Justafiable use of a firearm in self defense is quite rare, according to the evidence.
your evidence if i remember only makes it rare in comparison to homicide. but i might be wrong. of course if homicide is decreasing, then self-defense must be as well. i's just being a pain. ignore me.
What the test really was is something that penalizes the honest, but passes the dishonest. I could have lied. I could have given them everything they wanted to hear to make myself out to be the very quintessence of a goody-two-shoes. But that would have been wrong of me to do.
it's not designed to penalize the honest. the fact that you were stuck with a poor clinician is a big issue. however, it is designed to trip up the severely disturbed and identify personality issues. i've taken one too. i didn't describe how i take great pleasure in utterly annihilating insects and arachnids when it asked me about being cruel to animals. centipedes may technically be animals but THEY DESERVE TO DIEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
being overtly honest is actually symptomatic of a few personality issues. so maybe the police department is better off than you think ;)
well, considering that all of my research talks about people being cut into several pieces and children being forced to watch their parents be decapitated, i think maybe your 'death by sepsis' is a bit misaimed. i mean, i guess if you cut off someone's legs and arms and hack out her guts and her unborn fetus (so someone doesn't jump on me) and take a few whacks at her head and neck, then she really does die of bloodloss. but, i think somewhere in there we hit fatal wounding.
quote:Any amunition not nessesary to kill a deer or a rat becomes illegal
bears? i know people who have to deal with those on a daily basis. and they live in big cities.
Point noted. The bear hunters I know have told me it does take more to drop a bear. I have not been told that they require and uzi and armor piercing rounds though.
Regarding others posts: ( in general, not directed at brennakimi)
On message 223 nator posted the following: (edited)
quote: Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915 Canada 8
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40 Canada 5.45
I have been around guns my whole life. Most of my family on both sides are hunters. Rifles and shotguns are the norm as far as I am concerned. For the purpose of self defence - a shotgun works just as well as an uzi for repelling a crack addict.
Most of the robberies that I read about in my city are done with knives, on occation a handgun - but that is rare. Canadians do not (as a whole) own handguns, its just not seen as important. I dont have a bunch of statistics to back up my claims, but I do feel guns designed for the purpose of killing humans will promote killing humans. I read somewhere, and am willing to retract, that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans - yet gun related deaths are far far lower.
The problem, as I see it, is availability. While you fight to keep your stockpiles of weapons you cannot realisticly claim that the problem is with councelling or government funding to predict future madmen. The problem is future madmen can buy whatever they want to begin their killing spree. Handguns and assualt rifles make murder simple - killing 32 people with a knife is impossible for a killing spree.
Arming for a future revolution is simply absurd and claiming that resrictions will not stop the criminals does not seem to be reflected by the data - if that where the case then Canada should be a candy land of crime.
You keep drawing these bizarre equivalences. If guns aren't a significant technological improvement in terms of kill power, then why were they invented?
"Kill power"? Bro, even in an RPG I don't think there's ever a need to kill something extra good... er, besides undead, by definition. Those aren't an issue in the streets last I checked. ANYWAY
If what you're trying to say is that it's easier to kill lots of people with guns than with a pair of scissors, then you're absolutely right. But both certainly have the potential to kill a human being; they both can kill human beings until they break or jam.
Unless you'll suggest that a weapon has the potential to damage somebody's soul, the most potential a weapon has is to kill somebody. A boot can do that. But it's by far more LIKELY that a gun will do this, according to the stats. Thus the potential of killing via a gun (point and pull the trigger) is more ACCESSIBLE than the potential of scissors(restrain them, then stab in vital points until they stop moving?). You won't find these terms in anything I've read, but I've defined them here pretty clearly. Are there any disagreements here?
Unless I am mistaken, a magistrate put him in a mental institution involuntarily because he was considered a danger to himself and others. That should be part of the public record, and therefore should pop up on a background check.
People like that shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm without a lengthy waiting period and additional criminal and psychological evaluations.
We also should not be depending upon the customer to be truthful on the application to purchase the gun.
How in-depth will the psychological analysis be? Next to everyone has some sort of mental/emotional problems. You, for example, are dependent on your need to always have the final say, no matter if you're wrong or right. That seems like it'd make you pretty dangerous with a gun, no?
Should people like you have the right to carry a firearm? You seem like you'd be more likely to resort to putting a bullet in someone's chest just to finish an argument than would someone who's not so obsessive about always having the final say.
Edited by Jon, : Added quote box to make it more obvious to whom the reply was.