"Just a Piece of Paper"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, restraining orders - totally useless in emergencies. But that and changing your cell phone number is apparently how you're supposed to deal with death threats.

Calling 911 is just going to let the police know where to find the bodies:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-911oviedo-mp3,0,6778062.mp3file

A great argument for waiting periods too - we've got to make sure those threatened 'cool down' for a week before they can buy a gun to defend themselves.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-twodead2707sep27,0,4684421,full.story


2 students shot dead had sought cops' help

Walter Pacheco | Sentinel Staff Writer
September 27, 2007

Roughly three hours before they died, Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked Seminole County deputy sheriffs for protection from the man they feared would kill them.

Andrew Allred, Barwick's former boyfriend, had raided her bank account, tampered with her MySpace page and sent phony messages to her family and friends, she told deputies. He e-mailed Ruschak saying, "The next time I see you, I'm going to kill you," and sent Barwick an image of herself covered with bullet holes, a report of the meeting states.

A deputy replied that he could do nothing at that time.

Later on Monday night, Allred plowed into Barwick's car outside Ruschak's home in Oviedo, broke in and shot him dead. He then walked into the bathroom, where Barwick was hiding, and shot her, according to the arrest report. (Hear new audio of the 911 calls made from the home.)

Another man who tried to wrestle the gun from Allred was shot in the leg.

Sheriff's officials defended the agency's handling of the plea for help, recounted in a four-page report released Wednesday. The deputy who responded to Barwick and Ruschak's complaints did "the best he could," Chief Deputy Steven Harriett said.

"The deputy and everyone in this department truly regrets that these two young people lost their lives in this way, but the deputy had to deal with the information available at the time," Harriett said. "He made a decision he thought was the most appropriate."

Carol Wick, chief executive officer of Harbor House, an organization that offers shelter to victims of domestic violence, said the case should make the Sheriff's Office reconsider its procedures. What happened, she said, "It's just tragic."

Allred, 21, is being held without bail at John Polk Correctional Facility in Sanford, where he faces two counts of homicide, attempted homicide and armed burglary in the shootings on Shady Oak Lane.

Acquaintances said he was bitter about his breakup with Barwick, a student at Seminole Community College, and directed his anger at her and Ruschak, a student at the University of Central Florida. The three had been friends, according to these accounts, until Barwick ended her relationship with Allred in August.

Sheriff's records show that Barwick, 19, first called deputies at 11:30 a.m. Monday alleging that Allred had tapped into her Bank of America account and withdrawn money without her permission.

At 7:09 p.m. she told another deputy that Allred just sent Ruschak, 22, a message threatening his life and that he had recently purchased a gun. She pleaded with the deputy to "lock him [Allred] up."

Seminole Deputy Peter Sean Brewer, who met with Barwick and Ruschak, wrote in his report that "Allred's actions did not meet the necessary elements for a charge of assault. and as such, I could not arrest him for making those threats."

He said the law required him to observe harassing communications to make an arrest, but that he would forward her complaint and other materials to the State Attorney's Office for consideration of possible charges.

He advised her to seek a protective court order against Allred and to keep records of any e-mails, text messages and voice messages from him. Other suggestions included changing her cell-phone number and calling 911 if she saw Allred's vehicle.

Investigators said gunfire broke out about 10:30 p.m. during a party at Ruschak's home. Oviedo police later arrested Allred at the home he shares with his family in Oviedo. Officers said he confessed to the crimes and asked them about the condition of "the ones that were shot," according to the arrest report.

He told officers he went to the house to ram his girlfriend's car but shot his way through a sliding glass door when he could not enter the front door. Authorities recovered the handgun they think he used.

Oviedo Lt. Dennis Lynch said homicide investigators are reviewing 911 calls made from the house on the night of the shooting.

Friends and family had mixed reactions on the events that led to Monday's shooting.

"My opinion is that if you get a restraining order, it is just a piece of paper," said Ruschak's mother, Janice. "I know police are doing their best, and I don't want to blame them."

Even if Barwick had sought a protective order against Allred, the forms must be filed at the Seminole County Courthouse, then sent to a judge and finally the Sheriff's Office.

Court officials said the process could take a day or two.

Wick said she doubted it would have helped.

"Allred would not have been served the order in time and, even if he was, who knows if that would have stopped him?" Wick said. "Sometimes there's nothing you can do about it."

Two Seminole County crime-scene technicians continued working Wednesday at the duplex where the shootings took place, gathering evidence.

Barwick's white Chevrolet Cavalier, its back caved in, sat about 15 feet from the front door. Still in the driveway was Ruschak's car, an old police cruiser, a black Ford Crown Victoria with a search light attached to the driver's side.

Phone messages left Wednesday with Allred's mother were not immediately returned. A neighbor described Allred as "a very smart kid" who was a computer whiz. Others also commented on his technological skill, but expressed shock at the charges against him.

"He is a very intelligent man. Never in a million years would I have suspected this," said Daniel Morman, a UCF student who spent time watching movies, drinking beer and building bonfires at Allred's rural home. "He didn't appear to have that in him. I guess you always hope your friends are good people."

But former UCF student Erinn Redd, who knew Allred and Ruschak since their days at Oviedo High School, remembered Allred as "deviously clever and capable of taking matters to the extreme."

He had threatened other friends in the past, she said. "But we never expected him to go murder someone."

Now this isn't a screed against the police, but against the idea that restraining orders and calling 911 will save you.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Hmm. Well, if we had absolute gun control, then Allred wouldn't have been able to shoot them, now would he?:smash:

:creep:

[Crazed Rabbit]

If by absolute then you mean the guns in America magically vanishing completely, then he couldn't have shot them. He could have just used a machete or something similar.

CR

[Ronin]

he could also have used his bare fists and beaten them to death if he was strong enough...

but the point is that Man with gun more dangerous than -> Man with Machete -> Man with bare hands..

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, you're completely missing the point; passively relying on the police is not a good idea.

CR

[seireikhaan]

No, you're completely missing the point; passively relying on the police is not a good idea.

CR
No, that's the point of the story YOU want to push. Depending on what a person's viewpoint is, there can be many different points to be made.

[Watchman]

Like that if regular folks need to start worrying about other regular folks coming to kill them without the cops lifting a finger, insufficient availability of personal firearms is probably among the lesser worries of the society in question.

[Tribesman]

So he had a history of threatning people but they couldn't stop him from buying a gun because buying a gun is his right until he does something like kill someone upon which he forfiets the right to buy a gun .
Is that what you are trying to say Rabbit ?:inquisitive:

Or is it that if more people could take guns to parties there would be less shooting when there was a domestic that gets out of hand ?



A great argument for waiting periods too - we've got to make sure those threatened 'cool down' for a week before they can buy a gun to defend themselves.

Or is it that everyone should be able to buy a gun instantly if ever they feel threatened in any way and then claim self-defense ?

[Ronin]

No, you're completely missing the point; passively relying on the police is not a good idea.

CR

No..the point is that having an in-effectual police force is not a good idea.

[Whacker]

Extremely anti-weapon "Gun control" does nothing but make it harder for normal people to legally exercise their 2nd amendment rights, period. Criminals who want to obtain weapons will always be able to do so with a relative degree of ease no matter what the law.

[CrossLOPER]

Free guns for everyone!!!

[Boyar Son]

Free guns for everyone!!!

That'll make psycotic former boyfriends think twice.

[Tribesman]

That'll make psycotic former boyfriends think twice.
No thats schizos that think twice:yes:

[HoreTore]

No, you're completely missing the point; passively relying on the police is not a good idea.

That's what is known as a civilized society.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

That's what is known as a civilized society.

I don't believe this. I'm not exactly in full agreement with CR, but are you saying that you agree with how the police handled this situation?

[InsaneApache]

Yup. Banning guns is the answer. Thankyou CR for repeatedly bring this to our attention. Without doubt, you are one of the best advocates for gun control.

Sir, I salute you. :egypt:

[The Celtic Viking]

I don't believe this. I'm not exactly in full agreement with CR, but are you saying that you agree with how the police handled this situation?

No, he just said that in a civilized society, people rely on the police to uphold the law and protect them, they don't take it into their own hands. That doesn't mean that he thinks the police handled this correctly, though.

[HoreTore]

No, he just said that in a civilized society, people rely on the police to uphold the law and protect them, they don't take it into their own hands. That doesn't mean that he thinks the police handled this correctly, though.

Yup.

[HoreTore]

Extremely anti-weapon "Gun control" does nothing but make it harder for normal people to legally exercise their 2nd amendment rights, period. Criminals who want to obtain weapons will always be able to do so with a relative degree of ease no matter what the law.

How come it's quite hard for criminals to get guns where there is strict gun control then? Why is it that the criminals here are usually armed with knives?

And why is it that our murder rate is lower?

[Boyar Son]

*talking from a "what if"


Maybe if there was a gun ban there would be shady bissinusses that would continue to sell them,thus making large amounts of money, and with that money could bribe and create a small personal army of thugs to protect themselves, something like the drug cartels in columbia only now gun...cartels.....

end of "what if" scenario

theres no way to ever take guns completely off the streets, even if there was a ban criminal would resort to other methods, such as small explosives (an incident in Miami in the mid 90's a hitman used this), strangulation, knives.

guns are just the obviouse choice to kill, after that there will be other ways.

[Don Corleone]

Tribesman is apparently having trouble reading, because the reason the deputy wouldn't arrest the homicidal ex-boyfriend was because there wasn't a history of threatening behavior:

At 7:09 p.m. she told another deputy that Allred just sent Ruschak, 22, a message threatening his life and that he had recently purchased a gun. She pleaded with the deputy to "lock him [Allred] up."

Seminole Deputy Peter Sean Brewer, who met with Barwick and Ruschak, wrote in his report that "Allred's actions did not meet the necessary elements for a charge of assault. and as such, I could not arrest him for making those threats."
Even so, I agree with him, Hore Tore and others.

When a homicidial maniac breaks into your house, the only civilized response is to simply call 911 and tell them how to dispose of your remains. Civilized people just let the criminals do what they want. Protecting yourself or your family... that's just so... uncivilized. Just shut up and die, like you're supposed to.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How come it's quite hard for criminals to get guns where there is strict gun control then? Why is it that the criminals here are usually armed with knives?

And why is it that our murder rate is lower?

There are millions of guns already in America and we have huge borders.


That's what is known as a civilized society.

That would be a robot society. If you were convinced that someone was going to kill you, would you just sit back and rely on the police? I would have bought a gun for sure.



No..the point is that having an in-effectual police force is not a good idea.

The police can't do anything in this situation. Lots of people mistakenly think that someone is going to try and kill them, the police can't act as bodyguards in that situation.


No, that's the point of the story YOU want to push. Depending on what a person's viewpoint is, there can be many different points to be made.

That was the point of the story. The police can't protect you in this situation. The only thing to disagree about is whether it is safer to get a gun yourself or to outlaw guns.

If I had a choice between a knife fight and a gun fight with someone breaking into my house, I'd choose the gun fight hands down. In a knife fight you'll probably both die.

[HoreTore]

That would be a robot society. If you were convinced that someone was going to kill you, would you just sit back and rely on the police? I would have bought a gun for sure.

In a civilized society, you're confident that the police will stop whoever is trying to kill you, so whether you should get a gun or not is not a question.

[HoreTore]

*talking from a "what if"


Maybe if there was a gun ban there would be shady bissinusses that would continue to sell them,thus making large amounts of money, and with that money could bribe and create a small personal army of thugs to protect themselves, something like the drug cartels in columbia only now gun...cartels.....

end of "what if" scenario

That's no "what if"-scenario, that's called mafia and cartels, something you have more than enough of already.

While we are lacking them...

[Boyar Son]

That's no "what if"-scenario, that's called mafia and cartels, something you have more than enough of already.

While we are lacking them...

and there will be more....if there is a good demand there will be a supply.

[Whacker]

In a civilized society, you're confident that the police will stop whoever is trying to kill you, so whether you should get a gun or not is not a question.

In a perfect world, I'm sure that this is true. Reality isn't even close to what you are suggesting though.


How come it's quite hard for criminals to get guns where there is strict gun control then? Why is it that the criminals here are usually armed with knives?

