Yay for vigilantes!

I think it sounds pretty reasonable. Otherwise, if robbers broke into my home and beat me up, I could sue the police for not protecting me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

And that demonstrates the difference between an american and a european very well ~;)

There are 2 ways to ensure the safety of a populace:

- Security
- Not having any criminals

The way things look to me, the second option is absent in america. It's security, security and then some more security. Does a town have problems with criminals? Increase the police force. Increase the punishments. Form local militias. For a euroweenie like me, the answer isn't to fix something that's broken, it's to ensure that it never gets broken in the first place.

And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.

Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

---

Well I'm not insighted into the "gun grabbers" argumentation. As you see above, the viewpoint is a bit different in Scandinavia. Explains at least why it's used as an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Yes.

Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and something bad is very likely to happen?

It's all depending on what that situation is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

---

Agreed, but the question is how much protection is reasonable? For me and Hore i the point were you need guns (even any weapon that's intended as a weapon) to get reasonable protection a sign that the society is unacceptable.

Or to put it differently, I don't disagree when someone that has the extreme unlucky of getting home invaded defends themself with a weapon, maybe even a gun. I'm disagreeing with it when it's a reasonable choise of action to prepare myself for this occurance (you can be hit by a meteor, but that doesn't mean that going around in a safety helmet to protect myself from it is a reasonable choise of action).

It shows something dysfunctional in society, either an unatural scare or a serious problem. Or to but it shorter: Is it smart to carry a gun in a Mad Max world? Yes. Is a Mad Max world something good? No. So a world were it's smart to carry a gun isn't good world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I think it sounds pretty reasonable. Otherwise, if robbers broke into my home and beat me up, I could sue the police for not protecting me.

---

The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

---

Yes, but I didn't think that was what Lemur was talking about.

Guess what, tribesy - we're not talking about that story.

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.

So go on and babble about a dozen cases you might as well have made up, but don't pretend to be talking sense.

Quote:

---

The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

---

Nope. I believe the case involved them not responding well enough to a 911 call, the woman who got beat up by robbers or whatever sued and lost - the police have no duty to protect individuals, it was found.

Quote:

---

Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and something bad is very likely to happen?

---

No, not at all.

Quote:

---

And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.

---

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.

Crazed Rabbit

the use of statisics in the gun debate is misleading by both sides. And it gets even more confusing as the debate gets into the tit for tat exchange that it always boils down to.

What it boils down to is that in the United States there is a different philosophy on individual freedom and security then what is present in many other locations. There is an attempt to swing the United States basic philosophy toward that of many European and other Wester nations - but is still being resisted by a vast majority of citizens in the United States.

The Gun debate is one of those center issues along that attempt, there are others but weapons and the private ownership of them is currently protected as an individaul right by the constitution.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the method to crub violence by those who wish to pursue criminal behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I wasn't talking about gun ownership specifically. That's just one drop in a big ocean. Almost everything in our society matter, from how we treat troublesome youngsters to the number of cops.

And so what if violent crime has dropped in the US? You still have a crime rate that would be considered rebellion if it popped up in a european country. We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

---

So.... Europe is now a utopian society? :laugh4:

I'll agree that the mentality is the difference. Just as much as you couldn't turn Europe into a gun-wielding society and can't take the guns away from Americans, you can't make Saudi Arabia predominately christian or the States a Muslim nation. There's no point comparing two completely different views on the matter as if things work the same in both places.

One thing I am curious about, what are the numbers of people wanting gun control, or a more 'European' system, in the States? A large minority, a silent majority? Obviously the view on such matters can be rather obscured by the average Hollywood movie or Michael Moore diatribe.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And so what if violent crime has dropped in the US? You still have a crime rate that would be considered rebellion if it popped up in a european country. We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.

---

Doing Norway a lot of good, isn't it, with one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... Europe is now a utopian society?

---

Europe generally is a different kind of society to the US. Not necessarily better or worse, but it has different means of (trying) to protect the public from criminals than legalising the possession of firearms. Here, it mostly works. In the US, guns mostly work.

Quote:

---

I wasn't talking about gun ownership specifically. That's just one drop in a big ocean.

---

What matters is results, and that's what America is getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.

---

Or else what? You'll come and try to lecture a bunch of gun toting people on how to run their lives?
:laugh4:

Quote:

---

One thing I am curious about, what are the numbers of people wanting gun control, or a more 'European' system, in the States? A large minority, a silent majority? Obviously the view on such matters can be rather obscured by the average Hollywood movie or Michael Moore diatribe.

