Because there are less then 50 people living within a 10 kilometer radius from your house? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Printable View
Because there are less then 50 people living within a 10 kilometer radius from your house? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Now that works a little better for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
A neighborhood watch is effective because it shines a light into places (both literally and metaphorically) that often remain unseen and make criminals feel safe in that they believe they are unnoticed, or that nobody will intervene because nobody cares.
Neighborhood watches if they are operating properly should never put themselves in a position where shooting it out with criminals in a public place would be necessary. Therefor, neighborhood watches should not require firearms. And that is not even touching on the fact that we're talking about a bunch of untrained civilians, whose only qualifications to purchase guns were not having ever been convicted of any felonies.
If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."
The one good thing I can see about this situation is that it should at least demonstrate to the municipal politicians that they have a massive failure in their policing policy if citizens feel the need to walk around in armed gangs to feel safe.
So, don't go into the bad parts of the neighborhood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
This watch was started after a man was attacked in his own house - are you saying he shouldn't have put himself in that position? And are you saying it's best to not prepare for anything but the best situations?Quote:
Therefor, neighborhood watches should not require firearms.
Using a gun is not rocket science, and I have contempt for the idea that ordinary people are too stupid to operate a gun. Should we shudder in our houses, afraid to go outside, afraid to grasp our very right as US citizens?Quote:
And that is not even touching on the fact that we're talking about a bunch of untrained civilians, whose only qualifications to purchase guns were not having ever been convicted of any felonies.
Also, these people have taken gun training classes.
Are you always racist and anti-semitic? The question is as valid as your gross libel of people who have been attacked for their religion and now carry to protect themselves.Quote:
If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."
Or do you just feel the need to launch ad homenim attacks against those who do something you don't?
Crazed Rabbit
Are some of them from Sicily?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I mean if Italians police themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime in that area. Look at what recently happened in Duisburg.
Doesn't really mean that anyone could prevent that though, but the mental picture of Italians running around with weapons playing "police" has certain connotations for me.:sweatdrop:
Wow, how's that for offensive? Your whole post suggests you either don't trust your neighbors or at least think they're all too stupid to be able to handle a gun without killing themselves or others. Smacks of elitism, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I know many people that can and often do carry weapons- myself included. I also know that there are many, many more lawfully carrying weapons that I'll never even notice. I feel safer knowing they're out there.
Why did I get a Full Metal Jacket flashback when I read this part of your post? "This is my rifle, this is my gun!!!":laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
You should see my penis, I have to use a .357 to atleast feel adequate.:2thumbsup:
Well, we can't all be so well-endowed as Goofball (who doesn't approve of handguns and therefore, clearly has a large, manly penis), can we? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
No, just continue doing what they are doing: patrolling the bad neighborhood and calling police when they see potential illegal activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Just don't do it with guns.
No problem. Let him buy all the guns he wants to keep in his own home to defend himself. I just don't want some guy who (rightfully) believes he has been vitimized out patrolling the streets with a gun, maybe looking for a little payback.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No, using a gun is not rocket science. Just about anybody who has finished kindergarten and developed the highly difficult skill of using their index finger can pull a trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
OTOH, Using a handgun in a combat situation, especially one where innocent non-combatants are also likely to be present is an incredibly stressful and demanding task, one that the ERT teams and elite military forces of the world train at every day, and still screw up more often than not when the chips are down.
Just because these guys have taken a gun safety course that more or less tells them which part is the dangerous end of the gun does not in any way qualify them to engage in gunplay with baddies on city streets.
Yes I am always this racist and anti-semitic. I'm also Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
(Just figured I'd beat you to the punch there by invoking Godwin's Law for you, because it seems like that was going to be your next step after accusing me - incorrectly, as it happens - of using ad hominem tactics in an argument.)
If I had said something mean about you, I would have been guilty of using ad hominem tactics, as you are the one I am debating. But saying something about the subjects of the article and what they are doing is simply expressing my opinion about the article, which is the point of the thread.
Maybe we should take a look at the last few threads about gays, or transexuals, or war protestors, or even Democrats, for that matter, to see how restrained you are about "launching ad hominem attacks against those who do something you don't?"
~;)
Classic strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Not trusting the average joe-blow to be able to handle himself safely in a combat situation with civilians around does not equal thinking he is "stupid," but you saying it does sure does make me sound like an arsehole, doesn't it? So I can definitely see the appeal in using that particular argument. Would you accuse me of calling you stupid if I also refused to let you try your hand at landing an aircraft that I happened to be riding in?