Because you're wrong, it is incredibly easy? Kinda like how Washington DC has some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, and it's also got one of the worst crime rates in terms of gun-related crime?


And why is it that our murder rate is lower?

Because you're a fraction of the size of the US?

:logic:

[Marshal Murat]

In a civilized society, you're confident that the police will stop whoever is trying to kill you, so whether you should get a gun or not is not a question.

This is a 'civilized society', it's just the nuts that screw everything up. (no, go ahead, sig. it)
I am confident that the police will stop someone, but we are all robots humans. We have emotions, like Minority Report. Some people decide to kill someone, set it up, and do it. Others are enraged by passions and emotions, and kill someone. She could have easily been hit by the ex, driving an SUV as she left her house.

Even better point. If we didn't have cars, then he couldn't have gotten to her house/apartment so quickly. Lets take away the dangerous and speedy cars. But then he would have used a machete, so lets take that away. Then you have rocks, and we can't let him use a rock, so we have to cut those out too.
Heck, If she hadn't dated him, then he wouldn't be mad. So lets make dating illegal!


I hope that guns can be rendered unnecessary, and we can live with bunnies and flower. Until that day, however, people will find ways to kill people.

[Sir Moody]

not quite true - there were more murders in LA alone last year than in the entire of England and Wales - theres far more people in England and Wales than in LA - and we are one of the more violent European peoples...

either we are doing something right law wise or we just arnt as prone to violence in general...

Edit

seems my numbers were slightly out (i misread an article)

There were more murders in the state of California than in the entire of england and wales (CA pop is 36 million England and Wales 53 million)

see

England and Wales (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/Default.asp?region=0&force=0&cdrp=0&l1=6&l2=1&l3=27&sub=0&v=36
)

and

CA (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm)

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

In a civilized society, you're confident that the police will stop whoever is trying to kill you, so whether you should get a gun or not is not a question.

A society with a murder rate of zero, then? Where would that be, perchance?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman is apparently having trouble reading,
Don..read the friggng article, it might help you in relation to what was written:dizzy2:
You should be able to do better Don:thumbsdown:

[Crazed Rabbit]

A few points: England has always had a lower murder rate, even when you could buy a pistol and carry it about with you legally in both countries with no fuss.

A couple English pro-gun editorials for your perusing:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece
In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/23/do2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/23/ixopinion.html


Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

We should not fool ourselves, however, that such things were possible then because society was more peaceful. Those years were ones of much more social and political turbulence than our own: with violent and incendiary suffrage protests, massive industrial strikes where the Army was called in and people were killed, where there was the menace of a revolutionary General Strike, and where the country was riven by the imminent prospect of a civil war in Ireland. It was in such a society that, as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights.

In such troubled times, why did the commonplace carrying of firearms not result in mayhem? How could it be that in the years before the First World War, armed crime in London amounted to less than 2 per cent of what we see today? One answer that might have been taken as self-evident then, but which has become political anathema now, is that the prevalence of firearms had a stabilising influence and a deterrent effect upon crime.


To all those insisting one rely on the police, I ask; can your police predict the future?

You say the police here acted wrongly; assuming they actually sought this man out and arrested him, how long could he be held for emailing a death threat?

Suppose, even, that he emailed or spoke no such threats before going to the house and crashing into cars.

Listen to the 911 call from someone from another nearby house observing the murderer as he attacked:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-911oviedo-mp3,0,6778062.mp3file

He describes how the man had gotten out of his car after crashing it around the street, then approached the house. Then he says the man has gone behind the house. Then he reports gun shots.

There is no way the police could have gotten there in time to stop him. It's not an insult to police, they simply physically can't.
How could the police have stopped that? How can you have such confidence in the police? Why does there seem to be a belief that they can be anywhere instantly?

On a different angle, how is it civilized to not be self reliant, but a mere peasant depending on protection from a sort of feudal lord?

CR

[Csargo]

A society with a murder rate of zero, then? Where would that be, perchance?

Utopia??

[seireikhaan]

From my view, guns seem to have different effects on different areas. Look at Japan, for example. Incredibly strict control, and remarkably little crime. On the other hand, we have Washington D.C., which has strict gun laws, yet they seem to do little to help the problem. Personally, I'd leave it to the states to deterirmine their gun laws. Pro-gun lobbyists, such as CR, like to bring up the 2nd amendment. However, I think we need to realized the climate the second ammendment was created. The colonists were sick and tired of being abused by British soldiers, who, most of the time, didn't exactly treat them with care, to say the least. Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not. Personally, I think the second ammendment needs changing, and instead that the states should determine their own gun laws. Just my opinion.

[Lemur]

Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not.
We still have militias (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/). It's just that they're, you know, creepy.

[Lord Winter]

We still have militias (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/). It's just that they're, you know, creepy.

and the national guard to... which is the modern succesor

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?

[seireikhaan]

and the national guard to... which is the modern succesor

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?
Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat. Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.~;)

[Productivity]

Because you're a fraction of the size of the US?

:logic:

What does the size of a country have anything to do with a rate. Rates are usually put in a capita adjusted manner. ie. Murders/100000 people/year. I really don't see how having a larger population impacts that as it is inhernetly adjusted for in the rate.

[Marshal Murat]

What does the size of a country have anything to do with a rate.

Even adjusted, using the California -> UK data, there is a larger amount of deaths in California per 1,000 people than UK (unless I read the data wrong). To explain it better.

You have LA with 100,000 people and a 90% squalor rating
You have Bergen with 100,000 people and a 50% squalor rating

or....

There are more people in the USA killing more people, and with a smaller population you see fewer killings. One of the bugs of reality that God needs to patch... Jesus 1.1 crashed after the Romans took Judea.


Or...
you could get someone else to explain it.

Personally, I think it's the culture of society.

People will kill, and will continue to do so. It's only the means that have changed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, I think we need to realized the climate the second ammendment was created. The colonists were sick and tired of being abused by British soldiers, who, most of the time, didn't exactly treat them with care, to say the least. Plus, at this time, much of the American army consisted of militias who needed guns to fight off any potential raids from Native Americans, in battles against the French(the British used the colonists as a source of troops in the 7 years war), and later, in battles against the British. Does such an atmosphere still exist in America today? I think not. Personally, I think the second ammendment needs changing, and instead that the states should determine their own gun laws. Just my opinion.

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

That is not impossible today.


Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range.

Would you want to have to do that, right now, to save your life? Should we force women and those of smaller physique to rely on that?

When you go from knives to guns, you radically shift the advantage to those who are stronger and practice more - and who's that?

Here several police with guns are seriously stabbed by one man with a knife - and they weren't ambushed at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=J3HR2O2m068

Crazed Rabbit

[Lord Winter]

Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat. Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.~;)


A little, I would agree if it was a sword we were talking about but with a knife to get close enough you'd ussaly have to be within the guys reach, meaning that the average joe is going to get his stab blocked, doged or have himself punched away. Plus if you can disarm some guy with a knife you still have to face him with bare hands and he can always grab the knife again and your back to square one. This time you may not be so lucky. I guess the question is how much do you want to test faith.

[seireikhaan]

Would you want to have to do that, right now, to save your life? Should we force women and those of smaller physique to rely on that?

Here several police with guns are seriously stabbed by one man with a knife - and they weren't ambushed at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=J3HR2O2m068

Crazed Rabbit
1) Would I want to? Hell no, of course not. I doubt I'd ever want to be in a situation where its me and some nutjob in a life and death case. But considering I've never shot a gun in my life, I'll go with the knife fight.
2) People of smaller stature? Smaller stature doesn't make you an incompetent fighter. I know a person at my school who's about 5'7'' and about 120 pounds of string, and I've personally seen him fight off and beat 2 guys considerably larger than himself. All guns do in comparison is compell people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

Can't comment on the video, as I'm only 17 and couldn't watch it.

[Marshal Murat]

It depends on the person in question, but the end-all would be the gun. No matter height, weight, size, you just gotta pull a trigger. With a knife, you need to be fighting someone who is inexperienced or your good with it.

But if you take away guns, you can still use rocks to pummel someone to death. Bricks, crowbars. List is endless. Personally, I wouldn't favor my chances with a knife, but I could try.


All guns do in comparison is compel people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

Data for that? :inquisitive:

[seireikhaan]

It depends on the person in question, but the end-all would be the gun. No matter height, weight, size, you just gotta pull a trigger. With a knife, you need to be fighting someone who is inexperienced or your good with it.

But if you take away guns, you can still use rocks to pummel someone to death. Bricks, crowbars. List is endless. Personally, I wouldn't favor my chances with a knife, but I could try.

Never have I said that creating more strict gun control would completely get rid of violence. Anyone who does is a fool. No system will ever completely get rid of violence, due to the fact that the human race will always be at least a little f@#!d up. If you read my earlier post, I think ultimately that gun laws ought to be left up to the individual states to decide, as what what will work in one state may not be right for a different one. It just depends on the culture and climate of the area.
(PS-reference to climate was not to be meant in weather terms, obviously)


Data for that? :inquisitive:
Searching for good data now now.:book2:
However, in the meantime, I'd like to present a list of trusted gun manufactureres, according to Fort-Liberty.org.

http://www.fortliberty.org/gun-accessories/gun-manufacturers.shtml
Accuracy International
Accuracy International is the manufacturer of an excellent series of sniper rifles.

Armalite
Armalite is the gun manufacturer who put the AR into AR-15. Armalite manufactures the AR-10, AR-15, and AR-50 rifles.

Barrett
Barrett is the manufacturer of several excellent .50 caliber rifles.

Beretta
Beretta is the manufacturer of the Cx4 Storm carbine and some excellent centerfire hand-guns.

Benelli
Benelli is the manufacturer of the amazing M-4 semi-automatic shotgun.

Browning
Browning is the manufacturer of the Browning Hi-Power centerfire hand-gun.

Cheyenne Tactical
Cheyenne Tactical is the premier manufacturer of rifles for the 408 Cheyenne Tactical cartridge.

Colt
Colt is the manufacturer of the Colt Match Target (i.e. the AR-15) and the original line of 1911-style hand-guns.

Dakota Arms
Dakota Arms manufactures the Longbow Tactical Rifle.

Desert Toys
Desert Toys is a gun manufacturer which specializes in large caliber rifles, like the Rebel .50 BMG.

Ferret50
Ferret50 is the manufacturer of a 50BMG rifle conversion for the AR-15.

FN Manufacturing, Inc.
A precision machining manufacturer specializing in the production of small caliber weapons and machine guns such as M16, M240, M249, SAW, and the 49 hand-gun for military and law enforcement markets.

GatlingGuns.com
Gatling Guns is the manufacturer of a conversion kit to turn Ruger 10-22's in gatling guns.

Glock
Glock is an Austrian gun manufacturer of an excellent series of hand-guns.

Heckler & Koch
Heckler & Koch (H&K) is a German gun manufacturer of the excellent USP and Mark-23 lines of centerfire hand-guns, the FABARM shotguns, and the HKM4 and XM8 centerfire carbines.

Kimber
Kimber manufactures a high-quality line of 1911 style hand-guns.

Les Baer Customer
Les Baer manufactures custom 1911 pistols and AR-15 rifles.

Maadi Griffin
Maadi Griffin provides .50 BMG rifle plans and kits.

Magnum Research
Magnum Research manufactures the Desert Eagle and Baby Eagle pistols.

Mossberg
Mossberg is the manufacturer of the excellent 590 and Mariner pump shotguns.

Nor-Cal Precision
Norcal Precision specializes in highly accurate, durable, and precisely made Remington 700-based rifle systems by premiere rifle builder Jerry Rice.

Para-Ordnance
Para-Ordnance is the manufacturer of an excellent line of 1911 style hand-guns.

Remington
Remington is a the manufacturer of the 870 and 1100 shotguns and the 700 series rifle.

Robinson Armament
Robarm manufactures the excellent M96 and XCR Modular Weapon Systems.

Ruger manufactures the Mini-14, the 10-22, and execellent centerfire and rimfire hand-guns.

Sako
Sako is a Finnish gun manufacturer of highly accurate rifles, including the TRG-22 and TRG-42 sniper rifles.

Savage Arms
Savage manufactures the 10FP series centerfire rifles.

Serbu Firearms
Serbu manufactures the BFG-50, the Super-Shorty, and the Siris silenced guns.