---

I think the majority are happy the way it is now. A very vocal minority cries out for more gun control. Some people cry out for more gun rights.

CR

Quote:

---

Guess what, tribesy - we're not talking about that story.

---

Ah wassamatter , don't you like stories that shoot holes in your ideas ?
you don't like stories about guns unless they are woohoo yay stories.

Perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned guns , especially when you want to try and throw around ball park figures like............

Quote:

---

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.

---

Yeah that nut who shot a kid for walking on his lawn was defending himself is that one of your 2 million .
Woohoo out of all the people who get shot in your country a few of them tend to be legitimate shootings yay guns yay vigilantes!!!!!!!
Sorry there ,could you remind me what the percentage of the population is again ?
data rabbit Data :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So I repeatHow do they define defending themselves ?

Quote:

---

So go on and babble about a dozen cases you might as well have made up, but don't pretend to be talking sense.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I don't need to make things up , you post a yay gun news article and the newspaper contains lots of boo gun newsarticles . :idea2:
Simple isn't it .
Hmmm lets think, there were other gunstories in that paper....errr..what was it again ...people defending themselves with guns because they felt they might be threatened with guns hmmmmm...what was itagain.....oh yeah at that date since the start of the year the local police had managed to shoot 40 motorists they had stopped , apparently there are people over there with guns and its better to be safe eh .
You really should explore the links you post :2thumbsup:
Talking of links , nice one you posted in this topic from Kopel , can you spot the glaring innacuracies in his gun nut drivel ?

Quote:

---

Doing Norway a lot of good, isn't it, with one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world?

---

Errrrr....nope :dizzy2:
Did rabbit just mention something about people making things up:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Congratulations Geoffrey , do you win a prize for that ?

Tribesy, your pathetic posts do nothing to hurt my arguments.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the plural of anecdote is not data. Furthermore, the use of newspaper articles for statistical purposes is fundamentally flawed. The mention of a smattering of news stories that you have provided no proof of is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

It is a generally established figure that 2 million people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US - that is, the presence of a gun in the hands of a would be victim stops a crime. You have done absolutely nothing, as there is nothing that can be done, to discredit that.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.

---

European countries also have far more homogeneous societies. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that's a major factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

What matters is results, and that's what America is getting.

---

That sounds like Bush when he's describing the war in Iraq...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

European countries also have far more homogeneous societies. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that's a major factor.

---

Haven't you heard that we've been overrun by the muslim hordes lately?

Quote:

---

That sounds like Bush when he's describing the war in Iraq...

---

Except I'm backed up by decades of crime data.

I still want to hear your answer to this:

You don't have to worry about your safety in a prison for crooked accountants; does that mean you're free?

Quote:

---

Haven't you heard that we've been overrun by the muslim hordes lately?

---

So, either you're being overrun by Muslim hordes and need to do something about it, or your crime statistics are not accurately comparable to the US. Which is it?

CR

How would these guys handle an ice user? Shoot to kill or back off until police arrive? Would they gang tackle him?

Is that a serious question, Pape?

Do you mean meth when you say ice? The article said they'll call the police if they see someone breaking the law.

CR

Yes it is a serious quesiton, Ice as in the one when high makes people highly aggressive and prone to do stupid things like attack people.

Would it be best for them to call police and retreat, shoot the guy or use non-lethal force if possible?

Like the people patrolling in the article said, they'd probably call police if they saw someone high on meth.

CR

Quote:

---

It is a generally established figure that 2 million people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US - that is, the presence of a gun in the hands of a would be victim stops a crime. You have done absolutely nothing, as there is nothing that can be done, to discredit that.

---

What percentage of the population is that that are defended rabbit , what percentage of criminal acts are stopped , how is it defined .
Who generally established the figure and is it a proper figure or a ball park figure , is it a consistant figure or is it a variable figure .
You havn't given data , you have given a pro-gun anecdote , and a very vauge one at that .

What you really mean to say is there is nothing that can be done to discredit guns in your eyes .:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

---

I have posted before that I recognise the gulf between American and European thinking on these issues and that there is little to be gained by trying to persuade one another.

However, the debate has fascinating sub-texts and Lemur, your post provokes me to explore one of them.

To me, the logical extrapolation of the distrust of state would mean that the historical aversion the US had to a standing army should be still very strong. After all, if citizens cannot trust a police force to protect them - and as you note, believe that security and safety are entirely the concern of the citizen - how much more anxious does a federal standing army make the freedom-loving citizen?

