Here is another story from Canada last summer.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=702288

Ban whatever you like, there is no protection from random crazies.

(The one thing we can be thankful for is that such events are rare enough to be news when they do happen.)

Some of us carry our own protection legally.

There will always be crazy people. Dunno, this gets into the blurry politics line, so I'll leave it alone, ...

...if we outlawed stupidity...

And yes, you can outlaw stupidity and legislate common sense, but then we'd only have a one party political system.

And yes, you can outlaw stupidity and legislate common sense, but then we'd only have a one party political system.

(I mean besides responding with completely uncontrolled and heavily armed paranoia)

Hey, whatever it takes to get rid of the democrats and republicans.

'still have' doesn't begin to describe it. shootings doubled in the first 5 years after the 97 ban and have kept rising since.

but the british are STILL convinced bans work and every time a shooting happens in the US they scoff at the US gun laws.

After reading this article , I strongly feel we need legislation that will ban knives. These are dangerous tools and shouldn't be handled by common folk.

...kidding of course. A sad story without a doubt, but it does reiterate the fact that if a nutjob wants to kill people, he doesn't need a gun to do it and will do so by any means available.

According to this Gun Crime Report, there was a peak around 2003 and figures have been in decline since (fig 3). The variation seems to depend on ease of importing.

I'm not going to scoff, and I don't approve of the bans we instituted after Dunblane (nor similar tabloid-led legislation over the last 10 years). However, even in 2002 we had only 0.15 gun homicides per 100,000 people, and the USA had 3.98 (fig 6). So pro-rata, the USA has 26 times as many gun-killings as the UK. For whatever reason I think it is working better here than in America. Only around 0.2% of our recorded crime involves guns. It's a different culture. In general when the public encounter the police here, neither side expects the other to be armed.

Look at the crime statistics from the US from years ago. In an era where everyone was armed, crime levels were amazingly low. In the wild west days, if a bank got robbed, it was big news, like Billy-the-Kid type news. Today, thousands of bank robberies happen every month. People used to know that if you stole someone's horse, you'd get shot dead for it.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

...Look at the crime statistics from the US from years ago. In an era where everyone was armed, crime levels were amazingly low....

Guns were very expensive items and so was ammunition. People could not afford to be armed like they are now.

Wow. That is a silly statement.

If figured in gold, silver or oil, rather than currencies, the cost of small arms and ammunition hasn't changed all that much since the introduction of the fixed cartridge if you factor out the military surplus items prior each of the World Wars. Even then, you could buy a Carcano and 500 rounds for how much in 1962? Probably wouldn't work out to be much more than you would pay for Mosin and 500 rounds now. And the reason I'm not hitting the range every week is because I can't afford it- I make right around the average in this area, to.

Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was way more than most people made in a month back then.
I can buy a new rifle today for less than a 2 day's wages

By 1870 mass production had lowered the prices, but repeating rifles were still extremely expensive compared to how much the would cost in labor now.

Arguing prices based on commodities like gold is not very good. Metals fluctuate a lot in value.
Gold was cheap enough at one point that they actually used it as currency.

OK, I know I'm about to get a mouthful of something nasty, but I'll bite....

Based on your statement, you make the assumption that anyone who carries is (a) paranoid, (b) not in control of themselves, and (c) heavily armed. I'll take exception to all of the above. This isn't about politics. This is about mindset. One path leads ultimately to becoming a serf or a refugee. The other... is my path.

Paranoia is a specific psychological condition, and while I know it is not your intent to slander with this term, it is insulting. To the average person who can't be bothered to have 72 hours of supplies on hand, those of us who have 120 hours, or 240 hours, or just a month's worth of supplies are "paranoid". If believing that someone other than your self is ultimately responsible for your safety is paranoid, then I'm not sure why you are here. I'm not being nasty, but I have to ask that. It doesn't matter if we are talking getting lost in the woods, deciding to leave before a hurricane, or getting taken out by a meth head who wants the five bucks in cash you are carrying- all of those are real situations, and if not avoidable, failing to prepare for how to counter them is at best shortsighted, and more likely just ingorance in action.

By saying people who chose to be armed are not in control of their actions is very insulting, and shows you don't know much about people who practice any form of martial art, be it armed or unarmed hand to hand, bows, or firearms. To use any of them effectively, you need to be in control of yourself. The only way to beat discipline is luck.

Or perhaps you are thinking not so much of a random beserker, but of someone who flaunts laws. I have no respect for that type of person. My employer has a no weapons policy. Our parking area is not the most secure location. As a result, I choose not to carry anything heavier than a Swiss Army knife at or to work. It is not desirably, but it is the way things are. When my vehicle was down, I added a small can of pepper spray which stayed in my pack during the day, and that was it. When I used to carry regularly, I would not carry in a bar; when I used to drink regularly, I didn't carry period. I ask you if that is the action of a random beserker who is not in control of his actions?