Sig Arms
Sig manufactures excellent centerfire hand-guns.

Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson is the manufacturer of a wide variety of service pistols which are the favorites of many police departments.

Springfield Armory
Springfield Armory is the manufacturer of an excellent line of rifles based upon the M1A. Springfield Armory also manufactures the M6 Scout survival rifle. In addition, Springfield Armory manufactures a line of 1911-A1 pistols and a new line of high-tech pistols called the XD.

Steyr
Steyr manufactures the excellent Steyr SSG sniper rifle and the incredible Steyr AUG assault bull-pup carbine.

Tactical Operations
Tactical Operations manufactures very nice custom sniper rifles.

Taurus
Taurus manufactures the Millenium series of hand-guns.

Walther
Walther manufactures the P99 and PPK hand-guns.

Weatherby
Weatherby is the manufacturer of a line of excellent large-caliber rifles, including the Treat Response Rifle.

Wilson Combat
Wilson combat manufactures customer 1911 pistols, custom 12ga shotguns based upon the Remington 870, and custom AR-15 rifles.

Winchester
Winchester is the manufacturer of the Model 1300 and Super X2 shotguns.

Z-M Weapons
Z-M Weapons is the manufacturer of the LR-300 weapon system.

Stag Arms
Makers of truly left-handed AR-15 rifles.
And these are just the companies that these guys like. Hmm, lets see...39 different corporations just for making guns? How many different ways are there to shoot people?:rolleyes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not necessarily how it works. Quickness plays an important part as well. Furthermore, a person with a knife can be disarmed close range. Good luck disarming some guy with a gun at 10 yards away. Furthermore, any martial arts training can help a person with self defense as well in close combat.

I think this is completely wrong. Knife disarming doesn't really work. When they teach it at martial arts dojos they are either teaching the students goofy stuff that the students think are cool to keep them paying, or are teaching knife dueling. Someone trying to kill you with a knife is going to rush you as fast as they can as stab you when their up close. You can't disarm that. And what if he has two knives? Or a knife and a hammer? He's going to stack the odds in his favor as much as he can.

You have a much better chance with a gun fight. You know your house better than they do. You can hide somewhere in a cul de sac and shoot him as soon as he turns the corner. You'll hear him coming he won't know your their. Aiming isn't hard.

I think your more likely to survive a gun shot than getting stabbed with a knife as well.


Plus, a girl could always kick the guy in the nuts, too.~;)

And then he'll stab her and she'll die ~;)

[HoreTore]

On another note Horetore Why is knife armed criminals so much better then gun armed criminals dosn't that simply mean that the strongest instead of those with better aim will win more often? Wouldn't we rather have something that would at least give the physicaly disadvanted a better chance at defending themselves?

Because of the simple fact that a gun-armed man is a lot more dangerous than a knife-armed man. And yes, that's true. Period.

[seireikhaan]

I think this is completely wrong. Knife disarming doesn't really work. When they teach it at martial arts dojos they are either teaching the students goofy stuff that the students think are cool to keep them paying, or are teaching knife dueling. Someone trying to kill you with a knife is going to rush you as fast as they can as stab you when their up close. You can't disarm that. And what if he has two knives? Or a knife and a hammer? He's going to stack the odds in his favor as much as he can.

You have a much better chance with a gun fight. You know your house better than they do. You can hide somewhere in a cul de sac and shoot him as soon as he turns the corner. You'll hear him coming he won't know your their. Aiming isn't hard.

I think your more likely to survive a gun shot than getting stabbed with a knife as well.
You make it seem as though the average attacker is going to put a giant sign in your yard with giant neon green letters saying "I'm going to attack you at 1:30 A.M". How are you going to plan this whole thing out if you've got some psychopath breaking into your house when you're asleep, giving you perhaps 30 seconds to actually have a chance to get out of the house, depending on layout. Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun. People might be surprised at the number of household implements that can actually make handy weapons.

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
A few points: England has always had a lower murder rate, even when you could buy a pistol and carry it about with you legally in both countries with no fuss.

:inquisitive:

When did the UK allow people to buy and carry firearms? Certainly not in my lifetime.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You make it seem as though the average attacker is going to put a giant sign in your yard with giant neon green letters saying "I'm going to attack you at 1:30 A.M". How are you going to plan this whole thing out if you've got some psychopath breaking into your house when you're asleep, giving you perhaps 30 seconds to actually have a chance to get out of the house, depending on layout. Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun. People might be surprised at the number of household implements that can actually make handy weapons.

You hear a noise downstairs, get the gun, point it at the door? How are you going to defend yourself with a knife in that situation?

Any household implements you can use he can use too. You're still going to have to fight him and that's very very risky. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt here and saying that outlawing guns guarantees he doesn't have one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1) Would I want to? Hell no, of course not. I doubt I'd ever want to be in a situation where its me and some nutjob in a life and death case. But considering I've never shot a gun in my life, I'll go with the knife fight.

Using a gun is really simple, much, much more so than knife fighting - in which both people will get cut if they're both cautious, and which someone will likely die if the attacker is determined.

I don't see how anyone could choose a knife over a gun for self defense.


2) People of smaller stature? Smaller stature doesn't make you an incompetent fighter. I know a person at my school who's about 5'7'' and about 120 pounds of string, and I've personally seen him fight off and beat 2 guys considerably larger than himself.

You're missing the point. Criminals will have the advantage in contests of strength like melee fighting, simply because they won't attack someone whom they don't have an advantage against.


All guns do in comparison is compell people to be lazy, and continue propping up the already inflated gun industry.

:inquisitive: What? Do you mean they aren't forced to spend hours a day training to adequately defend themselves?


Can't comment on the video, as I'm only 17 and couldn't watch it.

:inquisitive: Are you serious?


And these are just the companies that these guys like. Hmm, lets see...39 different corporations just for making guns? How many different ways are there to shoot people?

:inquisitive: So what? It's called capitalism.


Some guy breaks into your house, you're going to have a much better chance against a guy with a knife than a gun.

And having a gun for self defense will give you the greatest advantage. If you get into a struggle with an intruder, you're going to get injured, probably beaten bad, maybe killed.

CR

[The Celtic Viking]

Uhm, if someone broke into my house with any kind of weapon, be it a knife or a gun or his bare hands, the first thing I'm thinking about is NOT fighting back. My first thought is to get the hell away from there ASAP. So I'd much prefer my attacker to be armed with a knife than a gun, as I have a better chance of running away from him than a bullet.

If I couldn't get away, I still wouldn't try to fight, except as a VERY last resort (like, being cornered with nowhere to go, not just being fired upon). I would comply to his wishes the best I could, do whatever he wants and avoiding provoking him as much as possible. Chances are he'll just take what he wants and leave... if you don't give him a reason to do something worse, like, you know, by trying to kill him. That has a tendency to piss people off.

I suppose that the attacker could be a homicidal maniac, who's just after killing me. I'm not denying that possibility. However, the guy breaking in is much more likely just to be after my stuff and not my life, so I find it much safer taking that risk, rather taking the risk of losing in a shootout. Especially since guns in homes kill more than they protect.

[Tribesman]

Using a gun is really simple, much, much more so than knife fighting
Especially when you are a slightly insane jilted lover , using a gun is really simple .:dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

Don..read the friggng article, it might help you in relation to what was written:dizzy2:
You should be able to do better Don:thumbsdown:

I did read the article. I don't think you did, or if you did, you're ignoring portions that don't comply to your view.


So he had a history of threatning people but they couldn't stop him from buying a gun because buying a gun is his right until he does something like kill someone upon which he forfiets the right to buy a gun .
Is that what you are trying to say Rabbit

There was no history. The guy cleaned out her checking account late in the morning. He sent the email around 7PM. The deputy came by and said "Tough luck, you're own your own, try to get a restraining order, it should be in place in a few days". He showed up and killed them all at 11PM. ALL IN THE SAME DAY. There's no history in that.

Besides, I said you and Hore Tore were right. We should just let criminals have the run of the place. It's the only civilized thing to do.

[Ironside]

When a homicidial maniac breaks into your house, the only civilized response is to simply call 911 and tell them how to dispose of your remains. Civilized people just let the criminals do what they want. Protecting yourself or your family... that's just so... uncivilized. Just shut up and die, like you're supposed to.

Not really, but if the assulter is armed with a knife it's easier to flee, use chokepoints (aka doors) and if it's the worst case scenario, you still have about the same armament as the intruder, with easier access than that shotgun (that is the best gun for home defense from what I've heard).

And

If I had a choice between a knife fight and a gun fight with someone breaking into my house, I'd choose the gun fight hands down. In a knife fight you'll probably both die.

means that if you end up in the third scenario, only those that are willing to risk thier lives and almost certainly end up taking stabs or beatings even if they succeed to kill you, will proceed with the attack.

So it's easier to get out alive from a knife vs anything else scenario, than with a gun vs gun scenario.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, but if the assulter is armed with a knife it's easier to flee, use chokepoints (aka doors) and if it's the worst case scenario, you still have about the same armament as the intruder, with easier access than that shotgun (that is the best gun for home defense from what I've heard).

Fleeing is of course the first course of action but it's just as easy to flee an assailant with a gun as it is with a knife. Most inside doors will kick in. If you keep your gun in your bedroom it's accessible.





means that if you end up in the third scenario, only those that are willing to risk thier lives and almost certainly end up taking stabs or beatings even if they succeed to kill you, will proceed with the attack.

So it's easier to get out alive from a knife vs anything else scenario, than with a gun vs gun scenario.

Only those willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison taking stabs and beatings will try and kill someone.

[Redleg]

If someone is determined to stick a knife in you - no matter how much self defense training you have your chances of getting stuck are great. What self defense training does or should do is train you to take the stab in a part of the body that you might or can survive.

Ie the arm versus the body.

Its not the weapon that kills the individual, its the one using the weapon. Guns and knifes are only tools.

You want to lower the crime rate address the causes of crime, not the tools that are being used.

[Husar]

Ok, so why is this a gun debate? And who would really wake up from a sneaky intruder before he stands next to his bed?
And who didn't notice that people with guns in america still die?
And who really thinks that a gun that is stored properly (i.e. not loaded and unlocked under your pillow but unloaded, secured and locked away from the kids) will be handy once someone is already inside, maybe even standing next to where you have stored the gun?
Same goes for knives of course, if the intruder is already in my kithcen, how on earth am I supposed to get to the knives or pans or whatever?
My best but most expensive chance would be throwing my computer and my living room furniture at him ~D

Well, being a poor student I have a floor, bath, kitchen and living room with bedniche. Then again, who would try robbing a poor student anyway? A murderer would come right to my bed or get me at the door when I open it or something, just like these people were surprised in their car and home respectively. Guns and better aim do not protect against the surprise effect most attackers use, the only thing that has a chance there is a ballistic vest/suit.

Concerning nightly attacks your best chance are probably mines or living in a bunker. Or well, living awake all night long but then you might go crazy or die of sleep deprivation or so.
A world with knives only would of course be better since chainmail isn't outlawed in Germany while ballistic vests are, concerning the general public, but then sleeping in chainmail isn't that comfortable either so most people might not use it.

Now you may be at the point where you already stopped reading or ask yourself "does he have some sort of point? am I stupid for not getting it?". Well, let me tell you I don't know either, consider it brainstorming. ~;)

[Tribesman]

I did read the article. I don't think you did, or if you did, you're ignoring portions that don't comply to your view.

Wow Don are you sure ?


There was no history
Ahem...
But former UCF student Erinn Redd, who knew Allred and Ruschak since their days at Oviedo High School, remembered Allred as "deviously clever and capable of taking matters to the extreme."

He had threatened other friends in the past, she said. "But we never expected him to go murder someone."
Hmmmmm..try again :dizzy2:
Now of course the police officer couldn't have known that this individual had a history of threatening people , the people that knew him didn't think that is threats meant anything much.
There was nothing at all to hinder this jilted turd from legally obtaining a firearm was there..... its his right:yes:


Now this isinteresting
The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

Hmmmmm...so it isn't an inalianable right for anyone to use their constitutional right to have as many of whatever guns they choose as is their right for whatever purpose they seem fit with no restictions at all as is set out in the second quite clearly and can only be interpretted in one way .