If one argues that times have changed and that security agencies like armed services and federal intelligence agencies are required in the modern world, might not that argument also apply to police forces and the assuming of responsibility for citizens' security by the state?

I'm not looking for an answer from just the Lemur, nor trying to knock holes in anyone's argument - just trying to understand how the positions play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Errrrr....nope :dizzy2:
Did rabbit just mention something about people making things up:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Congratulations Geoffrey , do you win a prize for that ?

---

Apologies, also to HoreTore, that I got that wrong. After a quick search it has become clear that it was Finland I was thinking of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.

---

just a question.....

has any one ever looked into what number of those 2 million situations are directly caused and/or provoked by the large number of guns you have in the hands of the public?

my gut feeling is you´ll find that is the case in a considerable number of them....

what is the point of using a tool to solve a problem if said tool is also (at least) partially the source of that problem?

In case anybody is interested - this seems to be the the publication on the study that CR is referring to:

Kleck & Gertz article

NB: I am aware that the article is from a "pro-gun" site - I did not quickly find any other "reprint" of the acticle (and as it is a reprint the site it is posted on should be irrelevant)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Apologies, also to HoreTore, that I got that wrong. After a quick search it has become clear that it was Finland I was thinking of.

---

*cough*vodka*cough*

And, if I grew up with finnish TV theater, I'd probably kill myself too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by study

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims.[100] Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year,[101] representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection.[102]

---

Has the 2 million been reduced to a maimum of 400.000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I have posted before that I recognise the gulf between American and European thinking on these issues and that there is little to be gained by trying to persuade one another.

However, the debate has fascinating sub-texts and Lemur, your post provokes me to explore one of them.

To me, the logical extrapolation of the distrust of state would mean that the historical aversion the US had to a standing army should be still very strong. After all, if citizens cannot trust a police force to protect them - and as you note, believe that security and safety are entirely the concern of the citizen - how much more anxious does a federal standing army make the freedom-loving citizen?

If one argues that times have changed and that security agencies like armed services and federal intelligence agencies are required in the modern world, might not that argument also apply to police forces and the assuming of responsibility for citizens' security by the state?

I'm not looking for an answer from just the Lemur, nor trying to knock holes in anyone's argument - just trying to understand how the positions play out.

---

If one wanted to make a comparision and spend the time to do the research, a study on the relative percent of the population who's career is within the governmental security sector might be start. (Police, Intelligence agencies, Armed Forces, and the like.) One should also look into the private sector that is devolted into supplying materials to these agencies.

Armed private security in my opinion falls into the same catergory as the people taking care of their own security. However if that same firm is doing business for any government agency - it falls into the public/governmental security sector.

Making guns more difficult to purchase and to be available, on the surface always sounds good - but when one looks at how those laws are enforced, especially the current laws on the books in the United States - one begins to see a major disconnect. That arguement is never really addressed in any gun debate, show me statistics and facts that show how the current gun laws reduce criminal activities involving guns.

Those who wish to purchase weapons for illegal use - do so from illegimate sources. Punishing law abidding citizens to halt a possible crime committed by a criminal goes against the very ideal of freedom of the individual. Facts and figures are used by both sides of the arguement - but no arguement yet that I have seen convinces me that a freedom granted in the Constitution of the United States needs to be revoked by the people of this nation. Now laws have been made in the United States that resticted or limit personal freedom, some have been temporary and other permament, but most of those laws did not have a constitutional ammendment that guranteed (SP) that freedom. (well until recently with the Patriot Act that is.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

---

:beam:

---

:no: ...
The banks in the US has not insured their money? Let the robber take what he/she wants. Let the police deal with this at a later time.
Nothing will compensate the loss of two lives and possibly criple two others. IMO a bad call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.

---

Crime has been dropping in Europe for the past two centuries as well. What might this be related to? Well, possibly better healthcare, better education and generally life just being more pleasant.
Gun ownership in itself might very well be related to crime, carrying a gun makes you feel big, but I rather think liberalism is the real reason for a lot of crime, and in this case the high crime rates of the USA. People living separated from each other always creates conflict, and some being richer than others even more so. In the USA, there are still ghettos, while in Europe there are shabby suburbs at worst (and I myself consider those shabby suburbs a disgrace that must be fixed)... Basically, I'm with HoreTore on this, I don't really like to say "look at us", but I think Europe has solved the problem with crime in a much more efficient way. I also realise prohibiting guns in USA over a day would be catastrophe, but social reforms are probably necessary (that is, if you want to solve the problem). Gun ownership, harder punishments and more cops don't prevent crime for some reason, while growing up in safe and secure environment does.