As for heavily armed, I'm sorry, but that is a silly term. To a person with bare hands, someone with a rock is armed. Two rocks (one for throwing, one for smashing) in heavily armed when all you have is ten fingers.

Now, you do talk about avoidance. So we don't go out at night. We let the park become a dealing ground and crack house, and keep the kids out of it. Those of us who's socioeconomic situation gives them the luxury of avoiding bad parts of town do so, and if you can't, sucks to be you. Avoidance and situational awareness prevent walking into ambushes. But they can also make you a target. A "crazy" can see it two ways- as a threat to his status, or a sign telling the world you are prey. The really crazy, you can't avoid them if they want to play with you.

Sorry, I'd rather accept responsibility for myself, and be able to assist those around me. If that makes me paranoid in your eyes, then allow me to counter with this. It makes me a free man in my eyes, and the master of my own destiny. I have options other than running away or begging on my knees, just like I have options other than freezing to death or waiting on my roof for the helos to come. Sure, those options are open to me if they are the best ones, but I can now chose. Only small children, subjects and slaves have to rely on someone else to take care of them, and all are at the mercy of that "protector".

I am sorry Red, but I have to burst that bubble.
The "Good Old Days" are just another escapist fantasy.

Having a pistol handy certainly would not have helped anybody hit by the Texas Tower Sniper.
He was able to keep selecting targets and firing at them with a high powered telescopic sighted rifle for over an hour and a half from the top of that tower.
(he was the first of the real mass murder shooters by the way)

"Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

http://www.morganprinting.org/PortRangerRay.html

Civilian 22 rifles--

4 pages of predictable posts and an escalation from knives to firearms. So, I must ask? How many people are aware of Doug's other effort for knife rights? it's on the homepage.

To be fair, he never meant it to be about knives at all, he ended up changing the question to crazy people after the point.

In contrast, today you can at least dial 911 and expect some assistance. Instead of going after a bunch of hardcore bad guys myself I much prefer having a SWAT team in town. They're pros and can do the job much better than me and my neighbors...

That is, unless they can get sufficiently organized themselves to form a standing armed/police force. In which case the civilian population will not really need weapons any longer.

But aren't you agreeing that gun bans don't control the amount of shootings, when you say it depends on the ease of importing?

Guess that blows the whole no knife crime idea out of the water.

So, we should all just dial 911 on the phone and then cower in the corner until the good guys show up to save the day? The reality of that situation is that all too often, the police arrive just in time to clean up the aftermath. My own brother, as well as several friends of mine, are current or former police officers and that is straight from them.

The police may or may not make it there in time to stop someone from harming myself or my family. The alarm system may or may not function properly. But, I will do everything in my power to see that myself and my family survive the ordeal.

Your reasoning that having police meaning the civilian population no longer needs guns is flawed. If you have a fire department, does that mean you shouldn't have smoke detectors or a fire extinguisher in your residence or business? There are plenty of highly-trained doctors and paramedics, does that mean you should not carry a first aid kit in your vehicle?

The thought that the big, warm, fuzzy government will come bail us all out of whatever ails us without us having to lift a finger is a sad part of the downfall of modern society. I'd expect a forum about preparedness to be the last place I'd hear someone say that we should just wait until the good guys show up to help us.

Looks at places where everyones grandma does tote an AK, crime is low there because criminals are going to be less likely to mug/rop/rape grandma.

That's why owning weapons doesn't make anybody safer per se. Guns sure as hell didn't make the Wild West a safe place no more that some African village where everybody and their grandma is toting an AK.

How many people do actually have the skills to protect themselves against bad guys?

But it's not even the point. What I'm saying is there are many places in the world where a lot of people legally own guns and the crime rate is very low (think of Switzerland, Finland). In most developed countries gun laws are very strict. Few people own weapons and the crime rate is low (most of Europe, Japan etc.). There are plenty of guns in the US and the crime rate is high (so clearly, something is working perfectly). In some parts of the world there are even more guns per capita and the crime rate is extreme.

Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was more than most people made in a month back then.
50 Pounds a year was considered a small fortune.

If that had happened in the UK anyone lifting one finger to protect those babies can expect to kiss goodbye to their freedom.

The theoretical position is that you may use reasonable force, which most people (like myself) would consider to be deadly force. The practice, as demonstrated by the De Mendez affair, is somewhat different.

Look at 9/11, when a couple people took over planes with box cutters and ask why?

when the guy armed with a box cutter tells you so sit down and get flown to your death.

In an ideal world, an armed population would be able to protect themselves against crime. In reality, it doesn't work that way at all. The vast majority of people just lack the guts and skills to defend themselves, let alone others.

After reading this article , I strongly feel we need legislation that will ban knives. These are dangerous tools and shouldn't be handled by common folk.

...kidding of course. A sad story without a doubt, but it does reiterate the fact that if a nutjob wants to kill people, he doesn't need a gun to do it and will do so by any means available.