Rabbit have you attended gun safety courses ? as it seems that you have shot yourself in the foot yet again .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


If someone is determined to stick a knife in you - no matter how much self defense training you have your chances of getting stuck are great. What self defense training does or should do is train you to take the stab in a part of the body that you might or can survive.
Ie the arm versus the body.


Its not the weapon that kills the individual, its the one using the weapon. Guns and knifes are only tools.

You want to lower the crime rate address the causes of crime, not the tools that are being used.
Stop it Red :furious3: please be less sensible in your writing .
OK just to be pickyIe the arm versus the body.ie the weaker of your arms:2thumbsup:
However that doesn't cover small knuckle blades where you don't realise you have been stabbed but are just confused how a punch could make you bleed so much

[Redleg]

Stop it Red :furious3: please be less sensible in your writing .
OK just to be pickyIe the arm versus the body.ie the weaker of your arms:2thumbsup:
However that doesn't cover small knuckle blades where you don't realise you have been stabbed but are just confused how a punch could make you bleed so much

Yes one should use the left arm if one is right handed - got a knife wound in the left arm to verify that scenerio.

Now knuckle blades are just evil - lots of blood can be drawn with them especially around the face and upper body. Not much one can do to defend themselves against them either.

Except to avoid the fight in the first place.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And who really thinks that a gun that is stored properly (i.e. not loaded and unlocked under your pillow but unloaded, secured and locked away from the kids) will be handy once someone is already inside, maybe even standing next to where you have stored the gun?

That's not stored properly, that's stored stupidly. The DC circuit court ruled that requiring storage in such a manner is unconstitutional.


And who would really wake up from a sneaky intruder before he stands next to his bed?


Gee, people who hear the guy breaking your door down? Which is lots of people in America.


If I couldn't get away, I still wouldn't try to fight, except as a VERY last resort (like, being cornered with nowhere to go, not just being fired upon). I would comply to his wishes the best I could, do whatever he wants and avoiding provoking him as much as possible. Chances are he'll just take what he wants and leave... if you don't give him a reason to do something worse, like, you know, by trying to kill him. That has a tendency to piss people off.

Is this the mindset of the civilized?

That one should feebly cow before our attackers and risk our very lives on their whims? That mindset killed three people in Connecticut, when their attackers had only knives:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/23/home.invasion.ap/index.html

In the US, if someone is attacked or mugged in the street, if they fight back with a gun they are less likely to get injured. And that's where the mugger has the advantage and ambushes his victims.


Guns and better aim do not protect against the surprise effect most attackers use, the only thing that has a chance there is a ballistic vest/suit.

Wrong. See above.



I suppose that the attacker could be a homicidal maniac, who's just after killing me. I'm not denying that possibility.

And what then? You're just going to go quietly into the good night?

I still have not seen from any of our more 'civilized' members how the police can be relied upon to save your bacon when your house is under attack. Which is funny, since a lot of people were saying it's civilized to just do that.

CR

[Husar]

That's not stored properly, that's stored stupidly. The DC circuit court ruled that requiring storage in such a manner is unconstitutional.
So you would lock it away loaded?
I hope you're not referring to locking it away from your kids or else I'll bring it up next time some kid makes a school shooting with the gun his dad had lying around on the kitchen table.


Gee, people who hear the guy breaking your door down? Which is lots of people in America.
You know, cutting glass isn't all that hard and doesn't make nearly as much noise. You know, there are intruders who don't intend to wake the whole neighborhood.


In the US, if someone is attacked or mugged in the street, if they fight back with a gun they are less likely to get injured. And that's where the mugger has the advantage and ambushes his victims.

Wrong. See above.
Well, I doubt your gun would help a lot once he put several bullets into your back but then I don't know how many criminals there are who can aim properly.
I've also been told that drawing a gun when one is already pointed at you is rather suicidal.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I hope you're not referring to locking it away from your kids or else I'll bring it up next time some kid makes a school shooting with the gun his dad had lying around on the kitchen table.

Kids should be educated about the responsibilities of firearms. Depending on circumstances, one might want to secure almost all firearms in a house, save for one for self defense.


You know, cutting glass isn't all that hard and doesn't make nearly as much noise. You know, there are intruders who don't intend to wake the whole neighborhood.

And yet so many people wake up when people are breaking into their house. Hmm.


Well, I doubt your gun would help a lot once he put several bullets into your back but then I don't know how many criminals there are who can aim properly.
I've also been told that drawing a gun when one is already pointed at you is rather suicidal.

Once again, assumptions fall to evidence. The facts simply are that resisting robbery with a gun gives you the best chance of survival.

In one incident, a man was being led into his house by armed scum. He pulled his gun, turned, shot, and drove them off, though he was shot in the process, but survived.

CR

[seireikhaan]

CR, out of curiosity, do you have any, I dunno, actual stats to base on your theories, or just a series of anecdotes? And if you do have such evidence, I'd also like to know from what locations they draw evidence from. There is evidence for both sides that to make their points. Hence why I think it ought to be state decisions, not broad, all-encompassing laws.

Also, are kids being educated about guns? Not really. Who's responisibility is it to do so? The parents? Or are we going to put the onus on schools to do so? In fact, why not just give school kids guns so that they can 'defend themselves' against bullies who want their lunch money? This way, everyone can be their own personal 'Punisher' from the age of seven onwards.~:rolleyes:

[Don Corleone]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense in any form. If you want to wet your pants and cry and hope that inspires a crackhead who has the inclination to home-invade in the first place, be my guest, but don't try to force me to live that sort of life. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their wives and children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.

[seireikhaan]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.
WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA. Lets slow down here, Don. I am in no way against defending yourself. That's not even an argument, thats you just trying to down a giant mudslide on people with different views than yourself. Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself? Also, I'd advise you to be REALLY careful with the word 'enslave'.

[Whacker]

If someone breaks into my house, I'm going into kill mode. No negotiating, no complying with wishes, no nothing. Kill. This is my home, my refuge, fortress, castle, etc, where I and my family live and are supposed to feel safe. Either they kill me, which means I've failed (duh), or they can try to survive by fleeing. If they stay and fight, that means that they have serious intentions and I'm going to kill them if I can.

I have a friend from northern Illinois who watched his uncle kill someone who was breaking into this house. They were downstairs watching TV, when they heard shotgun noises go off upstairs, the now-deceased thief was using his shotgun to get the pesky door out of the way. Both he and his family own quite a few guns which they hunt and target shoot with. The uncle gave him a shotgun, and he grabbed a .45 handgun, and went upstairs. Uncle walked around corner to thief reloading shotgun, and dropped him with two shots. The courts and county prosecutor ruled he acted in self defense and let him go after some very short legal proceedings. That's pretty much how I would have handled the situation, if I was in their shoes.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

he could also have used his bare fists and beaten them to death if he was strong enough...

but the point is that Man with gun more dangerous than -> Man

with Machete -> Man with bare hands..


Doesn't matter Ronin. SOmeone can kill you with a Gun, their Bare Fist, or a machete. So ok, Ban Guns. But what would he have used then? A Machete, and he might have got a bright idea to mabye hack their limbs off. Grusome yes, but the truth. So then what? Ban Machetes? I mean, come on.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, out of curiosity, do you have any, I dunno, actual stats to base on your theories

Why yes, yes I do:


"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)
See this table:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html


And if you do have such evidence, I'd also like to know from what locations they draw evidence from.

National (USA) Crime Surveys


Also, are kids being educated about guns? Not really. Who's responisibility is it to do so? The parents? Or are we going to put the onus on schools to do so?

We need to change the idea that such education is bad, first of all, spouted by the anti-gunners who love ignorance.


Hence why I think it ought to be state decisions, not broad, all-encompassing laws.

Do you also think states should be able to have their way with the right to free speech?



I am in no way against defending yourself.

Then why do you seem to be against the most effective form of self defense?


Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself?

:inquisitive: You were the one just spouting the hyperbole about how apparently educating children is akin to starting a battle royale in the lunchroom.

CR

[seireikhaan]

In fact, Don, you know what, you're right. Lets let everyone who doesn't defend themself with force whenever they were under attack just be enslaved to their attackers. I mean, what the hell was Martin Luther King thinking? Non-violence? Not like that worked at all. And same with Ghandi! These guys just don't get it, obviously. And you know what, lets just let the Burmese govermnent have their way with those :daisy: monks who wouldn't defend themselves against the police. /end sarcastic rant/

[Don Corleone]

WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA. Lets slow down here, Don. I am in no way against defending yourself. That's not even an argument, thats you just trying to down a giant mudslide on people with different views than yourself. Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself? Also, I'd advise you to be REALLY careful with the word 'enslave'.

Not you in the least. But ask Hore Tore sometime how he'd feel if I went after an intruder with a baseball bat or a golf club. He's not the only one. There's a large population out there that believes you shouldn't be able to defend yourself, period. Not everyone that believes in stripping people of their right to own guns believes this, but I'd say the majority, a distinct majority, believe this. If they didn't, they'd have no problems with pepper spray, tasers and other non-lethal forms of self-protection, right?

[Don Corleone]

In fact, Don, you know what, you're right. Lets let everyone who doesn't defend themself with force whenever they were under attack just be enslaved to their attackers. I mean, what the hell was Martin Luther King thinking? Non-violence? Not like that worked at all. And same with Ghandi! These guys just don't get it, obviously. And you know what, lets just let the Burmese govermnent have their way with those :daisy: monks who wouldn't defend themselves against the police. /end sarcastic rant/

The reason their non-violent protests worked was because of the political ramifications of continuing to use violence against a non-violent protest. Do you think the average home-invader cares how his public image will suffer when this hits the press?

You do know that a lone policeman typically won't respond to a home invasion where the perp knows the house is occupied, and most police manuals advise against it, to wait for backup (which in a small town might be 1/2 an hour). Do you know why? Because the police, who study these things, know that people that invade homes they know to be occupied do it SPECIFICALLY to use violence, violence is not the means to an end for them. Begging them for your life, complying with their wishes... these things work with robbers and muggers. But a guy who breaks into a house he knows to be occupied? Even cops are afraid of those psychos and won't take them on one-on-one. Yet for some reason, we're supposed to try to reason with them?

[Slyspy]

These threads are so damn pointless. For crying out loud CR stop bringing the subject up! :thumbsdown:

[seireikhaan]

Don, the whole point of the rant was to be careful with the word 'enslave'. I do realize quite fully the scenarios I'm bring up and the ones we've been talking about aren't the same. I just have huge issues with slavery.

Anyways,


For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."
You were saying, CR? I believe your evidence in fact points to using other devices as actually being more effective than using a gun in CONFRONTATIONAL robbery, the kind you and Don seem to like bring up. So clearly, guns aren't necessarily the best for house defense.

Do you also think states should be able to have their way with the right to free speech?
Do we really even have 'free' speech anyways? How 'bout that Patriot Act? Hell, people don't even have the right to dress as they please, look at what happens to American Muslims, they get treated like their freakin' convicted felons just for dressing like a Muslim. Contrary to what Fox may have told you, CR, not all Muslims are terrorists. Most are pretty regular people, who get sick and tired of people demanding they apologize for what crazed middle eastern Muslims, who interpret the Koran totally differently, did. But to answer your question, no, free speech should be a national law. The effectiveness of gun laws will vary from region to region, unlike free speech.

Then why do you seem to be against the most effective form of self defense?
See above.

You were the one just spouting the hyperbole about how apparently educating children is akin to starting a battle royale in the lunchroom.
You do realize I was not being serious with that, right? If not, then you truly are a diehard Republican. My point is this: You're claiming that people cannot rely on the police to help them. However, teachers basically double as police officers in school, in terms of enforcing discipline. By your logic, we should therefore be sending our kids to school with at the least a concealed handgun so they can 'defend' themselves from any potential bullies, since obviously teachers won't do anything. Now, I don't know about you, but I just don't quite trust the judgement of a seven year old enough to entrust sending them to school with firearms.

[English assassin]

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

That is not impossible today

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.


These threads are so damn pointless. For crying out loud CR stop bringing the subject up!

I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

[Slyspy]

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.