Elitism? Sure it is. I expect any person who wants me to trust him as my armed protector on the public streets to have achieved at least a modicum of eliteness when it comes to combat, gun safety, and tactics. No, as I said before, I don't think your average joe-blow is qualified to do that.
I'm a trained soldier, and even recently had the opportunity to do a bit of urban ops refesher training (although I am by no means an expert at it). While I would trust myself in a combat situation that involved only myself, my fellow soldiers, and baddies, I would be scared as hell going into a situation where I knew there would be innocents intermingled with all of us.
Knowing how difficult it is, there is no way I can trust a bunch of guys with absolutely no training.
Sorry if that makes me an elitist.
I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Haha! Well, that would go for 2 of my living years... However, now I live about 15 minutes away from "downtown Oslo"(our capitol), so I'd say there's at least 500k people living with a 10km radius.... Or in other words, the densest populated area in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Curiously enough though, if you are living in densely populated areas, you're probably less likely to get robbed than if you live out in the wild... The bandit bands we have here usually go after remote areas like cabins and farms, because a) it's a long way from everything a robber wants to avoid and b) there's a LOT of value there, generally speaking.
Why? Do you also tear out your airbag because you think the safety it offers might cause you to drive more erratically? Why should they remove a useful tool? Why should they relinquish their ability to adequately defend themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
What if they go into a bad part of the neighborhood and someone moves to attack them? Your plan would end in them getting beat up, probably stabbed, and maybe killed.
Why don't you want him to be able to defend himself?Quote:
No problem. Let him buy all the guns he wants to keep in his own home to defend himself. I just don't want some guy who (rightfully) believes he has been vitimized out patrolling the streets with a gun, maybe looking for a little payback.
More of the standard 'guns are too complicated for the peasants'. You know, somehow 2 million people in this country manage to defend themselves with guns every year and they don't have to take gun combat courses to do it effectively. Using a gun is simple - point and click. Yes, being in a situation where one must use a gun is stressful, but unless you're paralyzed by stress, it won't matter that much.Quote:
OTOH, Using a handgun in a combat situation, especially one where innocent non-combatants are also likely to be present is an incredibly stressful and demanding task, one that the ERT teams and elite military forces of the world train at every day, and still screw up more often than not when the chips are down.
Just because these guys have taken a gun safety course that more or less tells them which part is the dangerous end of the gun does not in any way qualify them to engage in gunplay with baddies on city streets.
History and facts show us that in reality, you don't have to be a gun master to use a gun. The mere presence of a gun will often cause potential criminals to back down.
Saying 'I don't think they should do that' is expressing your opinion - saying 'They're doing it to compensate for something' is an ad homenim.Quote:
If I had said something mean about you, I would have been guilty of using ad hominem tactics, as you are the one I am debating. But saying something about the subjects of the article and what they are doing is simply expressing my opinion about the article, which is the point of the thread.
Oh, please do, and see if I rested my entire argument on those insults. Sorry, but all I see from you is 'They shouldn't do this because they can't because I say so and they're only doing it because they got small members'.Quote:
Maybe we should take a look at the last few threads about gays, or transexuals, or war protestors, or even Democrats, for that matter, to see how restrained you are about "launching ad hominem attacks against those who do something you don't?"
That's weird - as the rate of civilians accidentally hitting innocents is 1/10 of the rate of a cop hitting an innocent. Perhaps you shouldn't compare warfare with self defense.Quote:
While I would trust myself in a combat situation that involved only myself, my fellow soldiers, and baddies, I would be scared as hell going into a situation where I knew there would be innocents intermingled with all of us.
Knowing how difficult it is, there is no way I can trust a bunch of guys with absolutely no training.
Crazed Rabbit
No. But that was never what he said, now was it? You don't need to be a gun master to use a gun, but you sure do need to be a drill master to handle a fire exchange between your squad, the enemy and civilians stuck in-between. That takes drilling, drilling and then even some more drilling. And then take a look at how often the military screws up when there's civilians involved. It's not easy at all, it's painfully hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Do I sense naitivity? I'm sure you also feel safe that pretty much anyone - and anyone might be some kind of psycho beneath the surface, like Ed Gein - can carry a gun at any time. I'm also sure you feel safe knowing how easy it is for organized criminals - or just criminals - to get a gun. And please don't counter with the old "well, I carry a gun so then I can defend myself", because you shouldn't feel unsafe to the degree where you would want to carry a gun, there's something really wrong in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I understand you're talking about the specific case with the vigilantes, but don't you pro-guns people ever consider how it would be without any guns? I mean, in Sweden, people are not allowed to carry guns, but there are no mass killings of civilians. In fact, I can't recall a single non-criminal being shot to death (or shot at all) by another person (who was not a police on duty).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And you don't consider the mere fact that civilians accidentally shoot other innocent civilians at all disturbing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I do consider it, and then I remember violence has been around long before guns, and even today people use non firearm weapons, like knives, to hurt others. Taking away guns would just help criminals, because it is often them who are physically stronger, which is what older weapons favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
This fellow does a much more indepth look at the banning of guns:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
But that's not really relevant, is it then?Quote:
You don't need to be a gun master to use a gun, but you sure do need to be a drill master to handle a fire exchange between your squad, the enemy and civilians stuck in-between.
