic for widespread legal gun ownership.

True, but we certainly don't allow US-style handgun carrying in public - either open or concealed carry. And I have never seen even NZ firearm enthusiasts advocate for US-style carry laws either. Even our police don't regularly carry firearms.

And we also don't have US-style gun crime and mass shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook. The last mass shooting in NZ I can recall was in Aramoana in the 1980s, and there's never been a Sandy Hook-style school massacre.

But the way you'd hear some Americans go on, not having the right to own and carry any kind of firearm in public US-style means you're "disarmed" and one goose-step away from a totalitarian state... which is plainly ridiculous.

It's a pretty strong theme in our background. Considering the history of our country, it's kind of a given.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry"

And our largest school massacre was with fire. We're just a violent people. NZ is a remarkably safe place, much moreso then your continental and all but completely disarmed neighbors. Gotta hand it to you there.

"Dear Patrick Henry,

Given the appalling record of Americans shooting each other up in the 21st century compared to other Western countries, I would say no, the American people *can't* be trusted with arms under their direction. Though to be fair, given the record of the American government of waging undeclared wars around the globe and performing extra-judicial executions of foreigners in a 'War on terror', I would have to say the American government can't be trusted *either*.

Regards, Mayfurr."

BTW, I'm not sure whether you're aware that NZ's "continental neighbour" of Australia is on the other side of 2,000 miles of ocean, and - while having tightened up their gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre over twenty years ago - isn't exactly "all but completely disarmed".

Hmm... I didn't think being lawfully licensed and having up to date signage about firearms is considered third worldish.

It's the fact that you feel the need to proclaim such a thing in the first place that makes it Third World-ish.

Gun-Free Zine
We prefer tear gas, pepper spray, taser and a baseball bat.

"So, you hit him with the tear gas and then broke all his fingers, hand, wrist and forearm with a baseball bat?"
"He was still holding the gun in it your honor."

When you're talking about a business, perception is more important than reality.

So I pose this counter-question:

Which of these signs is more likely to make most customers feel safer?

Depends on the type of shop. In a children toy shop, I'd much prefer the gun free zone.

If its a shop specializing in selling rifles and ammunition on the other hand, the second would likely be much more appropriate

Karno, do you recall that time in Tucson when Blockbuster Video made a huge stink over the legal gun owners and banned them from carrying inside the store? You and I went there with open carry along with numerous others and I cut up my rental card (which earned me a nationwide ban) in protest along with the others there who were upset at the business demands.

I seem to recall that very store, which in numerous years was never robbed....was openly robbed a week later and again later on.

Yes, that no guns sign swayed criminals from robbing that place!

I like that pinky finger thing ya got going on there ... proper gun etiquette is quite important you know.

The truth is, neither sign is going to stop a bullet if someone is determined to cause harm. No matter where you live, criminals will still be criminals, and all the signs in the world is not going make a bit of difference to a truly crazy person.

The one on the left displays which establishments are unarmed, and thus, easy targets, while the one on the right might even be construed as a personal challenge in some neighborhoods, or, alternately, might make one think twice before trying anything stupid.

Living in a rural part of an open-carry state, it's not at all uncommon to see the general public walking about wearing a side arm .. not a big deal around here.

I guess it all boils down to the level of personal responsibility we are willing to assume with this constitutional right, and the level of respect we are willing to afford our fellow human beings.

I'd put both signs up just to confuse the hell out of everyone ^^

"free KFC next door"

0% assaults for the rest of time :^)