I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind). I'm in a minority by simply not caring about American gun control. I don't care for the ignorant Euros who are unable to see how deeply the gun is a part of American culture and I don't care for the gun lovers who fetishize the weapons or equate guns with freedom.

If they we legal here I would probably own and fire, for fun, a historical weapon or two. But they are not (with a few exceptions) and I don't really care.

It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Now get off my lawn!

[Husar]

Well slyspy, why don't you use your freedom of choice and just don't look at gunthreads anymore? ~D

[Productivity]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense in any form. If you want to wet your pants and cry and hope that inspires a crackhead who has the inclination to home-invade in the first place, be my guest, but don't try to force me to live that sort of life. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their wives and children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.

I also get tired of these threads, but I'm curious as to where you are getting the notion that a majority of gun control advocates are against any form of self defence. Has anyone run a poll in the forum here to guage reactions? Are you up for putting that assertion to the test?

At the same time, the whole notion of carrying guns as planning ofr self defence seems ridiculous to me. I feel confident enough that home invasion is a significantly remote event that it is inherently flawed to plan for. If I was to plan for self defence against home invasion, to apply the same logic I would have to never fly again as given the rate I travel, I almost certainly have a higher probability of being involved in a fatal crash than having my home invaded.

Do you plan for every statistically remote event, or only when it suits your own line that you want to drive?

The whole line of we need guns for self defence is also legitimate only so far as self defence is required, which is a societal problem. Why is it that you feel so fearful of home invasion that you need to actively defend against it beyond standard implements (locks, windows etc.) and is this a problem?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind).

I can't say I have had my mind changed to any significant degree but I have certainly learned a lot about US ideas on the 2nd Amendment and the role of guns in the American view of things. CR and Don in particular have made good points that deserve reflection on several occasions.


It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Ah but now all the moderators are fluffy bunny leftists* who wouldn't dream of curtailing the free speech of the liberal revolutionary anti-government erm, conservative gun lobbyists. BTW "Causing Bad Blood for No Real Gain" is the motto of the Backroom - T-shirts are available for very reasonable rates. :wink:

(Anyway, without gun threads we'd just have Evolution and Squid. :embarassed:)

*DevDave told me this so it must be true. And of course, the generalisation doesn't include Kukri, who has recently been revealed in the Politics thread to be Chinggis Khan's angrier cousin. :eeeek:

[Spetulhu]

There's a large population out there that believes you shouldn't be able to defend yourself, period. Not everyone that believes in stripping people of their right to own guns believes this, but I'd say the majority, a distinct majority, believe this. If they didn't, they'd have no problems with pepper spray, tasers and other non-lethal forms of self-protection, right?

You are right, there are some really messed-up people. The worst I happened to read about was this anti-gun couple who didn't want their kid's school to even mention the word "gun". Yup, not telling your child about guns means he won't get shot or threatened with firearms. :furious3:

At the same time some pro-gunners sound like people that have no business living anywhere near normal people. Anyone as much as steps on their lawn, BLAM! I don't know about you, but I feel a bit uneasy about giving weapons to someone who publically brags about how he'd show no mercy to a burglar.

[English assassin]

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind).

DC's posts have been quite a part of it, actually, but I admit, being part of the UK shooting scene has been a part of it too. Gun control in this country is now so tight it is plainly nothing to do with reducing crime, and plainly everything to do with just banning stuff for the sake of it. Go back to Dunblane. The local police wrote to Hamilton's firearms licensing officers saying he was a nut and his licence should be revoked. Nothing was done, with the consequence we all remember. Do you (a) sack the police licensing officers who did not do their job or (b) revoke 40,000 firearms licences held by people who had given no cause for concern?

Here's another one. As Tribesman regularly points out, you can in fact get a s.5 licence for a pistol for self defence in this country. Guess what happens if you already hold a s.1 fireams licence or s.2 shotgun certificate, and you write to the home office, using the correct Home Office forms, to ask them to consider the grant of a s.5 licence?

They revoke your s.1/s.2 licences, that's what. If you think you are under threat, its evidence you cannot be trusted with a firearm. But unless you are under threat, you could not be granted a s.5 licence*. Someone at the home office must be a Heller fan.

The Americans are right. You register guns, sooner or later they will be prohibited. I'm sorry about that, but any complaints should be addressed c/o the Houses of Parliament, not to me.

*pedants note: other than for humane dispatch AFAIK

[Crazed Rabbit]

On the subject of banning things for the sake of banning things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

A prominent anti-gun congresswoman gets questioned on her bill, and doesn't know what the things in it she's banning are. Also note the lie about semiautomatic rifles being used frequently, instead of in 3% of homicides (which includes all rifles).


They revoke your s.1/s.2 licences, that's what.

And they probably don't even give you your pistol license.


At the same time, the whole notion of carrying guns as planning ofr self defence seems ridiculous to me. I feel confident enough that home invasion is a significantly remote event that it is inherently flawed to plan for.

I don't care one way or the other, the choice is yours (assuming you live in a place like America). I only mind when people try to force those ideas on me.

As could be seen in this thread, people are told we should 'rely on police' to protect us. I asked and have received no answer as to how police can stop a man breaking into your house.

CR

[Whacker]

After reading some posts and chatting with the liberal leftist crybaby pacifist Husar (I'm kidding mate) on IRC, I'd like to clarify my stance.

*IF*.. IF one can flee safely with all family members (including pets), then I would probably be inclined to take that route. However, I live in a two story house, and when we eventually do have children, they will obviously be sleeping down the hall on the 2nd story with us. Jumping 6-8 yards down to the ground with wife/children/dog is not feasible, the only safe way out would be downstairs, where the burglar/potential rapist/murderer is. In this case, our only way out would be through them. Again if they hear us upstairs and flee, then clearly all they wanted was our possessions. If they hear us and stay or advance, then obviously they've got other things in mind, hence I am going to kill them with whatever means I have possible, no warnings, no negotiations, no nothing.

Also, to build on one of Don's earlier observations, it would indeed seem that most of the pacifist crowd appear to be single teenage males, unmarried and without children.

Edit - I would also like to put forth that personally, I hate real violence. Video games, tv, etc, that's fine and not real. Real violence is something I go to lengths to avoid. However, the point at which I would kill is when someone breaks into my home and more than likely intends to do Very Bad Things© to my family. Everyone has a point at which they'd kill, it just differs.

[lars573]

I have a friend from northern Illinois who watched his uncle kill someone who was breaking into this house. They were downstairs watching TV, when they heard shotgun noises go off upstairs, the now-deceased thief was using his shotgun to get the pesky door out of the way. Both he and his family own quite a few guns which they hunt and target shoot with. The uncle gave him a shotgun, and he grabbed a .45 handgun, and went upstairs. Uncle walked around corner to thief reloading shotgun, and dropped him with two shots. The courts and county prosecutor ruled he acted in self defense and let him go after some very short legal proceedings. That's pretty much how I would have handled the situation, if I was in their shoes.
And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way :yes: ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.

[English assassin]

And they probably don't even give you your pistol license

Yes, sorry, that was so obvious from a UK perspective I forgot to mention it. Although self defence is in principle a lawful reason to want to own a firearm, actually wanting a firearm for self defence disqualifies you from owning one. Hence the reference to catch 22.

Oh, and none of this is enshrined in legislation. Its all conveniently unaccountable "practice". Like the requirement that all firearms must be stored in a safe that will resist an attack by a safe breaker for a minimum of 30 minutes, you won't find that in any legislation either. And so on.

[Husar]

And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way :yes: ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.
You know, in some countries it's best to kill an intruder and feed his remains to stray dogs and other animals or bury him in the garden though I think the former is more advisable.

I think Whacker has a rather healthy opinion on the matter.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way :yes: ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.

It's unlawful to defend yourself with a gun?

And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?
:inquisitive:

CR

[English assassin]

And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?

Do keep up CR. Here in the UK I know of a teacher in Scotland who upset a parent, so that the parent threatened to come round and do him. The teacher reported the threat to the police. The police came round double quick to the teachers house and confiscated his shotgun.

Yes, that's right, someone else makes threats, and they take YOUR shotgun.

You can see how exposure to a few years of these stories gradually changes your views on gun control.

(I knows you want to know the end of the story: the police said he could have his shotgun back......IF he wrote a letter of apology to the parent who had threatened him. Seriously, you can't make it up.)

[Watchman]

Around here the country's crawling with rifles and shotguns for hunting, and you can actually get a hunting permit at age 15 or something. Aside from hunters occasionally gunning down someone's cow or, more rarely, each other, this mainly shows up as the cops occasionally having to siege basckwoods hillbillies gone nuts in some out-of-the-way village.
Such incidents are over nine times out of ten resolved by flatly outlasting the guy and talking sense into him. The state equivalent to a SWAT team sometimes has to wound the more stubborn cases to disable them though.

Also, folks in the countryside fairly often commit suicide with the aforementioned guns, sometimes killing their families first (most suicidees are loners tho').

The legislative stance on pistols and other small personal firearms, however, is roughly "no you don't". Seems to keep firearms involvement in crime and violence down quite nicely; indeed, about the only ones who ever conduct armed robberies and such with a gun tend to be hardened career criminals, and professional enough to know engaging in violence unless absolutely necessary mainly just screws you over as the cops will give the case a priority.

The law's also pretty strict about the acceptable use of force in self-defense.

'Course, our law enforcement also actually does its job properly, which seems to do wonders to deter crime but apparently isn't the case everywhere. Mind, they also have very strict rules and controls about their own use of firearms; apparently this is a developement of the decades since Seventies, before which the issue wasn't actually monitored at all and it is generally suspected officers may have been a fair bit too trigger-happy in tense spots...
...which rather reminded me of some of the things I've read about US cops' training and mentality re guns.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do keep up CR. Here in the UK I know of a teacher in Scotland who upset a parent, so that the parent threatened to come round and do him. The teacher reported the threat to the police. The police came round double quick to the teachers house and confiscated his shotgun.

Yes, that's right, someone else makes threats, and they take YOUR shotgun.

You can see how exposure to a few years of these stories gradually changes your views on gun control.

(I knows you want to know the end of the story: the police said he could have his shotgun back......IF he wrote a letter of apology to the parent who had threatened him. Seriously, you can't make it up.)

:dizzy2:

Good grief. The truth is stranger than fiction.

How...did such a crazed view take hold? I mean, I've read a bit on how British police regulations on owning guns changed from WWII to the present, with self defense becoming an unsuitable reason decades ago, but that just takes the cake...

:dizzy2:

[lars573]

It's unlawful to defend yourself with a gun?
It's a case by case grey area to kill an assailant. But the two types of infractions I cited were about shooting a gun in populated area (this is illegal), and having a loaded gun in your home (also illegal).


And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?
:inquisitive:
If you loose the priviledge of owning them, yes "the man" can seize them. Under Canadian laws there are three classes for weapons. Prohibited, restircted, and unrestricted. All pistols are restricted. Like any firearm you have to register the gun, and have a license. But a pistol license has all kinds of riders and top of the list is a crminal record and probity check. You have to be a member of a gun club, and 2 others. But if your charged with a crime, you void rule #1. Thus you lose the priviledge of owning a pistol(s). And you loose the pistols too.

Also about 10 years ago more and more Walthers and Lugers started turning up on the collectors market in the U.S. They came from Canadian pistol owners who managed to get them out of the country before their date with the smelter.

[Don Corleone]

You know, I'd like to disabuse some of you of some of the misconceptions you appear to be laboring under. I think I'm about as prototypical a 'gun nut' as exists out there. I own handguns (with license), shotguns and rifles. I hunt, I shoot for sport, and I am prepared to defend my home.

- I don't play first person shooters. When I first met Mrs. Corleone about 10 years ago, she caught me playing GTA3. Now, her brothers are cops, and cop-killing is a big part of that game, but she made some rather valid points.

- I hold a permit to carry concealed. I have never carried concealed in my life. I hold my permit so that I won't be arrested and tossed in the pen for 3 years on a felony weapons charge driving to a shooting range with my pistols locked in a case in the trunk.

- I do not believe defense of property is a valid reason for shooting someone. But I do believe that if somebody is in your house, when they know you are there (and awake and shouting at them for that matter), they are not simple burglars.

-My home defense plan actually doesn't involve handguns. Mrs. Corleone stands at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge with a skeet barrel and 1 1/2 oz turkey loads (enough to put anybody to the ground, but you'd have to be up close to be seriously wounded). My job is to stand on the stairs with a handgun within reach but a bat in hand.

-I live in a town of 4000 in relatively rural southern New Hampshire. There were 4 home invasions with violence within 10 miles within the past year. Crime statistics say I actually live in a low crime area.

-Now, Productivity made a good point about playing odds. But there's a difference between a sense of control and random odds. We all drive every day, and the odds of dying in a car crash are exponentially higher than dying in a plane crash. But why does everyone 'take note' when the plane takes off the ground? Because you're not in control. I will not surrender my ability to control my destiny, and I certainly won't ask my wife to when she lives alone in the woods with as much traveling as I do.

If you live in a country where violence is inconsequential, I salute you. I think that's terrific, I really do. But I suspect, you're in as much denial as you accuse somebody like me of living in.

[Watchman]

Just wondering, but have you ever questioned why it is you have such obscene rates of serious crime in spite of all those guns around, and given that they're supposed to let people defend themselves from crime and generally discourage it ?

[seireikhaan]

For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."
Ahem...
I wonder, why haven't any of the pro-gun folks commented on this? It seems to me, that by a pro-gun supporter's own evidence, that guns are NOT the most effective method of preventing loss in CONFRONTATIONAL burglary, which seems to be the topic at hand. Now mind, obviously they aren't exactly ineffective, but it would seem that they are not the MOST effective either. So why must we have them if they aren't even the best way to protect against said method of burglary?

[Don Corleone]

Just wondering, but have you ever questioned why it is you have such obscene rates of serious crime in spite of all those guns around, and given that they're supposed to let people defend themselves from crime and generally discourage it ?

No. I've never considered such a thing. Being an American, I'm your typical unthinking, knuckle dragging cro-magnon you envision whenever you watch Jerry Springer (we're all just like that, by the way). Such higher order thinking is incredibly unlikely to occur in troglodytes such as us.

Of course we think about it. America is obsessed with crime, law enforcement and the processes of the judicial system. We have no fewer than 7 daytime television shows dedicated to mock trials of one form or another. Despite the mass of pathetic wretches you envision when you think of America, a few of us can actually stop and reflexively consider the problem.

First, our judicial system is geared to favor the defendant, heavily. This means that defendants have a distinct advantage in criminal court, and they know it. Forget O.J. for a minute, we couldn't convict Ted Bundy the first or second time he was brought before the magistrate. Our deck is stacked and most defendants know even if they draw the short straw, things such as parole and offering testimony almost guarantee they won't do actual time until their third conviction.

Second, despite what you might think about our laws, most municipalities actually discourage citizens from arming themselves and many downright outlaw it. Most of the higher crime areas within the United States have felony convictions attached to firearms possesion (forget using one to commit a crime). Usually, your ability to procure a handgun is controlled by your local chief of police, who is usually under no legal mandate to provide reason for denying you approval of your request for a permit.

Finally, the way our judcial system is structured, with witness testimony being the trump card, despite having been proven unreliable time and time again, the criminal actually has a serious advantage to leave no surviving witnesses and again, they know this better than anyone. Throw on top of this the fact that the court is legally obliged to release the name, phone number and residential address of any witness testifying against the defense, and its no wonder witnesses are frequently victims of 'inexplicable accidents' during trials.

[Don Corleone]

Ahem...
I wonder, why haven't any of the pro-gun folks commented on this? It seems to me, that by a pro-gun supporter's own evidence, that guns are NOT the most effective method of preventing loss in CONFRONTATIONAL burglary, which seems to be the topic at hand. Now mind, obviously they aren't exactly ineffective, but it would seem that they are not the MOST effective either. So why must we have them if they aren't even the best way to protect against said method of burglary?

He's talking about tasers and mace, which are actually harder for the average citizen to procure than a firearm, if you can believe that. And confrontational burglary is not the topic at hand. If somebody wants to take my silver, television and anything else I own and hold dear while Mrs. Corleone and Jillian are safely holed up behind a locked door with yours truly, than we'd have no reason to ever own a firearm.

But as I've repeatedly said, there is a special class of criminal that police fear. An individual, or group, that specifically seeks out violent confrontation. Most burglars are after financial gain. But there is a not unsubstantial minority that actively seeks to physically prey upon vicitms. We can debate the finer points of the driving psychological need until we're blue in the face, criminlogists recognize this trend across all forms of crime. These are the 'rage rapists', that beat their victims into comas after they've submitted. These are the 2 guys in Connecticut this summer that beat a 10 year old girl, her mother and her younger sister to death after repeatedly raping them for 2 straight days and attempting to burn the father and oldest daugher alive. Cops are advised, by their textbooks and by their superiors, not to confront them directly without heavily outweighing odds, and they don't. And these are the guys that break into houses after having staked them out and know the owners to be at home.

Again, I ask you, why do you tell me I have to use reason with such an individual to try to guarantee my family's safety, when an armed policeman won't go near them until he has 3 or 4 of his friends to heavily tip the balance in their favor?

[seireikhaan]

He's talking about tasers and mace, which are actually harder for the average citizen to procure than a firearm, if you can believe that. And confrontational burglary is not the topic at hand. If somebody wants to take my silver, television and anything else I own and hold dear while Mrs. Corleone and Jillian are safely holed up behind a locked door with yours truly, than we'd have no reason to ever own a firearm.

But as I've repeatedly said, there is a special class of criminal that police fear. An individual, or group, that specifically seeks out violent confrontation. Most burglars are after financial gain. But there is a not unsubstantial minority that actively seeks to physically prey upon vicitms. We can debate the finer points of the driving psychological need until we're blue in the face, criminlogists recognize this trend across all forms of crime. These are the 'rage rapists', that beat their victims into comas after they've submitted. These are the 2 guys in Connecticut this summer that beat a 10 year old girl, her mother and her younger sister to death after repeatedly raping them for 2 straight days and attempting to burn the father and oldest daugher alive. Cops are advised, by their textbooks and by their superiors, not to confront them directly without heavily outweighing odds, and they don't. And these are the guys that break into houses after having staked them out and know the owners to be at home.

Again, I ask you, why do you tell me I have to use reason with such an individual to try to guarantee my family's safety, when an armed policeman won't go near them until he has 3 or 4 of his friends to heavily tip the balance in their favor?
Alright, I will concede that such a lunatic needs not be reasoned with. I will admit, that we apparently live in very different areas, Don. Apparently, wherever you live/grew up seems to suffer from a large abundance of said psychopaths. Where I live, in Iowa, pretty much all thieves who break in do so for financial gain, and little else. Thus, the actual need for a gun is pretty limited here. But then, I suppose the East Coast has always been a little crazy.~;p Anyways, do you have an statistics showing what percentage of criminals this category would include? How many actual 'rage rapists' actually exist? Honestly, if you're this concerned about your family's safety, move on out here to the good ol' mellow midwest, and have a grand ol' time!:beam: ~:cheers: Disclaimer: I in no way guarantee that crime will not exist in the midwest, obviously. Just less psychopaths, apparently.

[Don Corleone]

Alright, I will concede that such a lunatic needs not be reasoned with. I will admit, that we apparently live in very different areas, Don. Apparently, wherever you live/grew up seems to suffer from a large abundance of said psychopaths. Where I live, in Iowa, pretty much all thieves who break in do so for financial gain, and little else. Thus, the actual need for a gun is pretty limited here. But then, I suppose the East Coast has always been a little crazy.~;p Anyways, do you have an statistics showing what percentage of criminals this category would include? How many actual 'rage rapists' actually exist? Honestly, if you're this concerned about your family's safety, move on out here to the good ol' mellow midwest, and have a grand ol' time!:beam: ~:cheers: Disclaimer: I in no way guarantee that crime will not exist in the midwest, obviously. Just less psychopaths, apparently.

Didn't John Wayne Gacey come from the Midwest? Where's Jeffrey Dahmer from? And Truman Capote's good buddies, Dick Hickock and Perry Edward Smith... where are they from again?

I guess your point is if somebody ever broke into my house and raped my wife and 2 year old daughter while I was forced to watch at gunpoint, I could take solace in the knowledge that the likelihood of that event happening was so slim that I could hardly be blamed for not having taken precautions? I'm sure that will play well with the 2 of them when I'm trying to explain myself after it happened. That, and I'm just imagining how proud I could be of how civilized I was for allowing it to happen without so much as a "baaaaah" on my ovine part?

No thank you. Personally, until you can offer a better reason than "Guns make me feel icky", I'll prefer to look the defense of my family. You do what feels best for you, and I'll be sure to return the courtesy and respect your decision.

[seireikhaan]

Didn't John Wayne Gacey come from the Midwest? Where's Jeffrey Dahmer from? And Truman Capote's good buddies, Dick Hickock and Perry Edward Smith... where are they from again?

I guess your point is if somebody ever broke into my house and raped my wife and 2 year old daughter while I was forced to watch at gunpoint, I could take solace in the knowledge that the likelihood of that event happening was so slim that I could hardly be blamed for not having taken precautions? I'm sure that will play well with the 2 of them when I'm trying to explain myself after it happened. That, and I'm just imagining how proud I could be of how civilized I was for allowing it to happen without so much as a "baaaaah" on my ovine part?

No thank you. Personally, until you can offer a better reason than "Guns make me feel icky", I'll prefer to look the defense of my family. You do what feels best for you, and I'll be sure to return the courtesy and respect your decision.
~:rolleyes: Someone doesn't get my dry internet humor, apparently.~:rolleyes:

[Don Corleone]

~:rolleyes: Someone doesn't get my dry internet humor, apparently.~:rolleyes:

I "get it" in that I understand the attempt at humor and the underlying meaning. I just don't find it very funny.

We're at that point that I always reach in gun debates. At the end of the day, I like you and I respect you, so I'm dropping this. You view me as a cringing paranoid case, cluthching firearms and soothing myself while stroking blued metal. I think you're somebody who, having made a decision for himself, cannot bear the idea that somebody else would make a different decision and now want to force me and others to accept your viewpoint, by threat of jail time if necessary, for no other reason than "you say so". Impasse.

Looking forward to a thread where we can be more gracious towards each other again soon. :yes:

[seireikhaan]

Nah, I can understand why you would hold the view you do. Family is extremely important to you. You have a wife, child, and child on the way. The idea of someone attempting to kill/rape them is simply unbearable for you, so you take to the task to make sure that it never happens. For me, I have little family that I value quite so much. Family for me was a bit more stunted growing up, and I'm not all too close to my current family members. Additionally, being a teenager, I do not have a wife or children to care for. It is quite possible that my view on matters such as this will change as I grow older and experience new things. Now, I do think you might perhaps go a bit far in your number of guns and such, but to each his own. I trust that, as a family man, you are properly making sure your children will not accidentally stumble upon them and result in a horrific accident. Keep in mind, I am not anti-gun. I have been merely attempting to point out that different methods of self-protection work in different areas, and thus, gun laws should be handled by the state, rather than the Federal government. I guess the reason I ended up coming across as anti-gun as I did is because, being a Speech and Debate fellow, I have a tendency to involve myself in arguments/discussions almost just for the therepeutic effect. So, I guess I shall bring this debate to a close, and we shall likely butt heads again in the future.:bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just wondering, but have you ever questioned why it is you have such obscene rates of serious crime in spite of all those guns around, and given that they're supposed to let people defend themselves from crime and generally discourage it ?

Gun crime in America tends to happen in proportion to the amount of local gun control laws. Washington DC, with a gun ban, has higher crime than gun friendly Virginia's cities.

CR

[Watchman]

Eh. Going by what Don wrote, it would seem the US law enforcement system isn't quite getting its job done (on top of which I've long been under the impression its capability of investigating crime is uneven at best). By what I've read on the topic one of the most consistently effective crime-deterrents (particularly for serious violent crime, of course not including genuinely insane perps) is specifically an effective law-enforcement system - the psychological key element apparently being a high propability of being brought to court and being then duly punished for your deeds, rather than for example the exact severity of the punishement received.

One gets a rather strong impression the US system somewhat fails on both counts.


But as I've repeatedly said, there is a special class of criminal that police fear. An individual, or group, that specifically seeks out violent confrontation. Most burglars are after financial gain. But there is a not unsubstantial minority that actively seeks to physically prey upon vicitms. We can debate the finer points of the driving psychological need until we're blue in the face, criminlogists recognize this trend across all forms of crime. These are the 'rage rapists', that beat their victims into comas after they've submitted. These are the 2 guys in Connecticut this summer that beat a 10 year old girl, her mother and her younger sister to death after repeatedly raping them for 2 straight days and attempting to burn the father and oldest daugher alive. Cops are advised, by their textbooks and by their superiors, not to confront them directly without heavily outweighing odds, and they don't. And these are the guys that break into houses after having staked them out and know the owners to be at home.Huh. We don't even have this kind of criminal around here, AFAIK. One cannot wonder if this were not another "American Disease" thing, the same way as school shootings and serial killers seem to be.

[Husar]

I can understand Don's point.
And I'd actually say it's not his fault that the American system doesn't work so he should have the right to protect himself if the system fails.
Concerning school shootings, we have them here as well, there was an enraged guy in my uni who pointed a gun at someone but apparently noone but a few people noticed. These people later reported to police swho didn't seem to do a lot until they showed up later and arrested the guy. And to be honest, you never need a gun until someone comes to kill you, happens here in Europe as well. It usually needs some really big screwup for the laws to change and sometimes they change the wrong laws. But I think part of why police arrested the guy at my uni was because we have had our share of school shootings here as well now which means they are more likely to investigate hints from people, at least that's how it should be.

[Geoffrey S]

Well. Only just got round to reading this topic. Such a wasteful story. Now I could care less about the whole debate on gun control (don't think it makes any difference, myself), but it clearly shows what police is capable of: tidying up afterwards and apprehending the culprits. Face it, police isn't there to prevent crimes or protect everyone everywhere all the time. That's the job of the citizens themselves, although in this case it can be said police was negligent and its doubtful general conclusions should be drawn from it.

Society isn't created and upheld by police or government: it's done by the people living in a state. It's clear that in many situations, and I think even more in Europe than the US, the public does not have a clear idea of what their responsibility is and what that of the policeforce is. For a large part I think this is to be blamed on politicians raising unfounded expectations of what the police and government are capable of, but also the public not facing the reality of the situation.

The only way the state can have anything approaching total control is in a police state, and that's not really wanted by many people at all. People need to accept that the policeforce isn't meant mainly for individual crime protection (only systematic protection through being effective apprehending perps and dissuading criminals), and cannot perform such a task in a properly functioning democracy. By and large, individuals need to protect themselves, certainly from people with no prior crimes recorded such as in this case.

[Tribesman]

Gun crime in America tends to happen in proportion to the amount of local gun control laws. Washington DC, with a gun ban, has higher crime than gun friendly Virginia's cities.

Is that a bollox trend then Rabbit ?
Would things like population density , poverty levels , ghettoisation , income , education , housing , unemployment , drug problems , broken families ......be more of a trend setter than gun laws .
So now Rabbit just to explore how rubbish your statement is .
Would different parts of DC have different levels of gun crime even though they have the same anti gun laws ?
Would different areas of Virginian cities have different levels of gun crime even though they have the same gun friendly laws ?

[AntiochusIII]

Huh. We don't even have this kind of criminal around here, AFAIK. One cannot wonder if this were not another "American Disease" thing, the same way as school shootings and serial killers seem to be.That's harsh. I'm the last to say anything good about the NRA or the continuous repetition of this topic in the Backroom (I mean, come on :dizzy2: ), but school shootings and serial killings aren't exactly American phenomenons as you say.

Americans don't have it half as bad as you seem to think. Most anyway, this is a big place.

We are a little unhinged, though, in terms of prioritizing issues and morality points.

[English assassin]

How...did such a crazed view take hold? I mean, I've read a bit on how British police regulations on owning guns changed from WWII to the present, with self defense becoming an unsuitable reason decades ago, but that just takes the cake...

Its all in here http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm#A.%20Seven%20Key%20Factors (They are going to tear up my Euroweenie membership card when they know I have that article bookmarked.)

The warning for you is that the changes we have undergone are irreversible. The vast majority of the population now have never used a gun, and regard guns as inherently bad, and any interest in guns as deviant. Really quite seriously deviant. Asking why a farmer needs a shotgun passes for, if not an intelligent comment, at least not the blindingly stupid one that it is. Being opposed to hunting and target shooting is mainstream. In a democracy that has inevitable consequences.

Coming into shooting, sporting shooting anyway, gets harder and harder. Say, for instance, you want to try target shooting. Why, of course you can. It's a free country. All you have to do is find a club with a range (fewer and fewer, and noe the MOD have closed most limitary ranges to civilians). Then you sign up. Then you serve six months probation, during which you go NOWHERE on the clubs grounds with a firearm unsupervised. (Sounds OK, right? But when I say nowhere I mean nowhere. So when you sign a gun out of the club armoury, you have to wait until someone else is walking from the clubhouse to the firing point before you can go, even though the gun remains in the case in which the duty officer handed it to you. Coming back from the firing point to the club house, the same. For six months. take it from me, you can spend a lot of time waiting about.) Then you can apply for your own FAC, and depending on the part of the country you are in, that will take anything from 8 weeks to six months. Then and only then you are free to go and buy your own deadly .22LR* rifle.

You REALLY have to want to do target shooting to go through all that. Most people just give up. Which is what they want.

*Note to Euroweenies. Whilst I wouldn't want to be shot in the head with one. .22LR is not exactly a powerful round.

[ajaxfetish]

By what I've read on the topic one of the most consistently effective crime-deterrents (particularly for serious violent crime, of course not including genuinely insane perps) is specifically an effective law-enforcement system - the psychological key element apparently being a high propability of being brought to court and being then duly punished for your deeds, rather than for example the exact severity of the punishement received.

One gets a rather strong impression the US system somewhat fails on both counts.
I have no argument whatsoever with that. I'd love it if we had a very effective law-enforcement system. However, I'm personally not sure how we could make our system very effective. And if I were, I may or may not be able to discover what candidate in my area would seek to establish such a system. And if I did know, it's uncertain their bill would pass. And if it did, it's uncertain whether it wouldn't be changed during the debate process, or poorly implemented.

It comes back to the matter Don mentioned earlier of control. In terms of defense, there are channels I can act through to try to achieve an effective law enforcement system, and I should operate through them, but I have tremendously little control over the outcome. Self-reliance is self-controlled.

Ajax

[Banquo's Ghost]

Coming into shooting, sporting shooting anyway, gets harder and harder. Say, for instance, you want to try target shooting. Why, of course you can. It's a free country. All you have to do is find a club with a range (fewer and fewer, and noe the MOD have closed most limitary ranges to civilians). Then you sign up. Then you serve six months probation, during which you go NOWHERE on the clubs grounds with a firearm unsupervised. (Sounds OK, right? But when I say nowhere I mean nowhere. So when you sign a gun out of the club armoury, you have to wait until someone else is walking from the clubhouse to the firing point before you can go, even though the gun remains in the case in which the duty officer handed it to you. Coming back from the firing point to the club house, the same. For six months. take it from me, you can spend a lot of time waiting about.) Then you can apply for your own FAC, and depending on the part of the country you are in, that will take anything from 8 weeks to six months. Then and only then you are free to go and buy your own deadly .22LR* rifle.

I think you are over-reacting. There are loads of places in Nottingham and Liverpool where you can buy a gun for a tenner and then practice on real 12 year olds riding bikes.

No need for the palaver you describe, and you have bonus that the police don't bother you.

[naut]

I'd have to say that the problem isn't guns, it's that the people who use and own guns are not as sensible with their use as CR and Whacker seem to be. I've got nothing against gun ownership, I just think that the procedure to get one could be more thorough, (more background checks, having to have your license reissued more often, etcetera).

And that police response was ... well, nothing short of :daisy:.

[English assassin]

I think you are over-reacting. There are loads of places in Nottingham and Liverpool where you can buy a gun for a tenner and then practice on real 12 year olds riding bikes.

No need for the palaver you describe, and you have bonus that the police don't bother you.

Ah, yes. And did you see that survey, reported as if it was serious news, that one person in seven knows where to get an illegal gun? Why do I think the survey methodology was to go to the nearest chip shop, stop a "young adult" wearing burberry, and take him seriously when he tells you that he is one bad mofo, innit, and de ho's love his uzi.

Bangin.

Still, one good thing about all handguns being banned, is they can't ban them again.

[Watchman]

That's harsh. I'm the last to say anything good about the NRA or the continuous repetition of this topic in the Backroom (I mean, come on :dizzy2: ), but school shootings and serial killings aren't exactly American phenomenons as you say.

Americans don't have it half as bad as you seem to think. Most anyway, this is a big place.Yet it is very difficult to avoid the impression such outbursts of... pathological and basically gratuitious violence are disproportionately common there. What was that FBI estimate about active serial killers in the world - three quarters or more of them in the US alone ? And for what it was worth, when I looked the term up in the Wiki there seemed to be a very easy majority of names under the US.


We are a little unhinged, though, in terms of prioritizing issues and morality points.No argument here.
:creep:


I have no argument whatsoever with that. I'd love it if we had a very effective law-enforcement system. However, I'm personally not sure how we could make our system very effective. And if I were, I may or may not be able to discover what candidate in my area would seek to establish such a system. And if I did know, it's uncertain their bill would pass. And if it did, it's uncertain whether it wouldn't be changed during the debate process, or poorly implemented.

It comes back to the matter Don mentioned earlier of control. In terms of defense, there are channels I can act through to try to achieve an effective law enforcement system, and I should operate through them, but I have tremendously little control over the outcome. Self-reliance is self-controlled.Fair enough. By what I know of it the US law enforcement system started going the wrong way in several important areas already at inception, and given how the politics of the state work may well be essentially un-fixable. Or in any case I've no idea of where one would start - probably putting all the AFAIK separate municipal agencies under one organization or something.

The main point I was making however was that the possession or lack thereof of personal firearms for self-defense is really actually something of a nonissue in regards to the personal safety of the populace. It is the job of the authorities to take care of the criminal element properly and see to it that wrongdoers are caught and punished; that is one of the very central purposes of the modern Rechtstaat and also AFAIK the primary and most effective deterrent for serious crime.
We don't live in the damn Middle Ages when among the few ways to be safe from violence was to be a better fighter than the rest, and/or seek the patronage and protection of the good fighters, after all. We live in properly organized and managed societies with laws to protect the weak from the strong, which are ultimately backed up by the fact the state can call on more rifles than anyone living in it.

If the state fulfills this function well enough, the citizens very much do not need to arm themselves in self-defense (against each other anyway, but let's not go there); if it fails to, the arming of the citizenry does not really help the situation one bit, merely occasionally allowing an individual to survive its symptoms by managing to overpower an attacker. While it may occasionally save people from ghastly fates, it does preciously little to fix the real problem - and creates some new ones.

[Don Corleone]

Yet it is very difficult to avoid the impression such outbursts of... pathological and basically gratuitious violence are disproportionately common there. What was that FBI estimate about active serial killers in the world - three quarters or more of them in the US alone ? And for what it was worth, when I looked the term up in the Wiki there seemed to be a very easy majority of names under the US.

No argument here.
:creep:

Fair enough. By what I know of it the US law enforcement system started going the wrong way in several important areas already at inception, and given how the politics of the state work may well be essentially un-fixable. Or in any case I've no idea of where one would start - probably putting all the AFAIK separate municipal agencies under one organization or something.

The main point I was making however was that the possession or lack thereof of personal firearms for self-defense is really actually something of a nonissue in regards to the personal safety of the populace. It is the job of the authorities to take care of the criminal element properly and see to it that wrongdoers are caught and punished; that is one of the very central purposes of the modern Rechtstaat and also AFAIK the primary and most effective deterrent for serious crime.
We don't live in the damn Middle Ages when among the few ways to be safe from violence was to be a better fighter than the rest, and/or seek the patronage and protection of the good fighters, after all. We live in properly organized and managed societies with laws to protect the weak from the strong, which are ultimately backed up by the fact the state can call on more rifles than anyone living in it.

