District of Columbia's Ban on Right to Carry Overturned - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;45511406]I carry a 92FS because I live in a shitty part of the state and have been mugged twice. Oh and I routinely have to work late. so.. [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] Oh and the last time I was mugged, the guy stabbed me in the gut with a pocket knife. Yeah nah.[/QUOTE] That sucks balls but could you elaborate how having a gun helped that situation, especially if you were stabbed? Not trying to argue or anything, just curious. It's hard to word stuff online without sounding argumentative or sarcastic

[QUOTE=The Aussie;45512897]That's weird, i've got a University of Sydney study from 2006 detailing the exact opposite. [url]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short[/url] I couldn't find the study since the link was dead so i had to find a link from a journal. [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] So all in all i'd concede the results are inconclusive. I'm not exactly about to ignore evidence.[/QUOTE] If you want to know why the two studies clash so brilliantly, have a look into the background of the two lead authors, Simon Chapman and Phillip Alpers. Both are known gun control advocates, Chapman being part of the Coalition for Gun Control, and Alpers the founding director of gunpolicy.org. Chapman himself has come under fire for bias in his work more than once, and has a habit of passive aggressive personal attacks when other academics have questioned his use or misuse of evidence. Also the 2006 study suggests a causal relationship between the absence of mass murders and the NFA, but does not have any evidence to suggest this. That's not a causal relationship. That's a correlation. One need only look at new zealand to show the thinking here doesn't hold true. NZ is largely similar to Australia in terms of quality of life, history and culture and economic status, yet has more lax gun laws, but less firearm homicide, and no mass shootings in an even longer period than the data used the Chapman/Alpers study. Similarily, South Africa has the most firearm homicide and murders of any first world democracy, but has some of the most stringent gun control measurements. now obviously if I suggested that gun control is the reason south africa has so many murders, that would be ridiculous. Similarly its ridiculous to suggest Australia enjoys relatively low firearm homicide because of gun control and gun control alone. Here is another analysis from the university of Melbourne: [url]http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf[/url] "In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates." Anyway, the point I'm trying to drive home here is, people need to stop using Australia as a model of gun control, if they aren't willing to question why NZ has even less firearm violence despite laxer laws, or why South Africa has such ridiculously high firearm homicide despite some of the most stringent firearm regulations.

[QUOTE=onebit;45510808]Planes were unrealistic 300 years ago. Imagine where we could be in 300 years.[/QUOTE] Technology changes, human nature does not.

[QUOTE=joe588;45512159]next time you'll end up dead when they grab the gun from your stuttering arse and shoot you in the face[/QUOTE] why would you say something like that? [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ZakkShock;45512173]I bet you're just the friendliest of person. Now go ahead and start screaming about how superior you and your countrymen are because you're not gun-totin' amerifats.[/QUOTE] London has most crime per capita by the way.. as far as I can remember.

It really is funny how often those arguments come up. In very simple terms, most would-be criminals will wet themselves and run away when they hear or see a gun. Unless they're drunk or so mentally unstable they don't care if they die, all you have to do when approached by someone intent on mugging you is put your hand next to where you keep your gun and yell "I have a gun and I will use it to defend myself if you do not cease your aggression" or some shit. In a home invasion scenario, most of the time it's just enough to point the gun at them and they turn into a deer in the headlights. I've heard of a lot of scenarios where the home invader wasn't even shot they just tied them up and called the police.

[QUOTE=joe588;45512159]next time you'll end up dead when they grab the gun from your stuttering arse and shoot you in the face[/QUOTE] So here's a question for you, and I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm legitimately curious. Let's say you decided to mug Zakkshock, presumably because you were out for quick cash. In this hypothetical scenario, you don't know he's armed, so you pull out your knife and demand cash. Zakkshock pulls out his pistol and points it right at you. As you are right now, what would your reaction be? It would probably not be to try and wrestle the gun away from him and shoot him with it. It's not worth going to prison for 20+ years over $20, I'm sure you can agree with that and most muggers would too. It's also not worth dying over quick cash.