Guns: how much longer will it take ....

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide (Bosnian: Masakr u Srebrenici; Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.

This fascinating theory or story later on subsided when much higher resolution photos from later expeditions, one in April 5, 1998 and another in April 8, 2001, revealed the Face on Mars as nothing more than a mesa, an elevated piece of land with a flat top and steep sides. Mesas can be found in the southwestern region of the US.

gungasnake wrote:

FBI: More people killed with hammers and clubs than with firearm:

But not at one time.
And not from a distance.
And not by simply pulling a trigger.

Given that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates, I do not agree that I would have a greater chance of avoiding harm if there were no guns available for civilian ownership.

But even in a hypothetical scenario where the presence of guns did reduce my ability to avoid harm, I would rather live a short life as a free man than a long life as a serf or a slave.

Alright, this is your opinion. Others opinion differs drastically to your, on very good grounds:

- it's easier to outrun knife wielder than a gun wielder
- a knife wielder has to get close, a gun wielder doesn't

These two alone mean your chances are higher against a knife wielder than a gun wielder

- a barricade that is close to hand is more effective against a knife wielder than a gun wielder
- windows work better against knife wielders than gun wielders

So think convenience stores, petrol stations etc

If you don't have a gun on you, then your chances of picking up an improvised weapon as defence, and surviving, are much better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.

Now, I would call all of the above, as a whole, common sense. Nor can I see any sensible argument that would infer otherwise. Your chances of survival are better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.

Even homeless trolley man in Melbourne appears to agree (just search trolley man melbourne, it will show up), as I doubt he would have done what he did had the fellow a gun.

Given that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates, I do not agree that I would have a greater chance of avoiding harm if there were no guns available for civilian ownership.

Alright, this is your opinion. Others opinion differs drastically to your, on very good grounds:

This is an issue of fact, not an issue of opinion.

It is a fact that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates.

Windows can be made of bullet proof glass.

Your supporting argument is irrelevant to whether or not you have a better chance of surviving against a knife wielder or gun wielder.

But almost always aren't.

And even your saying so is an acknowledgement of the danger of a gun over a knife.

1. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-kindergartner.
After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it's irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?

2. Saying "If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns" is like saying "If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk."
Rush Limbaugh's recent variation on the old "only outlaws will have guns" line went like this: "If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns."
This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver's license if we're arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren't any different.

3. If dead children are a "distraction," what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?
As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a "distraction" from more important matters.
Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren't important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?

4. So you've got "Second Amendment" rights? Where's the rest of your militia?
The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting?
5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so "well-regulated."
Along with Crazy New York Hermit Dude, the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your "militia."

6. If I can't drive without decent vision, I shouldn't be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death with a hammer.
Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.

7. "Freedom to own a gun"? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don't have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds -- armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls -- manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.
And I'm okay with that.
If our laws had permitted that, I'm pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms -- while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.

8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …
... and Yemen's having second thoughts.
From the UN's Small Arms Survey: "Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen."
There's a slogan for you: "More extreme than Yemen."

9. Why is it that the people who think our "freedom to own guns" is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms -- of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy -- in the name of national security?

We have the data which shows that our supposed "gun freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths each year.

Most "gun rights" advocates don't care -- and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it's unnecessary and even wasteful.
Unconstitutional surveillance? Check.

Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check.

Constitutional and rational gun control?
Never.

10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.
We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.
Are we safe enough yet?

11. "Recreational gun use"?
Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?
And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?

12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?

I disagree. I think the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates indicates that my survival chances would be roughly the same

I have no doubt whatsoever that if you were given the choice between facing someone 10m away, intent on killing you with a knife (knife already drawn), and someone intent on killing you with a handgun (gun already drawn on you), and your only weapon was a hammer - that you would take your chances against the guy with the knife.

From 100m, a choice between someone intent on you with a semi-auto rifle/red dot sight, or a person armed with a knife... and you a hammer... only a fool chooses to face the guy with the rifle.

So it appears your opinion is stated for the sake of disagreeing only, not for the reality of which weapon you would prefer to face if you had no choice.

The choice you would make, is the one that gave you the greater chance of surviving.