Stopping the carrying of guns by good citizens won't make it any harder.Quote:
I'm also sure you feel safe knowing how easy it is for organized criminals - or just criminals - to get a gun.
Oh, I do. Why shouldn't I? Guns don't make good people go crazy. Or are you just projecting your own feelings upon others?Quote:
I'm sure you also feel safe that pretty much anyone - and anyone might be some kind of psycho beneath the surface, like Ed Gein - can carry a gun at any time.
And what happens if the universe doesn't obey your decree to be safe enough that no one ever needs to defend themselves? Oh, wait, it's all about feelings. Yes, because our society is not made up of angels we sometimes need to defend ourselves. Saying 'That's really wrong' doesn't make being prepared any less necessary.Quote:
And please don't counter with the old "well, I carry a gun so then I can defend myself", because you shouldn't feel unsafe to the degree where you would want to carry a gun, there's something really wrong in that case.
Philosophically, being self reliant for your own safety is a sign of freedom.
Crazed Rabbit
Rubbish. Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Are you saying having to rely on others to protect you (like feudalism) is freedom?Quote:
Rubbish. Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.
You don't have to worry about your safety in a prison for crooked accountants; does that mean you're free?
CR
Now that is interesting , it certainly looks like quite compelling evidence ,hmmmmm....quite compelling indeed .Quote:
You know, somehow 2 million people in this country manage to defend themselves with guns every year
But hold on this is a gun topic , gun nut weekly and the Brady bunch are equally apt at distorting figures aren't they .
So now then ...2 million people wow thats a lot of people , thats less than 1% of the population isn't it .
How do they define defending themselves ?
Would that crazy old coot that shot a kid for walking on his lawn be included , he was after all only defending his property with a gun , he has to be one of the 2 million right .
OK maybe thats not a fair example , crazy old people with guns cannot be used as a representation .
How about a sane old person then ?
Rabbit you did a good one a while back , a very nice one , absolutely unarguable defending yourself with a gun sort of stuff :yes:
An old ex-marine shot the perpetrators during an armed robbery in a store , great stuff:2thumbsup: ...slight problem there though , the linked article led on to two other "self defence" shooting stories from the same area on the same day . One was slightly questionable and involved shooting two men on a construction site, the other one was absolutely puzzling and appeared to be a drunk with a shotgun blowing his drinking buddies head off for alledgedly stealing a DVD disc , would they be part of the 2 million ?(there were of course lots of shooting stories in that paper but they were just shootings , accidents and people getting caught in crossfire , but these 3 involved claims of defense)
So then Rabbit , it does lead to some questions . You have put up the figure of 2 million , can you back it up and then show how many of those 2 million could be justified ?
Or is it just a ball park figure that you thought might look good ?
No, he's not saying that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
These two quotations actually summarize the core issue of the debate pretty well.
Horetore, most people in the USA would label your version "security" rather than freedom, preferring Rabbit's more individual-centered version for "freedom."
BOTH are important components of a healthy society. Absent physical security, your ability to enjoy your rights is quite limited. Absent individual freedom, your "unalienable" right to the "pursuit" of happiness is diminished.
The USA has, traditionally, preferenced the individual's maintenance of her/his own security over the government's role in establishing security more than most other societies. An armed militia or neighborhood watch is an extension of this concept.
Goof':
Yes, all sorts of people -- even the mullet-coiffed intellectually numb -- in the USA can own, carry, and come up with an excuse to use a firearm. However, in an armed society of individuals, they are held individually responsible for their actions by others. The history of the American frontier suggests that, absent racism, violence among members of a fully armed society is actually LESS frequent.