If the state fulfills this function well enough, the citizens very much do not need to arm themselves in self-defense (against each other anyway, but let's not go there); if it fails to, the arming of the citizenry does not really help the situation one bit, merely occasionally allowing an individual to survive its symptoms by managing to overpower an attacker. While it may occasionally save people from ghastly fates, it does preciously little to fix the real problem - and creates some new ones.

Yep, Watchman, all your thoughts about Americans being knuckle-dragging neanderthals are perfectly true. And yet, we still have the world's largest economy. Must drive you nuts, knowing that us bunch of in-bred squirrels eat your lunch every day.

One thing I don't get about you Watchman... American gun control laws apply to Americans. If we're a disease you're looking to cure, wouldn't gun control be a bad thing?

[Watchman]

Good job missing the point, but actually I just feel kinda sad for you guys. The most powerful state on the planet, yet it can't keep its own citizens safe from each other even to the degree far humbler powers manage to.
What's the point, one might ask.

[Tribesman]

Yep, Watchman, all your thoughts about Americans being knuckle-dragging neanderthals are perfectly true.
Don is that big chip on your shoulder making you walk lopsided yet ?

[Whacker]

Don, this is like arguing with a brick wall. Just be glad they aren't Americans and thus have absolutely zero relevance to our own gun laws and situation.

One thing that people do seem to get caught up on here is self defense. Guns aren't used for the sole purpose of kill things and people, they're also tools and fun to own and target shoot for accuracy and for the hell of it. That's like thinking that people who practice archery are also nuts and murderers. I mean it's logical right? Bows were used as weapons and tools for thousands upon thousands of years and have killed tons of people, right? :rolleyes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The main point I was making however was that the possession or lack thereof of personal firearms for self-defense is really actually something of a nonissue in regards to the personal safety of the populace. It is the job of the authorities to take care of the criminal element properly and see to it that wrongdoers are caught and punished; that is one of the very central purposes of the modern Rechtstaat and also AFAIK the primary and most effective deterrent for serious crime.

Be that as it may, the percent of offenders caught after the act, no matter how high, is not going to help you if you're the unlucky sod who has his house broken into.

Why should people be encouraged to buckle their seat belts all the time for the odd chance they crash, yet when someone breaks in or attacks us, we're supposed to feebly submit and not take precautions to protect ourselves.

I mean, it's pretty obvious gun laws don't have a direct, if any, effect on crime. Yet they do severely hamper citizens lawful right to defend themselves. Take a look at the article EA linked to. 'Reasonable' restrictions keep piling up because they do nothing to stop crime, and people still demand more gun control. What's that definition of insane again, with the doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different?
*Gee, that gun control measure didn't work at all. Since its already illegal for criminals to have any type of guns, let's make even more firearms illegal for non criminals to own, because then criminals will stop using them!*

CR

[Watchman]

The capability for self-defense the weapon imparts on the individual tends to be chancy at best AFAIK - if nothing else there exists a very real possibility of the "bad guys" having more armed "effectives" in the situation anyway, no ? Relying on individual strenght - which is really what this "self-defense" thing is - has the problem it has always had, namely that there's always someone stronger.

Which is one reason why the easily best protection is an efficient enough enforcement of legal sanctions that the criminal element prefers not to engage in such gratuitiously violent endeavours in the first place. Although personally I suspect some murky cultural-value sociopsychological issues also have an effect, as I for one cannot come up with a decent theory as to why the US has such a disproportionate amount of pathological and extreme violence without ending up with theories about a structural problem with the values the society is built on and its inhabitants socialized in. (My pet kitchen-psychology theory is that the ideal of individualism is taken to too extreme a form where it becomes narcissistic and pathological, which can hardly be a good thing in an already rather atomized society.)

[KukriKhan]

(My pet kitchen-psychology theory is that the ideal of individualism is taken to too extreme a form where it becomes narcissistic and pathological, which can hardly be a good thing in an already rather atomized society.)


I think Watchman is actually on to something there. To the European mindset, America and americans appear to be individualistic in the extreme. This view creates a disconnect in perceptions that we run into here in the backroom all the time (and particularly in gun-threads).

The american "system" or "way" has also been referred to as the american experiment; to test whether (relatively) unfettered citizens, operating in a (relatively) unfettered economy, only lightly regulated by a very-fettered government... can not only survive that circumstance (and each other), but also thrive. All american political arguments revolve around the degree of "fetter" required, and who is gonna pay for that. Generally, less fetter = good. No restriction at all = best.

Europeans don't see it that way. Their long history of being "granted" freedoms from above, versus assuming them or taking them, gives them an entirely different perspective of individual rights and the common good. That's not wrong, just different. A generation without war in western europe speaks to that.

Of course that is over-simplified in the extreme; but I'm certain it informs most conflicts here.

[Watchman]

Actually I was thinking more in terms of subconscious individual psychological processes. For example where I live when desperate people find their situation intolerable they tend to resolve the matter by killing themselves, sometimes taking along their families (or ex-wives and their new hubbies etc. - you know how it goes). Conversely I have gotten the impression that people in comparably dire emotional straits in the US often tend to start taking it out on others, by going on a shooting spree or warping into vicious killers.

Any society has it misfits, outcasts and general malaise; it just seems to me the US either has disproportionately high amounts thereof, and/or some structural trait that leads the individuals afflicted to express it in a distinctly narcissistic manner at the expense of others. My theory is that this trait would be at least connected to the ideal of the Individual and his rights and potentials, which sometimes seems to take downright Nietzschean forms (in the negative sense), which is not counterbalanced with enough focus on the responsibilities the individual owes to his fellow-citizens simply by the virtue of cohabitation; and/or the social "connect" between people may be too thin to properly foster this idea particularly in the already troubled cases.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Relying on individual strenght - which is really what this "self-defense" thing is - has the problem it has always had, namely that there's always someone stronger.

That is why firearms are so important for self defense - they don't rely at all on a person's strength.


For example where I live when desperate people find their situation intolerable they tend to resolve the matter by killing themselves, sometimes taking along their families (or ex-wives and their new hubbies etc. - you know how it goes).

Most people here would do that as well, I think. But the fact is since we're such a big country, there's more crazies. As to why there seems to be more per capita in the US, I think it might have to do with the media treatment of school shooters. Desperate psychopaths seem to have a desire to be remembered, at least partially, and want to do something that gets them noticed, perhaps thinking they had been ignored before. Like they are going to show everybody who disrespected them.

Where does the media come into play? In the post killing sensationalizing of the killer. School shootings almost always make national news. The killers are famous. Everyone in the country knows who they are. Look at the Virginia Tech shooter this spring - some group actually performed his terrible plays after he died. In a flash, they're just as famous as the leaders of the free world. How can that not be attractive to the insane mind?

CR

[Watchman]

That is why firearms are so important for self defense - they don't rely at all on a person's strength."Strenght" as in the conceptual and abstract sense, not mighty thews. Guns are certainly useful enough that they make even a weakling strong, but that's somewhat besides the point since his opponents can make use of them equally.

Or put this way, a street gang can put more guns to play than you I would imagine.


Most people here would do that as well, I think. But the fact is since we're such a big country, there's more crazies. As to why there seems to be more per capita in the US, I think it might have to do with the media treatment of school shooters. Desperate psychopaths seem to have a desire to be remembered, at least partially, and want to do something that gets them noticed, perhaps thinking they had been ignored before. Like they are going to show everybody who disrespected them.

Where does the media come into play? In the post killing sensationalizing of the killer. School shootings almost always make national news. The killers are famous. Everyone in the country knows who they are. Look at the Virginia Tech shooter this spring - some group actually performed his terrible plays after he died. In a flash, they're just as famous as the leaders of the free world. How can that not be attractive to the insane mind?That actually sort of sounds like the vague idea of "malign narcissism" I've been trying to describe. A sort of need to "get back" at the bad world by somehow becoming noticed and important, if only briefly and posthumously.

Which drive they seem to lack around here for example.

As for per capita, come on now. You have proportional violent crime rates at least as bad as any other "Western" country, easily the most prisoners per capita in the world, by all estimates the easy majority of the world's criteria-meeting serial killers... and the EU put together has more people than you.
If that doesn't speak of a structural problem I don't know what does.

[KukriKhan]

If that doesn't speak of a structural problem I don't know what does.

Well yeah. Your referenced structural "problem" is when the original assumption is misunderstood, or misused. Done right, the 'rugged individualist' (a popular mythological descendent of the 'noble savage' and 'the guy who knows Indians') defies the odds, the status quo, and the chauvenistas, to succeed, peacefully.

Done wrong, the 'loner gunman' flashes 'teh finger' to the odds, the staus quo and the symbols of his oppression, futilely wasting other lives as he makes his 15-minutes-of-fame mark.

In the american system, to allow for A, the success story, we must also prepare for B, the nutcase who got it wrong. Same mythos, different guys, different outcomes, same system. Quite a gamble, actually.

Hence, the seemingly ( to euro eyes) neurotic fascination with firearms, and the desire to own, use and praise them.

Full disclosure: I own a few firearms.

[ajaxfetish]

As for per capita, come on now. You have proportional violent crime rates at least as bad as any other "Western" country, easily the most prisoners per capita in the world, by all estimates the easy majority of the world's criteria-meeting serial killers... and the EU put together has more people than you.
If that doesn't speak of a structural problem I don't know what does.
I don't think CR was disagreeing with this. He seemed to me to be hypothesizing the structural problem as media sensationalization of the killer. Those who would otherwise go quietly into the night see an opportunity to make an impression, hence more per capita rampages by the crazies.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Strenght" as in the conceptual and abstract sense, not mighty thews. Guns are certainly useful enough that they make even a weakling strong, but that's somewhat besides the point since his opponents can make use of them equally.

No, because they level the playing field, so to speak. And defending your house gives you an advantage.


Or put this way, a street gang can put more guns to play than you I would imagine.

I don't hear of many gangs attacking homes, but that's why you have high capacity rifles.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

but that's why you have high capacity rifles.


I really have to say that while confronting a single attacker might be possible, I doubt that
1. A gang would attack my house
2. If someone did attack my house, I would pull out my Galil or AK-47 and let loose.
3. They would attack the only house with an AK-47

I think that assault rifles are a little bit much.

[Watchman]

Well yeah. Your referenced structural "problem" is when the original assumption is misunderstood, or misused. Done right, the 'rugged individualist' (a popular mythological descendent of the 'noble savage' and 'the guy who knows Indians') defies the odds, the status quo, and the chauvenistas, to succeed, peacefully.

Done wrong, the 'loner gunman' flashes 'teh finger' to the odds, the staus quo and the symbols of his oppression, futilely wasting other lives as he makes his 15-minutes-of-fame mark.

In the american system, to allow for A, the success story, we must also prepare for B, the nutcase who got it wrong. Same mythos, different guys, different outcomes, same system. Quite a gamble, actually.

Hence, the seemingly ( to euro eyes) neurotic fascination with firearms, and the desire to own, use and praise them.Yeah, well, the "success story" bit is perfectly doable without the "flipping out and going amok with a gun or turning into a serial killer" bit too... so that doesn't change the bit about there being some deep-running issue at works in the "system" I'd say.


I don't think CR was disagreeing with this. He seemed to me to be hypothesizing the structural problem as media sensationalization of the killer. Those who would otherwise go quietly into the night see an opportunity to make an impression, hence more per capita rampages by the crazies.That doesn't really do much to address the pathological need for attention of such nuts though. Plus I'm pretty sure there were enough serial killers in the US before the issue got "media sexy".
And moreover, where did the first gun rampages then get started ? Cannot have been pre-existent media sensationalization...


No, because they level the playing field, so to speak. And defending your house gives you an advantage.But ultimately the matter then boils down to something like who can draw bead on the other guy first. Doesn't quite sound like the odds I'd bet my continued well-being on.

As I kepp saying, all that amounts to is containing the symptoms to some extent. It doesn't actually matter a thing in the larger scale, and I'm not quite convinced an armed and (even if justifiably) edgy citizenry can be regarded as an exactly healthy state of affairs. Tends to cause some unpleasant side issues I understand, the least of which certainly isn't the vast numbers of personal firearms on the market.


I don't hear of many gangs attacking homes, but that's why you have high capacity rifles.Around here fighting wars is left to the army though.