Slypsy:
Yes, the primary goal is apprehension. Since measuring the number of criminals who saw a watch patrolling and chose to go elsewhere is difficult -- for some reason they just don't want to answer the surveys :smartass: -- I referenced one of the related measures you could use to evaluate the program for yourself.
Does it usually take so long for you to get to the point?Quote:
So then Rabbit , it does lead to some questions . You have put up the figure of 2 million , can you back it up and then show how many of those 2 million could be justified ?
Or is it just a ball park figure that you thought might look good ?
Can't you find the study that was done yourself? It's really very easy. Don't come complaining to me if you're not adequately prepared for this debate.
CR
So its just a ballpark figure you made up then .
Well the examples off the link from your justifiable story would appear to show that your ball park only has a third of a field.:laugh4:
Yay vigilantes...err neighbourhood watch
Yay some of them carry guns...some of them don't carry guns and some think carrying guns is a bad idea.
What was it again .....oh yeah ...Yay vigilantes:2thumbsup:
It's strange, but that sentence sounds really weird to American ears. The police cannot be everywhere, and we don't really want them everywhere. Several court cases have shown that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person at any given moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
At the end of the day, your security and safety are up to you. Maybe living in an extremely safe area is your answer. Maybe home security is what works for you. For some people, being armed is the answer. To each his own.
And it's beyond pointless to talk about what the U.S.A. would be like with no guns; for the last century, this has been an armed society. Any attempt to disarm our populace would face immediate political failure, and a more determined attempt would face an armed insurrection.
Your safety is your business. Nobody's going to look out for you and yours with the same vigilance.
Parts of America were segregated until they wern't. America was isolationist, then decided to... change their outlook.
Drugs were legal, then overnight were illegal.
Change does happen. Merely that you dont want it doesn't mean it is impossible.
In a modern state most security is up to the state. Indeed you'd not be able to live your life if you really had to protect yourself all the time: on the school run with the kids with armalites, go to the shops shotgun in hand, go to a baseball game with an uzi just in case... :laugh4:
Yet even with so many that seem to have the 1800s frontier spirit, lone nutters with guns aren't cut down by vigilantes in seconds; bank robbers aren't stopped by the citizenry. It still comes down to the police in some form.
It's playing at safety, a cheap illusion as most can't afford to think of or implement a proper solution.
~:smoking:
Northfield, MinnesotaQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Coffee, Kansas
-- Both of these run directly counter to your claim. Both occurred when citizen armament with personal firearms was nearly ubiquitous.
Here's another:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
:beam:Quote:
Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two.
How many banks had the gangs already robbed ? surely if armed citizenry was a major factor in preventing such things they wouldn't have robbed many banks would they ..or trains or coaches .Quote:
Both of these run directly counter to your claim. Both occurred when citizen armament with personal firearms was nearly ubiquitous.
Were the citizens of the other towns not armed perhaps ? Had the local marshalls gone all liberal and taken away their toys ?
Or is it that in those cases you cite the criminals got unlucky and the people got lucky .
Well, the problem with frontier studies is that the frontier kind of lack big cities. And were does most crimes get comitted? In the fine small middle class areas were everyone knows eachother of course :laugh4: , and not at all in the slums of the major cities. If you don't take all things into consideration you'll get skewed results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
For example, Swedish history (I suspect that European is perfectly possible to use instead) shows that reduced penalties gives LESS crimes.
You have to take into consideration of the soeciety view people have here. A society were people feels the need to have a gun for thier own protection and/or police everywere and/or walled in, guarded areas to protect themself are a failed society. It doesn't live up to the demands you can expect form a successful society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ha! Your google-fu must be very poor if you can't find the study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Data is not the plural of anecdote.Quote:
Well the examples off the link from your justifiable story would appear to show that your ball park only has a third of a field.:laugh4:
For many years, gun grabbers screamed about 'the wild west' were people were armed and, the grabbers claimed, shot anyone and everyone every day of the week and twice on Sunday.Quote:
Well, the problem with frontier studies is that the frontier kind of lack big cities.
They used these lies to spread fear about an armed citizenry, they still do, in fact. Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and nothing bad will happen?
CR
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
you linked the newspaper article about the ex-marine, funnily enough in that topic you chose to ignore the 2 other "self defense" stories and the pile of other firearms stories in the same edition when I raised them .
Did they put a bit of a downer on your yay guns are great fetish ?
So data is it , simple maths , you provided a source that had one good guns story , two dodgy guns stories and nine bad guns story , data would suggest that you are ignoring facts so as to fit with your pre-conceptions .:yes:
Could you elaborate on this? That's just...bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur