FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Guns, knives and personal security





Helios
Hey FriHosters, what's your opinion on citizens carrying a weapon (gun, knife or both...) for the sake of personal security and, if needed, for the security of other around them ?
Should this privilege be limited to law enforcement / military or should civilians also have the right to defend themselves ?

I'll give two possible scenarios:

A. London, England. A trained policeman returns home after a hard shift, lots of patrols etc. He's unaware that he's being followed by a group of teenagers who had spotted him working for the police department, and it seems that they need a weapon for robbery. A trained officer then gets ambushed by 5-or-so guys, gets hit by a brick on the head, weapon and money - gone. I bet you that this has happened many times, even in London. If a policeman can be taken out that easily, an untrained civilian - even easier. One of several reasons there's a heavy ban on guns in England (not talking about Northern Ireland), as in many countries.

B. Somewhere in Texas, USA. A regular guy, possibly a farmer - cowboy hat and all that, goes to the local grocery store to get some stuff.
Of course, he carries.. let's say a Sig Sauer P226 plus a Spyderco Endura knife, as usual. Definitely a set-up many people might carry with them on everyday basis in that area of the states.
So the guy's shopping, when suddenly some idiot breaks in with a gun, ordering the cashier to give him all the money. How many guys do you think will get their SIGs, Glocks and maybe even Rugers out, pointing at that robber's now very pale face, to help the cashier? It's normal to carry weapons in Texas, as well as in other states and countries. People can purchase weapons and carry them. People train and practise with those weapons from a young age - father teaching son and so on - for generations.

Maybe those aren't accurate scenarios but I heard various similar stories throughout the years.
So, from scenario A it might seem that, yes, limitations on purchasing and carrying weapons are a must. There are crooks out there who might resell weapons easily to gangs, who might steal weapons etc... very bad and dangerous stuff indeed.
However, will such limitations actually prevent crime from rising? Will it stop robbers and other criminals from getting their hands on lethal weapons?
I really really doubt it. What will it do is this: stop the regular law abiding citizen from getting any education on weapons at all, making the public fear weapons, especially guns. How many of you have used a gun for the first time and felt a weird spider-sense tingling that "hey, this is no joke, I'm afraid of that"? How many of you see a gun on TV and maybe fear it?

Looking at the society of southern USA the situation is different, very different. Almost anyone can carry a weapon, and the public is quite educated and doesn't fear guns and knives. People carry knives with them almost everyday and use them for many things. Usually people carry a gun too, and they are probably trained with that gun (young kids learn how to handle a rifle on farms there) - it's just normal. Guns are considered tools that serve some purpose, like a screwdriver or a hammer (which can also kill, by the way), and they are normal among law abiding citizens as well as criminals.

So as I see it there are two cases: first, a society that fears weapons and is against weapons because they are "dangerous"; second, a society that's used to guns and knives - it's as natural as wearing boots and owning a car.

Criminals are everywhere, insane people are everywhere. The only difference is that on one hand we have people who will have less chance to protect themselves and survive if put in the relevant situation (robbery, assault... you name it), and on the other hand we have people who can protect not only themselves but others as well - people who are confident and due to generations of good tradition and education, are also responsible weapon carrying individuals.


Which society do you prefer being a part of? How do you/will you educate your children?
Are you one of those parents who'll probably say "NO! Don't touch that! It's sharp and dangerous!"?
Or will you educate your offspring that a knife is used for various reasons, from slicing vegetables to aiding in survival situations ? That guns don't kill people, people who handle them in a bad way do?

In the end it all depends on the society and rules are made according to the society, but remember that the people are the building blocks on societies and what matters is the education which you grant to your children. I think that above all it's far more important to teach responsibility rather than implement fear in the minds of people. Feel free to disagree!
LittleBlackKitten
I always carry a 3 inch spring assist for my own protection, and I've had to pull it nout once. I can't imagine being without it.
Helios
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I always carry a 3 inch spring assist for my own protection, and I've had to pull it nout once. I can't imagine being without it.


Well imagine that here in Israel for example they can put you in jail for that. Very strict laws regarding knife ownership and concealed carry. Guns are simply banned.
Ankhanu
I might be wrong, but even here in Canada, that spring is illegal. Remove the spring and it's all good, however.
LittleBlackKitten
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
IceCreamTruck
Did you know that the dinner knife having it's rounded tip was put in place in society with a rule of etiquette that it was no longer polite to carry your own knife to the table. Labeling utility knives "unclean" was a convenient excuse to remove the weapons from the dinner table where people gather together. Providing something to cut your meal with wasn't always the case, as literally everyone used to carry their own knife. Violence at the dinner table was once a real political problem, and I believe the rounded cutlery we know today was actually invented and used to protect the nobility of england where it took foot hold in society (not totally positive). You can see it further backed up as it was a sign of wealth to provide your own cutlery at the dinner table, but also good protection as you could demand a guest discard their weapon for a tool suited to the purpose before you sat down to dinner with them.

Does this still serve a purpose, or are we just spending more energy cutting things with dull knives?

Do less people die even now as a result? Absolutely... even the time to think, get up, and go get a sharper knife is time enough for intervention, second-thoughts, or escape.

If an American wanted to kill someone would they use a steak knife? No, they'd go get a gun, but you can trust the cops had better get to you first because the family isn't far behind and you can trust they are going to out-size/out-number your single gun if they can.

Honestly, I think we should continue to follow this ideology of "dinner wear/cutlery" reducing deadly violence at the dinner table. Keep inventing personal defense devices that further limit accidents and death as a result of their use. If I owned a hand gun I would also own and keep it loaded with rubber bullets. At least there is a chance it won't kill you, but the effect is nearly the same -- you're on your ass being less of a problem. I'd keep real bullets, but they would not be my first choice. Honestly, I hope I've encouraged someone to consider other ammunition for their existing weapon.

Personally I prefer guns, as to banning them. You are stupid to rob a gas station in Texas... some of those boys are looking for an excuse to legally shoot you in self-defense, and thanks to conceal and carry you never know who they are.
IceCreamTruck
LittleBlackKitten, have you considered that you are carrying a weapon into every bad situation that you get into? This ups the chances of it being used against you. I fear the situation that makes you want to pull it out! Get some pepper spray, or a tazer.
Helios
Right IceCreamTruck, I'm actually not against non-lethal ammunition. I mean, rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper sprays... all those are cool.
Here in Israel female soldiers have the right to carry pepper spray cans and they get them for free.
spinout
All should have none weaponry at all - everybody must train Kung Fu instead!!

Laughing

Well no weapons at all!
Helios
spinout wrote:
All should have none weaponry at all - everybody must train Kung Fu instead!!

Laughing

Well no weapons at all!


The point is to be able to defend yourself. Kung Fu is great but it takes time to master. More time than, say, to learn how to use a Taser. I'm not against martial arts, don't get me wrong - it's awesome and everybody should learn some form of self-defence which doesn't require weapons. Apart from very interesting tradition, it also strengthens you mentally and helps you overcome many difficulties, not only physical ones.

Plus doesn't Kung Fu teach how to use weapons or any regular objects you might come across as weapons? I studied Kung Fu for some years, and apart from shaping your body into a weapon, they also teach you how to use the traditional weapons and also how to improvise and use whatever you can find besides you in a fight as a weapon. Kung Fu can be pretty lethal actually.
watersoul
spinout wrote:
All should have none weaponry at all - everybody must train Kung Fu instead!!

Laughing

Well no weapons at all!


There are plenty of different weapon forms in Kung Fu! Wink

In the restrictively controlled UK there is very little you can carry for the purpose of self defence. Indeed, if you make the decision that an object is carried with the sole wilful intention of using it for self defence it immediately becomes legally questionable.
If the worst comes to the worst and 'you fear for your safety or the safety of others' it is acceptable usually to use a weapon which happened to be 'incidental' to the situation, provided you can also argue that the force used was 'reasonable' and 'proportionate'.
An incidental weapon could be perhaps a walking stick (if you normally carried one to help you get around), or even a simple plastic shopping bag with an unopened can of Coke or something similar which could be used as a striking object - very effective, acting as an extension to your arms and therefore your personal defensive area. If you can justify carrying the object then it's likely you'll be on the right side of the law. Half a house brick in a bag would probably not be justifiable though!

It's a tricky one though with laws which serve mainly to disarm the innocent majority of the population. The only people who are likely to attack with a weapon are mainly of a criminal persuassion and will be undeterred by any law banning their knife.
To me, perhaps the best weapon I ever use to keep myself safe is my instinct, awareness of my environment and avoidance of potentially dangerous situations.

*Note* Do not take the above as qualified legal advice. You should always make your own choices in life based on your personal situation and research into the appropriate legislation.

*edit, spelling, 'stricking' corrected to 'striking'
IceCreamTruck
watersoul wrote:
even a simple plastic shopping bag with an unopened can of Coke or something similar which could be used as a stricking object...

*Note* Do not take the above as qualified legal advice. You should always make your own choices in life based on your personal situation and research into the appropriate legislation.


Oh, man! I put a coke in a plastic bag with a whole in it, and when I swung it over my shoulder it slipped from the bag straight up in the air, and came down and landed on my head. When I awoke, and my eyes focused on my would be attacker, had I not dispatched myself, totally drank my coke right in front of me and I couldn't do anything about it. Now I'm going to sue you for a coke you inconsiderate b**t**d! Smile

Lmao!

Helios wrote:
Right IceCreamTruck, I'm actually not against non-lethal ammunition. I mean, rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper sprays... all those are cool.
Here in Israel female soldiers have the right to carry pepper spray cans and they get them for free.


My parents are in Israel! Can my mom go somewhere and get free mace? I worry about her!

Helios' note: please don't double post. There's an 'Edit' button.
watersoul
IceCreamTruck wrote:
...Now I'm going to sue you for a coke you inconsiderate b**t**d! Smile

Lmao!

I'll send you four cans of Dr Peppers instead to make up for it! Lol Laughing
Helios
Quote:
Helios wrote:
Right IceCreamTruck, I'm actually not against non-lethal ammunition. I mean, rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper sprays... all those are cool.
Here in Israel female soldiers have the right to carry pepper spray cans and they get them for free.


My parents are in Israel! Can my mom go somewhere and get free mace? I worry about her!

Sorry, didn't get the joke Confused
Your mom is a regular citizen. Unfortunately, unless she lives near the border or in zones with high concentration of Palestinians or in areas where there might be terror attacks (i.e. Judea and Samaria), she can't carry any weapon with her as far as I know.
In case she's working for the military/police, she may carry a gun after proper approval.
IceCreamTruck
Helios wrote:
Quote:
Helios wrote:
Right IceCreamTruck, I'm actually not against non-lethal ammunition. I mean, rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper sprays... all those are cool.
Here in Israel female soldiers have the right to carry pepper spray cans and they get them for free.


My parents are in Israel! Can my mom go somewhere and get free mace? I worry about her!

Sorry, didn't get the joke Confused
Your mom is a regular citizen. Unfortunately, unless she lives near the border or in zones with high concentration of Palestinians or in areas where there might be terror attacks (i.e. Judea and Samaria), she can't carry any weapon with her as far as I know.
In case she's working for the military/police, she may carry a gun after proper approval.


I was really hoping that I could tell my mom where she should go to get some free mace, cause then she couldn't argue with me, and tell me that she is safe when she is in over her head, but not in trouble. She just travels there some because she is Christian and loves to go touring there.

She tavells without mace or defense of any kind... not my preference, but you say she wouldn't be allowed to carry mace if she is not a citizen?
ankur209
i would like to have a revolver for my security !! Wink

if that would be insufficient,i'll move on for getting some guards...
Helios
IceCreamTruck wrote:
Helios wrote:
Quote:
Helios wrote:
Right IceCreamTruck, I'm actually not against non-lethal ammunition. I mean, rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper sprays... all those are cool.
Here in Israel female soldiers have the right to carry pepper spray cans and they get them for free.


My parents are in Israel! Can my mom go somewhere and get free mace? I worry about her!

Sorry, didn't get the joke Confused
Your mom is a regular citizen. Unfortunately, unless she lives near the border or in zones with high concentration of Palestinians or in areas where there might be terror attacks (i.e. Judea and Samaria), she can't carry any weapon with her as far as I know.
In case she's working for the military/police, she may carry a gun after proper approval.


I was really hoping that I could tell my mom where she should go to get some free mace, cause then she couldn't argue with me, and tell me that she is safe when she is in over her head, but not in trouble. She just travels there some because she is Christian and loves to go touring there.

She tavells without mace or defense of any kind... not my preference, but you say she wouldn't be allowed to carry mace if she is not a citizen?


I highly doubt it, unless someone gives it to her as a gift. You should keep in mind that Mace is not pepper spray. Actually mace contains CN gas which is, well, illegal. A pepper spray would cost very little though. 20 grams cost around 12-15$ here in Israel.
Now whether she may carry it or not - I'm not sure. I think she may though, but it's better for her to ask someone, maybe even the police.
deanhills
Wow Helios! I AM impressed, I knew you could write well, but this must be the lengthiest postings I've seen yet. Awesome OP and fantastic discussion by all.

Every society is different. The crime rate in Scenario A is much lower than the crime rate in Scenario B. If I were to live in the UK, I would have no interest in owning a gun at all. The little experience I have of England, Scenario A you described is a great exception to the rule. People in the UK on average are just not focused on guns. Scenario B is more of a rule in the US, and if I were to live in some of the crime areas in the US, particularly the one you described in Scenario B, then I definitely would want to own a gun as well as be gun prepared. Owning a gun is of course not good enough, one has to be able to use it on the double, lest someone would use it on you.

I'm all in favour of alternative weapons like pepper spray or stun guns for people who just don't like guns, nor want to be saddled with the awesome responsibility of being and staying gun prepared, looking after their guns, worrying about their guns being stored in a safe place etc. If I were to live the US and had a family, I'd want to train them in safety precautions more than owning guns, such as the installation of a high quality alarm system, and what to do when there is cause for real alarm. Common sense safety rules for when people are out in the public, and some basic moves for self-defense. Also, how to deal with difficult people, and to be wise and savvy as much as possible rather than spoiling for a fight. I'd prefer not to have a gun in the house, but if necessary, safety No. 1 would be for everyone to be able to use it properly to ensure that it is not used against them.

I agree with you however, I don't believe guns are responsible for high homicide rates, people are. There must be sociological factors in the cultures of the crime areas of the US and of London that are more significant than the number of guns that are owned by either of the two. I'd say it is the need to use a fire arm that comes first before the actual owning of the gun. Perhaps violent crime can be self-perpetuating in that way.
Helios
deanhills wrote:
Wow Helios! I AM impressed, I knew you could write well, but this must be the lengthiest postings I've seen yet. Awesome OP and fantastic discussion by all.

Every society is different. The crime rate in Scenario A is much lower than the crime rate in Scenario B. If I were to live in the UK, I would have no interest in owning a gun at all. The little experience I have of England, Scenario A you described is a great exception to the rule. People in the UK on average are just not focused on guns. Scenario B is more of a rule in the US, and if I were to live in some of the crime areas in the US, particularly the one you described in Scenario B, then I definitely would want to own a gun as well as be gun prepared. Owning a gun is of course not good enough, one has to be able to use it on the double, lest someone would use it on you.

Actually I'm recovering from a surgery so I have the time to write something here for a change!!! Razz
Crime rate isn't that low in the UK from what I hear, and is it really lower than in Texas?
Still, it doesn't matter. Crime exists everywhere and unless people have tools to defend themselves (anything from Kung Fu to a loaded Springfield) they have a higher chance of getting hurt than people who have the means to protect themselves.
If you could eliminate crime, that would be great, but it's impossible in my opinion. Therefore in reality people always have a need for personal security, even if told otherwise by government/society.
Also, people aren't focused on guns in the UK because most families out there educated their kids by methods of fear and terror (where there are guns, there are dead people and so on).
In my opinion that's the main reason for the strict gun laws. Not much can be done about it because laws rise from the reality we live in. People should stop teaching fear and start teaching responsibility - this is true for gun usage as well as driving a car, for instance. That would be a different reality, therefore different laws would be needed.


deanhills wrote:

I'm all in favour of alternative weapons like pepper spray or stun guns for people who just don't like guns, nor want to be saddled with the awesome responsibility of being and staying gun prepared, looking after their guns, worrying about their guns being stored in a safe place etc. If I were to live the US and had a family, I'd want to train them in safety precautions more than owning guns, such as the installation of a high quality alarm system, and what to do when there is cause for real alarm. Common sense safety rules for when people are out in the public, and some basic moves for self-defense. Also, how to deal with difficult people, and to be wise and savvy as much as possible rather than spoiling for a fight. I'd prefer not to have a gun in the house, but if necessary, safety No. 1 would be for everyone to be able to use it properly to ensure that it is not used against them.

Who are those people who just don't like guns? They are people who are not properly educated on the subject and fear it. It's like to be afraid of hammers or cars... how come most people aren't afraid of hammers? They can be used for murder as well. Don't you worry about them being stored in a safe place? No you don't because you were educated by the outside world to use hammers on nails, and not on human heads. Unfortunately all the education most people get on guns from monies and the media is that wherever there's a gun, people will most certainly die; that guns are tools of murder, and not tools of security. What about hunting rifles? Are they as intimidating as handguns, for instance? Would you be more intimidated by seeing a handgun in someone's house rather than a hunting rifle? See what I mean by education here?

Alarms are great, and I'm sure many gun owners in the US have alarms. Self-defence moves, dealing with difficult people - all these are awesome tools but they don't contradict gun ownership and they alone are unfortunately not enough in many cases to provide maximum personal security. And who actually wants only partial personal security?
Say a bunch of guys break in the middle of the night into your farm/house despite the alarm, you'll be literally with your pants down and have no real means of protection (maybe a baseball bat or a kitchen knife, but they have their limitations). There's this program on Discovery channel on how to survive dangerous situations, I don't remember its name now but an expert showed there how tough it is to survive an armed assault on your house. So there aren't many cases of armed robberies, maybe, but what about being outside? People get assaulted on the streets everyday, it's a fact.
So some people are lucky enough not to experience all those horrible events, that's awesome, but not all people are that lucky unfortunately. In addition, banning guns/knives/pepper sprays or anything one might carry for self-protection doesn't do any good for self-protection, and the idea that it will stop criminals from getting their hands on those things is just not correct - proof is that crime is alive and kicking.
deanhills
Hope you are recuperating well.
Helios wrote:
If you could eliminate crime, that would be great, but it's impossible in my opinion. Therefore in reality people always have a need for personal security, even if told otherwise by government/society.
Can't agree more with you on this one. The more people there are, and the greater the gap between those that have, and those that don't, probably will always create a scenario for crime.
Helios wrote:
Also, people aren't focused on guns in the UK because most families out there educated their kids by methods of fear and terror (where there are guns, there are dead people and so on). In my opinion that's the main reason for the strict gun laws. Not much can be done about it, apart from people to stop teaching fear and start teaching responsibility - this is true for gun usage as well as driving a car, for instance.
You may have a good point there. I've never thought along those lines in the UK, but here in the UAE, certainly, people would be really fearful, particularly from a religious point of view.
Helios wrote:

Who are those people who just don't like guns? They are people who are not properly educated on the subject and fear it. It's like to be afraid of hammers or cars... how come most people aren't afraid of hammers? They can be used for murder as well. Don't you worry about them being stored in a safe place? No you don't because you were educated by the outside world to use hammers on nails, and not on human heads. Unlike what Hollywood demonstrates, that if there are guns - people will die.
I would agree there are people who are fearful, but there are also people who are not interested in guns. If one were not interested in guns, enough to take care of guns responsibly, then it would be dangerous to own a gun. I know quite a few people who should not own a gun, as they would be too sloppy in storing it in a safe place, it could go off accidentally, or won't be maintained properly, or stolen.
Helios wrote:
Say a bunch of guys break in the middle of the night into your farm/house despite the alarm, you'll be literally with your pants down and have no real means of protection (maybe a baseball bat or a kitchen knife, but they have their limitations). There's this program on Discovery channel on how to survive dangerous situations, I don't remember its name now but an expert showed there how tough it is to survive an armed assault on your house. What about being outside? People get assaulted on the streets everyday, it's a fact.
Right, but maybe one could use a really good toy gun as well, like in the movies? Twisted Evil Just kidding ..... I would think that in this case it would be the responsible thing to own a gun. Hopefully there will be a dog, a great alarm system, and some hurdles on their way before I reach for my gun. I'd want to be in a position to phone 911 and increase my odds, as if it were a bunch of guys, who all have guns, I'd have a lot of odds stacked up against me. I'd need more than a gun for self protection, like being shrewd and savvy with Plans B, C, D ..... etc lined up.
Helios wrote:
So some people are lucky enough not to experience all those horrible events, that's awesome, but not all people are that lucky unfortunately. In addition, banning guns/knives/pepper sprays or anything one might carry for self-protection doesn't do any good for self-protection, and the idea that it will stop criminals from getting their hands on those things is just not correct - proof is that crime is alive and kicking.
South Africa is bad for violent crime. I would not want to live in a farm house in South Africa, or Zimbabwe for that matter. I'm not sure whether guns are always helpful when a whole gang attacks the house. As per the previous explanation, I'd want to "arm" myself with more than just a gun.
speeDemon
I think focusing to reducing crime rates is more important.. so, possession of lethal weapons should not be legalized.

Why do people perform such activities? I think:
1) They need to
2) They like to

If they're needy, it's the government's fault all in all, and if they like to, then you can't really prevent their first crime, but can catch them later, too bad.
Helios
deanhills wrote:

Helios wrote:
Also, people aren't focused on guns in the UK because most families out there educated their kids by methods of fear and terror (where there are guns, there are dead people and so on). In my opinion that's the main reason for the strict gun laws. Not much can be done about it, apart from people to stop teaching fear and start teaching responsibility - this is true for gun usage as well as driving a car, for instance.
You may have a good point there. I've never thought along those lines in the UK, but here in the UAE, certainly, people would be really fearful, particularly from a religious point of view.

Religion is just another form of educational system and a good one too from what it looks like, in my opinion.

deanhills wrote:

Helios wrote:

Who are those people who just don't like guns? They are people who are not properly educated on the subject and fear it. It's like to be afraid of hammers or cars... how come most people aren't afraid of hammers? They can be used for murder as well. Don't you worry about them being stored in a safe place? No you don't because you were educated by the outside world to use hammers on nails, and not on human heads. Unlike what Hollywood demonstrates, that if there are guns - people will die.
I would agree there are people who are fearful, but there are also people who are not interested in guns. If one were not interested in guns, enough to take care of guns responsibly, then it would be dangerous to own a gun. I know quite a few people who should not own a gun, as they would be too sloppy in storing it in a safe place, it could go off accidentally, or won't be maintained properly, or stolen.

Those who aren't interested maybe don't realise that they need it. In any case, nobody forces anyone to own anything, guns in particular. Therefore I'm having a hard time imagining those people you know owning guns. It's not that they shouldn't, they wouldn't. Also, uneducated people in general will most definitely be in danger if they go and get a loaded gun without proper education - the lack of it is the problem I'm talking about in the topic. Due to lack of education there are gun bans all over the world.

deanhills wrote:

Helios wrote:
Say a bunch of guys break in the middle of the night into your farm/house despite the alarm, you'll be literally with your pants down and have no real means of protection (maybe a baseball bat or a kitchen knife, but they have their limitations). There's this program on Discovery channel on how to survive dangerous situations, I don't remember its name now but an expert showed there how tough it is to survive an armed assault on your house. What about being outside? People get assaulted on the streets everyday, it's a fact.

Right, but maybe one could use a really good toy gun as well, like in the movies? Twisted Evil Just kidding ..... I would think that in this case it would be the responsible thing to own a gun. Hopefully there will be a dog, a great alarm system, and some hurdles on their way before I reach for my gun. I'd want to be in a position to phone 911 and increase my odds, as if it were a bunch of guys, who all have guns, I'd have a lot of odds stacked up against me. I'd need more than a gun for self protection, like being shrewd and savvy with Plans B, C, D ..... etc lined up.

In most cases you need more than a gun, but having one adds to your personal security.

deanhills wrote:

Helios wrote:
So some people are lucky enough not to experience all those horrible events, that's awesome, but not all people are that lucky unfortunately. In addition, banning guns/knives/pepper sprays or anything one might carry for self-protection doesn't do any good for self-protection, and the idea that it will stop criminals from getting their hands on those things is just not correct - proof is that crime is alive and kicking.
South Africa is bad for violent crime. I would not want to live in a farm house in South Africa, or Zimbabwe for that matter. I'm not sure whether guns are always helpful when a whole gang attacks the house. As per the previous explanation, I'd want to "arm" myself with more than just a gun.

Of course, but again, guns can be very well integrated into home security and if every family member knows how to use them it's great, apart from the other very important things like a very good alarm system, a guard dog possibly, etc etc


speeDemon wrote:
I think focusing to reducing crime rates is more important.. so, possession of lethal weapons should not be legalized.

Why do people perform such activities? I think:
1) They need to
2) They like to

If they're needy, it's the government's fault all in all, and if they like to, then you can't really prevent their first crime, but can catch them later, too bad.

I do wonder how is it possible to stop crime altogether. Focus on it as much as you want, it won't happen. You can ban whatever you want: alcohol, high speed driving... well even firearms; people will still "break the rules".

Possession of lethal weapons (such as a screwdriver) has nothing to do with crime level, in my opinion.
standready
I think there would be a lot less violence if everyone carried a weapon. This would even out the fear and intimidation factor that weapons are used for. Would you draw a weapon on someone when you knew they had a weapon also?
Ankhanu
standready wrote:
I think there would be a lot less violence if everyone carried a weapon. This would even out the fear and intimidation factor that weapons are used for. Would you draw a weapon on someone when you knew they had a weapon also?


It happens, yeah Razz
The USA and other nations with similar gun laws are fine examples of how "if everyone had a weapon" doesn't work to reduce crime.

It's pretty much the same concept as capital punishment. It's not a deterrent.
ocalhoun
I guess it's time to weigh in...


I suppose the main thing is that -- no matter how you decide to accomplish it -- you should provide your own security.
A- Society can't provide it for you; as the saying goes: when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
B- Why should you burden society with your protection, if you are able to provide it for yourself? I'm a big fan of self-sufficiency, and I wouldn't ask society to provide personal security for me any more than I would ask society to provide food for me. -- ie, I would do so as a last resort.


(Gun owner, and carrying any time I don't plan on going to a place where it's prohibited... And carrying non-weapon weapons at other times, usually... crowbar in the car, et cetera.)



Also, did I read it right that someone said a they've banned everything down to bags with bricks in them in the UK?
I didn't realize it had gotten so bad.
IceCreamTruck
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, did I read it right that someone said a they've banned everything down to bags with bricks in them in the UK?
I didn't realize it had gotten so bad.


Worse, a bag with a brick in it is still a weapon... a bag with a can of coke, however, is more common place, and can't really be called a weapon. Coke can still effective, and so they have taken things way over-board, and their are ways around such strict laws -- like beating each other with beverage containers.

Really, once you ban guns it's on. There isn't really a turning back because public education quickly declines in the absence of firearms, and any attempt to lift the ban is heralded by a rash of gun accidents and voilence as people "get used" to guns being available again, so it only reinforces the sentiment that achieved the ban.

I prefer we keep our guns as long as possible here in the states. Germany, England, and most European countries have no tolerance. Often times gun owners in those countries buy and keep their guns at "shooting houses" and if you move towns you tell the "shooting house" and they send your gun to a new location which is really just a business with a monopoly on any firearm you purchase because you have to also buy the ammo from them, and none of it can leave the store. Crazy, huh?

Oh, almost forgot that quiet hours in Germany effectively limit your access to that gun to business hours of 11am to about 5pm, and only sometimes later than 5pm or 6pm closing time of the "shooting house". You can't just go blow off steam whenever you want, but they legally cannot deny you access to your gun during a legitimate time of day because you really do own the weapon and it's licensed to you, but you can't leave with it or you are going to prison.

I never owned... only rented when I was in Europe. Debating a purchase of a firearm again thanks to this thread which I can legally keep in my house, or, thanks to Kentucky Law, can be in my glove compartment or trunk of my car. It cannot, however, be within reach ... like on passenger seat or under the driver seat or I will get in trouble, possibly concealed weapon unless I also have that permit.

didn't really notice, but I have crested 500 posts on Frihosts! Yeha! Smile

(thanks, helios)
Helios
ocalhoun wrote:
I guess it's time to weigh in...
B- Why should you burden society with your protection, if you are able to provide it for yourself? I'm a big fan of self-sufficiency, and I wouldn't ask society to provide personal security for me any more than I would ask society to provide food for me. -- ie, I would do so as a last resort.


I think that if I ran into a situation where my tools and experience can help others, I will help others. I'm not talking about carrying a weapon to provide society with security, everyone is responsible for their own security, but if a guy needs help and I'm there, I'll help. I'm sure you'd do the same thing.
adri
It's actually somewhat comparable with the amount of weapons in the world after World War II but also in World War one and two of course... If Country B feels unsafe it will produce weapons to make them feel safe or "to protect their people". Yet because Country B starts making weapons, the Countries around B will start to feel unsafe too and therefor they start making weapons, also to protect themselves.

Which is actually the same for people in general. Smile


adri
Bondings
I don't think that gun laws have a big effect on crime. Crime rate is mostly dependent on education and poverty rates. Of course you also need to take crime tourism into account (criminals from other countries taking a visit).

For an individual, it might be beneficial to have a gun for security, but only if you are trained, considering a lot of people are killed with their own gun.

For society, I don't think it is a good idea. If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too. In countries where there are few guns, most crime is done without guns or the criminals have them but rarely shoot with it. The result is that a lot less people die. However in areas where a lot of people already have guns, such laws won't have much effect.
Helios
Bondings wrote:
For society, I don't think it is a good idea. If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too. In countries where there are few guns, most crime is done without guns or the criminals have them but rarely shoot with it. The result is that a lot less people die. However in areas where a lot of people already have guns, such laws won't have much effect.


Even if it is true, those who die didn't die with a good enough chance to protect themselves. That's IMO worse than people who'd died and had something to protect themselves with.

"If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too." - and that's, I assume, because criminal minds will have an easier way to acquire guns? Eh maybe, but maybe not. I would assume that a psychological check for every license holder should be a requirement. Even if not, still more "good" people will have more chance to protect themselves. I do imagine armed criminals to be more cautious in areas where it's common to carry guns, and I don't imagine it would be a lot easier to rush in and shoot in places where it's common to carry guns compared to places where it's uncommon to carry guns (we do remember the crazy mall shooting incidents for example).
Assuming that in a given population there are less criminal minds than "good" people, there will be more "good" people carrying guns than criminals (who carry guns anyway, if they want), and if I look at the theory of evolution there must be. Of course religion may say otherwise...

Let's assume that even guns are a big red line that shouldn't be crossed (whatever...), why disallow other tools of self defence mentioned here? They are definitely less lethal than guns but can be very effective.

"The result is that a lot less people die" - I don't believe that more dead people is any worse than less dead people. The important thing is how they died and what chance did they have to survive?
I assume that gun owners are also naturally survivalists and keen on security and methods of defence, their glasses are less "pink" compared to other people. Maybe still the result will not be so grave as you might think.
Maybe a lot more criminals will die, but is that really a big problem?
Bondings
Helios wrote:
"If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too." - and that's, I assume, because criminal minds will have an easier way to acquire guns?.

No, because criminals don't need guns for most crimes unless they need it to protect themselves from guns of their victims. And if they don't need them, they usually don't carry them either.

Also, do you think that having and trying to use a gun is beneficial when the criminals have a gun too? In my opinion a gun is usually only beneficial if the other party doesn't have one. If both sides have them, people tend to get shot, which is way worse than simply losing your stuff.

Let's say a robber stands behind you with a gun against your back demanding a wallet. Grabbing your gun and trying to shoot the robber will probably cause you being shot before you can shoot yourself.

And if a small group of criminals rob your house with a gun (I guess it's usually two in the house and one in the runaway car), do you think having a gun in the house will help? They have the guns in their hands or at least close, while you are probably asleep (not prepared) and most likely the only one with a gun. The chance that you can shoot them both before one of them can shoot back at you or your family is not that big, I think.

Of course in crimes where violence is always needed (like for rape), I suppose this is different. But I think pepper spray is a better solution to that than a gun.
watersoul
ocalhoun wrote:

[...]Also, did I read it right that someone said a they've banned everything down to bags with bricks in them in the UK?
I didn't realize it had gotten so bad.


Lol, that was me.

Yep, we're pretty much locked down tightly and controlled like good little sheep here in the UK.
Well, all the people who follow the law are anyway, criminals will of course still carry unregistered guns/Tazers/knives etc.

The law, while restrictive and denying us many chances to carry anything for our protection, can be worked around in exeptional situations though. 'Reasonable force' is allowed and although it is ambiguous, I personally have been 'released with no action' after arrest and also found not guilty after a lengthy court appearance, following incidents where I felt forced to employ violence in my defence.

In short, it's usually ok to make even a pre-emptive strike if it is to prevent danger to yourself or others. Taking a man down to prevent danger can be reasonable, but stamping on his head after you've incapacitated him would not be reasonable.
Shooting a burglar (with my crossbow) who is walking up my stairs towards me while brandishing a knife could be reasonable. Shooting him in the back whilst running away after being warned about the bow would be unlikely to be deemed reasonable by the court.

I won't get into the debate about rights to own guns etc, we're so far down the controlled road in my country that it's not an issue to most people, and we would need a complete change of societies views to change any legislation. It is what it is and I accept we are totally controlled in ways I would prefer we weren't, but I do like the fact that you will rarely find a drunken fight here end up with everyone grabbing their guns and then proceeding to shoot the bar up.

Helios
Bondings wrote:
Helios wrote:
"If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too." - and that's, I assume, because criminal minds will have an easier way to acquire guns?.

No, because criminals don't need guns for most crimes unless they need it to protect themselves from guns of their victims. And if they don't need them, they usually don't carry them either.

I thought they use them to intimidate the victims. No guns? What will you intimidate the victims with? A scary mask?

Bondings wrote:

Also, do you think that having and trying to use a gun is beneficial when the criminals have a gun too? In my opinion a gun is usually only beneficial if the other party doesn't have one. If both sides have them, people tend to get shot, which is way worse than simply losing your stuff.

Let's say a robber stands behind you with a gun against your back demanding a wallet. Grabbing your gun and trying to shoot the robber will probably cause you being shot before you can shoot yourself.

Most likely the criminal is the one who has the gun, most likely for the purpose of either murder or intimidation. If a guy is a concealed carrier, nobody said the first thing he should do is draw the gun out when the criminal is obviously intimidating. As deanhills said, there are other methods and it's best to avoid violence. Therefore I also agree that it's better to give your watch and wallet, than reach for the gun. But there are situations where that gun would be beneficial for your personal security and maybe for the security of others. Also worth remembering that guns can be and are used for other purposes as well, not only for anti-personnel purposes.

Bondings wrote:

And if a small group of criminals rob your house with a gun (I guess it's usually two in the house and one in the runaway car), do you think having a gun in the house will help? They have the guns in their hands or at least close, while you are probably asleep (not prepared) and most likely the only one with a gun. The chance that you can shoot them both before one of them can shoot back at you or your family is not that big, I think.

Smart gun owners do keep guns close to them. It doesn't take time to wake if you want to wake (not talking about waking up on Monday). Anyhow, in any case of armed assault it's best to think first and reach for the gun as a last resort. What's the intention of the break-in? Do I have enemies or is it just a robbery? In any case going out gun blazing at any noise from the kitchen is not wise. Keep guns at strategic places around the house, plan a fast and safe route of escape for you and for your family (if it's possible escape as soon as you hear the noise and sure the source are unwanted people, good if the house is on fire as well), furniture and objects inside the house should be wisely pre-arranged for your benefit. It's just a matter of priorities... a house can be designed and organized for security or for beauty, maybe for both. First of all it's important to be prepared. Most people consider fire or earthquake preparations to be enough, why no break-ins ?
The better you prepared, and the better you integrate yet another tool of defence into your security system, the more chances you have to survive. If the criminals came with the intention to shoot, they will shoot, and then you'll regret not having a possibility to return fire until the police arrive due to the high-end alert system that should be present.
In any case, a gun shouldn't affect your chance of getting shot. It should affect your chance of staying alive. Act stupidly and you'll get shot in any case.

Bondings wrote:

Of course in crimes where violence is always needed (like for rape), I suppose this is different. But I think pepper spray is a better solution to that than a gun.

Why not carry both? Maybe not always, but it's worth considering on some occasions.
And a pepper spray is better than nothing, that's for sure!


watersoul wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

[...]Also, did I read it right that someone said a they've banned everything down to bags with bricks in them in the UK?
I didn't realize it had gotten so bad.


Lol, that was me.

Yep, we're pretty much locked down tightly and controlled like good little sheep here in the UK.
Well, all the people who follow the law are anyway, criminals will of course still carry unregistered guns/Tazers/knives etc.

The law, while restrictive and denying us many chances to carry anything for our protection, can be worked around in exeptional situations though. 'Reasonable force' is allowed and although it is ambiguous, I personally have been 'released with no action' after arrest and also found not guilty after a lengthy court appearance, following incidents where I felt forced to employ violence in my defence.

In short, it's usually ok to make even a pre-emptive strike if it is to prevent danger to yourself or others. Taking a man down to prevent danger can be reasonable, but stamping on his head after you've incapacitated him would not be reasonable.
Shooting a burglar (with my crossbow) who is walking up my stairs towards me while brandishing a knife could be reasonable. Shooting him in the back whilst running away after being warned about the bow would be unlikely to be deemed reasonable by the court.

I won't get into the debate about rights to own guns etc, we're so far down the controlled road in my country that it's not an issue to most people, and we would need a complete change of societies views to change any legislation. It is what it is and I accept we are totally controlled in ways I would prefer we weren't, but I do like the fact that you will rarely find a drunken fight here end up with everyone grabbing their guns and then proceeding to shoot the bar up.


So no guns to everybody in a very controlled society, agree, but why ban basically most means of self-defence? Actually when I look at that bar shoot-out, I don't imagine it being in a common neighbourhood, but rather a crime-infested one... I could be wrong though.
In any case guns were used as an extreme example here by me to say that people are educated to fear something instead of understanding its drawbacks and benefits. Same with knives.
watersoul
Helios wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Helios wrote:
"If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too." - and that's, I assume, because criminal minds will have an easier way to acquire guns?.

No, because criminals don't need guns for most crimes unless they need it to protect themselves from guns of their victims. And if they don't need them, they usually don't carry them either.

I thought they use them to intimidate the victims. No guns? What will you intimidate the victims with? A scary mask?


Lol, but nope, in unarmed Britain a knife or just a pair of fists shown to a carefully selected target will do the job. I've met many reformed ex-con street-robbers during my career and all of them have told me they pick their targets extremely well. The weedy looking guy who doesn't walk confidently is first on the list, none of the thieves actually wanted violence, just the wallet, gold chain, mobile phone etc.
By choosing an easy target you can escape with the stolen goods without ever actually needing a weapon in this country.

Helios wrote:
but why ban basically most means of self-defence?

Your preaching to the already converted here fella, I agree, the restrictions make it difficult here, you just have to be inventive and extremely careful what you say if arrested after a violent incident.
From the moment you are 'lifted' by the police your line has to be one of 'fearing for your life' to explain what you did. Anything like 'I was angry that he wanted to rob me' or 'he deserved it, dirty low-down thief' will get you charged and convicted quicker than you can shout concealed-carry!
Only 'the law' is able to decide if 'he deserved it' and stating that you made that decision (when questioned formally) will ruin any chance of defence here. We are only allowed to react based on real and justifiable fear, or for the prevention of injury to yourself and others - all of which must also be able to be argued as being 'reasonable force'.
Helios
watersoul wrote:
Helios wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Helios wrote:
"If a lot of people have/use guns, then the criminals start to carry and use them more too." - and that's, I assume, because criminal minds will have an easier way to acquire guns?.

No, because criminals don't need guns for most crimes unless they need it to protect themselves from guns of their victims. And if they don't need them, they usually don't carry them either.

I thought they use them to intimidate the victims. No guns? What will you intimidate the victims with? A scary mask?


Lol, but nope, in unarmed Britain a knife or just a pair of fists shown to a carefully selected target will do the job. I've met many reformed ex-con street-robbers during my career and all of them have told me they pick their targets extremely well. The weedy looking guy who doesn't walk confidently is first on the list, none of the thieves actually wanted violence, just the wallet, gold chain, mobile phone etc.

As a concealed gun carrier I'd gladly give them everything, as the law (and my morals) will probably be against me in case I decided to shoot or aim at an unarmed guy, even if he was a robber. In case I'm a psychopath and I still empty the magazine at the guy, then unlucky me but he shouldn't have chosen his path knowing the risks.

watersoul wrote:

By choosing an easy target you can escape with the stolen goods without ever actually needing a weapon in this country.

If I ever think about a "career change", I'll go to the UK Laughing
Bondings
Helios wrote:
I thought they use them to intimidate the victims. No guns? What will you intimidate the victims with? A scary mask?

What I meant were crimes like robbing a house. Instead of intimidation, the robbers try not to get notified most of the time and mostly run away when caught, considering the police can be there in a few minutes. And when you get robbed on the street, all they need for intimidation is a few strong-looking guys, maybe with one holding a knife. In Belgium I never heard about people getting their wallet robbed on the street with a gun. In countries with a lot of guns this happens a lot - at least if you believe the Hollywood. Wink

Murder is a different issue, but the average criminal has no goal to murder you unless you stand between him and your money.
Helios
Bondings wrote:
Helios wrote:
I thought they use them to intimidate the victims. No guns? What will you intimidate the victims with? A scary mask?

What I meant were crimes like robbing a house. Instead of intimidation, the robbers try not to get notified most of the time and mostly run away when caught, considering the police can be there in a few minutes. And when you get robbed on the street, all they need for intimidation is a few strong-looking guys, maybe with one holding a knife. In Belgium I never heard about people getting their wallet robbed on the street with a gun. In countries with a lot of guns this happens a lot - at least if you believe the Hollywood. Wink

Murder is a different issue, but the average criminal has no goal to murder you unless you stand between him and your money.


I don't believe Hollywood Wink Plus it doesn't matter even if the guy is armed with a tactical carbine... it's wiser to give him what he asks in any case. Even with a gun in my coat, he has the strategical benefit of surprise... think of it as instant checkmate.
Agree with what you're saying nevertheless.
deanhills
Helios wrote:
Religion is just another form of educational system and a good one too from what it looks like, in my opinion.
That is very true. People in general have a "mission" in life here, from the lowest ranks to the highest. I remember when I had just arrived here, and was waiting for a bus to arrive near the Fish and Vegetable Markets as well as Taxi Rank, that those people balancing fish on their heads, were walking with plenty of pride and dignity, as well as a great smile, as though they were carrying jewels instead of frozen fish on their heads. The taxi drivers acting as though they are major stake holders, rather than poor taxi drivers, being very content and full of laughs. There seems to be an order in every day and a great sense of purpose.
Bondings wrote:
Murder is a different issue, but the average criminal has no goal to murder you unless you stand between him and your money.
I guess the culture in Belgium or the UK for that matter has to be completely different to that of for example South Africa. In South Africa they would kill someone for a watch in broad daylight. And enjoy it. Violent crime has been around for centuries. In this case, again, I don't think it is the gun that is doing the killing, but the person who is using the gun with the intent to kill. If one were to own a gun in South Africa, one would have be be above average trained to use it on the double, as if not, there is a great chance it will be used on you, or definitely stolen. When robbers hit homes (usually in above average organized gangs), those are their first two priorities, looking for money and guns, and then cars follow shortly after that. They rarely leave people alive after the crime, and some of the killings are very gruesome. In the town where I grew up, where it was not as bad, we used to always carry a hand gun in the glove compartment of the car when we were travelling, and a rifle in the house. Fortunately, we never had occasion to use the guns but were always prepared for any eventuality. It was never really a very big deal, more of a common sense thing to do.
Bondings
deanhills wrote:
I guess the culture in Belgium or the UK for that matter has to be completely different to that of for example South Africa. In South Africa they would kill someone for a watch in broad daylight. And enjoy it. Violent crime has been around for centuries. In this case, again, I don't think it is the gun that is doing the killing, but the person who is using the gun with the intent to kill. If one were to own a gun in South Africa, one would have be be above average trained to use it on the double, as if not, there is a great chance it will be used on you, or definitely stolen. When robbers hit homes (usually in above average organized gangs), those are their first two priorities, looking for money and guns, and then cars follow shortly after that. They rarely leave people alive after the crime, and some of the killings are very gruesome. In the town where I grew up, where it was not as bad, we used to always carry a hand gun in the glove compartment of the car when we were travelling, and a rifle in the house. Fortunately, we never had occasion to use the guns but were always prepared for any eventuality. It was never really a very big deal, more of a common sense thing to do.

It definitely depends on the area/country and other circumstances. I agree that carrying a gun under those circumstances is a good idea.

Luckily the situation is quite different here in Belgium, I definitely would not like to live like that and would probably move to a different country if it is that dangerous. Although these kind of things do happen in Belgium, but rather as an exception than the rule. Some time ago a kid was killed with a knife by a minor because he wouldn't hand over his iPod - and this in the middle of the central train station of our capital in the middle of hundreds of people (and nobody saw it). It was given quite some media coverage/outrage.
Helios
Regarding crime level vs. number of guns in the USA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206
Bondings
Helios wrote:
Regarding crime level vs. number of guns in the USA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206

Isn't that the website of the rifles association? Let me guess what those results are ...

Anyway, with gun and crime statistics you can 'prove' it both ways. The point is that demographics, education, poverty and immigration have a way bigger effect than what a different number of guns achieve.
Helios
Bondings wrote:
Helios wrote:
Regarding crime level vs. number of guns in the USA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206

Isn't that the website of the rifles association? Let me guess what those results are ...

Anyway, with gun and crime statistics you can 'prove' it both ways. The point is that demographics, education, poverty and immigration have a way bigger effect than what a different number of guns achieve.

Well it could be a coincidence of course. Could be not. What's for sure is that it's true to the USA. Can it be the same for every country out there? Maybe not (due to demographics, education, poverty and immigration), or maybe it can. Interesting data nevertheless even if it is relevant to the US alone.

Personally I do agree that demographics, education, poverty and immigration have a much much bigger effect on crime.

In any case, I want to have some, hopefully effective, means of self-defence. As part of my individual freedom, I want to have tools with me that will aid me (and maybe others) in situations where there might be harm inflicted upon me (and maybe others)... situations without rule of law, or when any aid from the government (police?) is delayed. In US it might be guns, in Belgium it might be something else, I don't care as long as there's something and that something is effective enough (say a pepper spray, a Taser...).
Also to mention knives, unfortunately they often fall into the same category as guns, and that's plain stupid, because as a self-defence / offence tool a knife is not a good choice - however I'd still like to carry it for it might be useful in so many situation.
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
Luckily the situation is quite different here in Belgium, I definitely would not like to live like that and would probably move to a different country if it is that dangerous.
Exactly, that was why I changed countries to Canada .... it was a most amazing experience right at the beginning though. I'd forgotten how psyched up I had been from a safety point of view. I would walk around the corner and be careful when I rounded it lest there would be a gang in a car advancing from the front. I would then make my way to the opposite side of the road. Ditto walking past alleys. I'd be very careful as that is a favourite place for attacks! So when I got to Vancouver, I sometimes deliberately walked through an alley just to taste real freedom of movement. Took a while for me to relax. One of the good things about South Africa is it teaches you to use all of your antennas to be security aware. But even when you do, it's a roll of the dice. You can never tell when your number is up. Ditto in Vancouver of course, but from a stats point of view, I think the odds are a bit better. Bad part however is they don't have the same sense of humour there. South Africans are great at creating humour out of any adversity. It sounds gross maybe, but that is what gets them to survive this kind of stuff.


Helios
deanhills wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Luckily the situation is quite different here in Belgium, I definitely would not like to live like that and would probably move to a different country if it is that dangerous.
Exactly, that was why I changed countries to Canada .... it was a most amazing experience right at the beginning though. I'd forgotten how psyched up I had been from a safety point of view. I would walk around the corner and be careful when I rounded it lest there would be a gang in a car advancing from the front. I would then make my way to the opposite side of the road. Ditto walking past alleys. I'd be very careful as that is a favourite place for attacks! So when I got to Vancouver, I sometimes deliberately walked through an alley just to taste real freedom of movement. Took a while for me to relax. One of the good things about South Africa is it teaches you to use all of your antennas to be security aware. But even when you do, it's a roll of the dice. You can never tell when your number is up. Ditto in Vancouver of course, but from a stats point of view, I think the odds are a bit better. Bad part however is they don't have the same sense of humour there. South Africans are great at creating humour out of any adversity. It sounds gross maybe, but that is what gets them to survive this kind of stuff.


That's a good point. I guess some people are more paranoid than others (myself included!) Laughing
deanhills
Helios wrote:
That's a good point. I guess some people are more paranoid than others (myself included!) Laughing
I used to be paranoid! Very Happy I visit South Africa once or twice a year and when I do, I usually arrange airport transfers in advance with private transfer services. I'm not as paranoid as I used to be, but take the precautions that most South Africans do, probably also helps that I know the lie of the land and the people.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
In countries with a lot of guns this happens a lot - at least if you believe the Hollywood. Wink

Basing policy on Hollywood is not a good idea...
Though it happens far too often anyway.
IceCreamTruck
ocalhoun wrote:
Basing policy on Hollywood is not a good idea....


Please don't say Captain America isn't real! That would be just mean! Smile

In the spirit of keeping the topic alive I have always enjoyed super heroes that have no need of guns if that says anything. That's not to say that heroes don't carry guns in my mind, but a hero knows when and when not to use the weapon to solve the conflict. I can't imagine a character like Batman using a gun.

You can get good stuff even from Hollywood: "Warrior's greatest act is to lay down his weapon". Yes, that's a quote from the movie "Hero"... ironically.

Honestly, in a zombie attack, especially where you are out numbered you wouldn't be reaching for a gun, but some kind of weapon that you don't have to reload. This is why I think it's fundamentally stupid to fire a gun with the intension of violence in this country. Unless you have enough ammo to take out everyone in the USA you are attracting a lot of attention to yourself that you are not prepared to handle. They might not be zombies, but no one is allowed to get away with wantonly firing a weapon in this country.

Keep guns legal and don't be surprised when stupid people prove they are stupid... just shoot back at them! Chances are they didn't bring enough ammo to keep it up long.
Helios
IceCreamTruck wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Basing policy on Hollywood is not a good idea....

Keep guns legal and don't be surprised when stupid people prove they are stupid... just shoot back at them! Chances are they didn't bring enough ammo to keep it up long.


I agree, and I'd like to add that as long as self-defence and security is limited, criminals will always have tactical advantage over any law-abiding citizen with practically no means to defend himself.

And dude, in a zombie attack, when my back faces the wall, I'd reach for just about anything I can reach that'll kill the damn bastards! Laughing
IceCreamTruck
Helios wrote:
And dude, in a zombie attack, when my back faces the wall, I'd reach for just about anything I can reach that'll kill the damn bastards!


Point taken, but if you reached for a revolver holding 6 bullets, and if there were 12 zombies it would probably go down something like: you beat 6 zombies to dead with the gun, consider shooting the rest, but decide to beat the other six to death as well because you don't know when you are going to get more ammo for the gun and zombie beating is going well. Hopefully, even in the heat of the moment, you'd only use the gun if they gained the upper hand and the value of the gun being loaded was negligible.

I do understand that all available resources get devoted to a cause if it's in jeopardy.
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Basing policy on Hollywood is not a good idea....


Please don't say Captain America isn't real! That would be just mean! Smile

In the spirit of keeping the topic alive I have always enjoyed super heroes that have no need of guns if that says anything. That's not to say that heroes don't carry guns in my mind, but a hero knows when and when not to use the weapon to solve the conflict. I can't imagine a character like Batman using a gun.
Me too! Nothing like a guy who saves the world with hardly no weapons at all. Batman is one of my favourites! Or Mighty Mouse. Or Zorro .... Zorro was great. One thing that always amazed me about Zorro was that even in the wildest of escapades, he always managed to keep his hat on. The "Mummy" type movies with Brendan Fraser also work for me. Or James Bond. Although he was not from Hollywood. Here's an excellent Website about 007's guns - has to be real tongue and cheek guns for Iain Fleming:
http://www.vincelewis.net/bond.html
IceCreamTruck
Zorro and Batman fall into the category of having to keep their masks/hats on because otherwise it destroys the illusion.

007, I'm not sure where he falls in this, although it's a fitting place for a link to his guns... I am just curious where he comes in because we were talking about Heroes that don't use guns. 007 definitely uses a gun... this is implied in his "license to kill", and almost everyone he ever killed was with a gun. Maybe a random karate chop took someone out here and there, but if someone needed to die in the plot he either shot them, threw them off of something, threw them out of the plane (don't know if this actually happened), or pushed the button. The bad guys always die in 007, usually by getting shot.

Remember Chips? The eighties cop show where the cops rode motorcyles (harleys). No one ever even died in that show I don't believe... they were all apprehended and justice was served. Actually, I'm pretty sure some of the episodes were murder mysteries, and people died in the show, but the cops in that show used to always beat the criminals up even if they were holding a gun.
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
The bad guys always die in 007, usually by getting shot.
Well, not always ... in some cases they died quite creatively like drowning, or an explosion etc. I remember big jaws getting electrocuted, and surviving that as well.
ankitdatashn
I think for countries with very high crime rates like that in India the possession of a gun should be allowed after scrutinizing the character and profession of the individual, for countries with low crime rates guns may be allowed only for sports purposes Smile
deanhills
ankitdatashn wrote:
I think for countries with very high crime rates like that in India the possession of a gun should be allowed after scrutinizing the character and profession of the individual, for countries with low crime rates guns may be allowed only for sports purposes Smile
So are you then saying that if there were less guns available in India, that that would reduce the crime rate?
captainsuperdude
I think pellet guns should be the most dangerous thing on the street.

I've been 4 or 5 serious fights, "lost" al of them. One gutter-drunk broke my jaw back in 2006. a gang of kids threw me into a pile of dogshit in highschool... One time a drunk put me in a headlock and made me swear that I'd take care of his kids -- randomly.

People like to mess with me because I look physically intimidating, but all of those people were really just drunk and immature -- if I shot these people every time they messed with me... that'd be a lot of angry families, it would just lead to more violence.

I dunno what it is, I just keep getting bigger and stronger, losing all these fights.

jesus
IceCreamTruck
captainsuperdude wrote:
jesus


Where? Is he back? Did he touch you?

Ironic that you being large intimidates people... trying being witty (almost more sarcastic than anything) and small like me won't help. Seems people are just simply easily agitated. I don't get into fights often, but confrontations are not rare. Taking martial arts classes to refine your skills a little will only bring liability of lawsuits if the police reports are actually filed on any future events or encounters, so I just recommend taking some personal time to stretch and exercise so these encounters are not so hard on you.
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
The bad guys always die in 007, usually by getting shot.
Well, not always ... in some cases they died quite creatively like drowning, or an explosion etc. I remember big jaws getting electrocuted, and surviving that as well.


It must be March Madness cause I am seeing 007 stats in comparison to other similar movie stars in charts in my mind... funny!

Lol, you can almost hear the "super hero" commentators ... "You know Jim, Jaws is going to have some trouble recovering from electrocution in the first half, but let's see if he can pick up a new wind from the bench in the second half and demonstrate some of his legendary villainy to turn it around or he won't be going on to the finals, Jim!"
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ankitdatashn wrote:
I think for countries with very high crime rates like that in India the possession of a gun should be allowed after scrutinizing the character and profession of the individual, for countries with low crime rates guns may be allowed only for sports purposes Smile
So are you then saying that if there were less guns available in India, that that would reduce the crime rate?

Uh, no... Try the inverse: If there was a lower crime rate, there should be less guns.
(I think that's what he meant.)
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
Lol, you can almost hear the "super hero" commentators ... "You know Jim, Jaws is going to have some trouble recovering from electrocution in the first half, but let's see if he can pick up a new wind from the bench in the second half and demonstrate some of his legendary villainy to turn it around or he won't be going on to the finals, Jim!"
Big Jaws was an endearing villain. In one of his close encounters with death falling from a plane or something, he landed in a farm house obviously with lots of chickens running around, and woe behold met a lady with dark spectacles, braids and buck teeth, but completely fell in love with her at first sight. He was a fun character.
BigGeek
I live in the US in Colorado, carry a 2 3/4 inch lock blade in my pocket every where I go, my pocket knife. Anything over three inches in most states in the US is considered concealed carry and illegal. In the US you can't just walk around with a 10 inch Bowie knife on your belt.

Unfortunately the most accurate statistics reported on firearm ownership, crime, and shootings comes from the NRA, the ant-gun groups usually report misleading, or outright false statistics. Thing is like it was previously pointed out, statistics can be manipulated to say almost anything.

I own firearms quite a few of them, got into collecting a few years ago. Thing is in rural Colorado the local Sheriff tells new residents that they should have a compliment of firearms at their disposal, loaded, with everyone in the family trained to use them. Yes this is for personal protection, but not just from criminals. From class A predators as well. We have bears and mountain lions, not to mention the coyotes and foxes which are more of a threat to children, pets and smaller livestock.

Family down the street moved in from Denver, urban area, wife was a real fear monger about firearms, and about crapped her pants when the Sheriff told her, get a large caliber hand gun, .45 or larger, preferably a revolver because they don't jam. A high powered rifle, such as a 30-06, .308, nothing smaller than a .270 caliber. A plinking or varmint caliber rifle such as a .22 or .223, and a shot gun. Make sure the shot gun and pistol are loaded and within easy access and everyone in the family is trained and knows how to use them. The Sheriff told her that they are up to 30 minutes away, and with the amount of land and number of residents there is no way to ensure that they can get to any of us in a short amount of time, so it is best to be prepared.

Wildlife is not the only threat either, one of the things that goes on around here is that criminals kick your door in, and come in and tie you up, torture you, and live in your house, until they are ready to move on. Has happened on more than one occasion, where they kill the residents before leaving. More than one of these incidents has been prevented by an armed citizen retrieving their gun and killing the criminals while they are kicking the door in, usually more than one are kicking the door in, because they are armed and do not care if you know they are coming in.

Case up in Montana, 13 year old girl at home, in a rural location by her self. Two Hispanic men come up to the house uninvited and start forcing the door open. Young woman a trained skeet shooter runs up to her closet and retrieves her shot gun while the assailants have entered the house, they come up the stairs toward her in her room, she shoots the first one armed with a hand gun killing him in the hall, and shoot the other one, behind him that was able to run down the steps and out the door only to die in the front yard. Upon investigation, these two had come across the Mexican US border and left a trail of murdered and raped victims in rural homes from New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and into Montana, last victim being about 50 miles south, and they had his gun. Some of the women they had literally rapped to death!!

Criminals wanting your wallet are not the only reason to arm yourself!

My personal opinion is that it is the DUTY of every law abiding, honest, rational person to train themselves in the use and handling firearms, even if you do not own one, so that you understand them and do not fear them, and if ever needed can use and handle one!

As far as India goes, I worked with 2 men from India in Ft. Collins Colorado, when I worked for HCL an Indian based company. I took these two young men out to the rifle, pistol, and skeet range in the grasslands of northern Colorado to the shooting range I belong to. We shot all kinds of firearms, at targets, the range was packed that day with many members out there with their firearms. All of them were polite, inquisitive of my Indian visitors and allowed them to shoot their firearms and be photographed with them.

You can scream guns should be illegal all day at me, and I promise you - one day at the range shooting targets, with pistols and rifles, and shooting skeet with the shotgun, YOU WILL BE HOOKED, you'll love it, and want to do it again, it is so much fun, sure you have to be safe, practice gun safety and etiquette, but every year in the US thousands of people attend rifle ranges and shooting events with no one being injured.

Best time in Boot Camp for the US Marines was the two weeks we spent at the shooting range qualifying with the M16 and the 1911 Model .45!! You can guess what the rest of the training was like

Laughing
deanhills
BigGeek wrote:
Wildlife is not the only threat either, one of the things that goes on around here is that criminals kick your door in, and come in and tie you up, torture you, and live in your house, until they are ready to move on. Has happened on more than one occasion, where they kill the residents before leaving. More than one of these incidents has been prevented by an armed citizen retrieving their gun and killing the criminals while they are kicking the door in, usually more than one are kicking the door in, because they are armed and do not care if you know they are coming in

Case up in Montana, 13 year old girl at home, in a rural location by her self. Two Hispanic men come up to the house uninvited and start forcing the door open. Young woman a trained skeet shooter runs up to her closet and retrieves her shot gun while the assailants have entered the house, they come up the stairs toward her in her room, she shoots the first one armed with a hand gun killing him in the hall, and shoot the other one, behind him that was able to run down the steps and out the door only to die in the front yard. Upon investigation, these two had come across the Mexican US border and left a trail of murdered and raped victims in rural homes from New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and into Montana, last victim being about 50 miles south, and they had his gun. Some of the women they had literally rapped to death!!.
Sounds quite lethal where you live! I'd rather move to another place in the US, like South Dakota ...... Twisted Evil
BigGeek wrote:
You can scream guns should be illegal all day at me, and I promise you - one day at the range shooting targets, with pistols and rifles, and shooting skeet with the shotgun, YOU WILL BE HOOKED, you'll love it, and want to do it again, it is so much fun, sure you have to be safe, practice gun safety and etiquette, but every year in the US thousands of people attend rifle ranges and shooting events with no one being injured.

Best time in Boot Camp for the US Marines was the two weeks we spent at the shooting range qualifying with the M16 and the 1911 Model .45!! You can guess what the rest of the training was like

Laughing
I AM impressed! OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy
Helios
BigGeek, awesome reply there. Nothing else I can add.
Respect for the service dude!
I went to the IDF, as you can imagine, but my first shooting experience wasn't in IDF bootcamp.
However the first experience with the M16 was actually in bootcamp, which was so much fun. Ireally love the gun, in spite its known drawbacks. Was funny watching other guys who were afraid of guns before, learning in 2 weeks gun safety, taking it apart, cleaning it and of course shooting. Many many dudes got hooked on the spot at their first shooting range. Sure one or two were kind of shocked at first but afterwards I recall everybody saying it was a fun and positive experience for them.
Also trained with 1911 .45 afterwards, amongst other things Smile
ocalhoun
BigGeek wrote:
literally rapped to death!!


I know it's just a typo or misspelling... but I can't help it...

What being rapped to death might look like:
jmlworld
Guys, you should be living in another planet. In my country, we can possess guns as big as the old-school RPG-7. My father had an AK-47 and we were trained to use guns and how to shoot at the age of 10-12.
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
Guys, you should be living in another planet. In my country, we can possess guns as big as the old-school RPG-7. My father had an AK-47 and we were trained to use guns and how to shoot at the age of 10-12.
If I may ask, which country is that? Very Happy
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy


You can own a gun, and they have some roads that don't have posted speed limits!!! Get a fast car!
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
You can own a gun, and they have some roads that don't have posted speed limits!!! Get a fast car!
That sounds like a dream place to me. Wonder why Ocalhoun is not living there, as I get a sense of Ocalhoun knowing the best place for less regulations and as little as possible gun control. Very Happy
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
You can own a gun, and they have some roads that don't have posted speed limits!!! Get a fast car!
That sounds like a dream place to me. Wonder why Ocalhoun is not living there, as I get a sense of Ocalhoun knowing the best place for less regulations and as little as possible gun control. Very Happy


We should ask him! Smile
deanhills
Ocalhoooooooooooun ........ Do you think he heard me ..... Laughing Seriously though, I wonder whether there is anyone in the United States that knows more about gun legislation for the various states than Ocalhoun does. Or if he does not know it for any given State, he would probably be able to find it out on the double as he probably has all the sources neatly sorted in a database. He is also very regulation averse and probably has already nixed a few States of a list from that point of view. Twisted Evil
jmlworld
deanhills wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
Guys, you should be living in another planet. In my country, we can possess guns as big as the old-school RPG-7. My father had an AK-47 and we were trained to use guns and how to shoot at the age of 10-12.
If I may ask, which country is that? Very Happy


I think there are many countries in the same situation like my country, and though it's not good practice to carry or possess weapons as a civilian, that's the reward of being a person from a world where the term "government" is not in their books.

However, as long as the guy in the next door have weapons, its a common sense, you should have them too --of course for self protection.

To answer your question, Deanhills, I'm from Somalia. Smile
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
To answer your question, Deanhills, I'm from Somalia. Smile
Wow! As far as I have heard through the media (can we really trust them for the right information from Somalia?) guns are not a luxury, but a necessity in Somalia, and not only on the mainland. Ships that get close to the Somalia shoreline also have to make sure they are armed and protected.
CheDragon
I think it is ok, everyone should do it, but you then have a problem cuz someone with political power could shoot someone and say it was in self defense when it was not and walk free
IceCreamTruck
CheDragon wrote:
I think it is ok, everyone should do it, but you then have a problem cuz someone with political power could shoot someone and say it was in self defense when it was not and walk free


This is why our officials must stand trial just like civilians even when accidents happen. It's up to the state to press charges where the victim either won't or cannot (they are dead) bring evidence against the accused. I feel this system is not often bypassed any more, as public officials are almost in court more than regular civilians, which makes some sense since they are higher profile.

This is an example where a graphic almost got a politician, Sarah Palin, in a lot of trouble because it depicted actual "gun sight" targets on other politicians, and then one of them was shot by a civilian. She almost fried for this, but no connection to her was made. I'll still wager she doesn't like the subject all that much to this day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/sarah-palin-statement-shooting_n_806224.html

She almost was convicted of a crime for this, and she didn't carry, point, or shoot the gun.

Politicians and guns don't mix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

Honestly the Cheney incident was more suspicious to me then Sarah Palin just being a typical idiot about things. The effect of her influence is unfortunate, cause idiots will be idiots and fools will act foolish. Cheney is a complete jerk, however, and I find it hard to believe anyone in their right mind would not wait for a clear shot. I believe his excuse was that he reacted quickly and took the shot before he realized that it was his friend, but this is a rookie mistake with a weapon at best. Last I checked people who have any experience with guns actually look down the sight, view their target, and squeeze the trigger. Pulling the trigger without acquiring a target is a mistake people make too often, with deadly consequences.

I also don't like the government reporting the incident happened on Saturday the 11th, Cheney said publicly it happened on the 11th, but his paper work says it happened on Friday the 10th. The ranch owners statement puts in the incident happened on Sunday the 12th. The news didn't come out until two days after that in a press release by the white house on the 14th. I smell a rat, cause all the stories don't line up. Hey, less evidence has re-opened cold cases before.

Not even a real bone head accident like that will get Cheney out of politics much to my dismay. Just in case you wonder why I hate him, and think he should feel a bullet personally, is because he suggested we use our special forces to start a war with Iraq by having them open fire on our own troops. He goal was to get you emotionally invested in a war with Iraq -- I hate this man with every part of my being, and I know something isn't right about him shooting that man even more so because the man said it's an accident... he doesn't know one way or the other what's in Cheney's mind. It makes more sense to me if his story was "I dunno" and Cheney's was "it was an accident". Him saying it was an accident is Cheney's words coming out of his mouth, and there was plenty of time to "get to him" before the info was released.

I digress to my former reason for posting... freedom of speech and the press is what allows us to discuss this in open forum, and if enough of us believe wrong doing, then we can communicate the need to petition for a trial. This goes for any politician ... not just the Cheney Half-cocked case. Only when they revoke the freedom to contradict them, or to speak freely, should we really worry about a politician getting away with murder.
ocalhoun
the voices in my head wrote:
deanhills wrote:
OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy


IceCreamTruck wrote:
deanhills wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:
You can own a gun, and they have some roads that don't have posted speed limits!!! Get a fast car!
That sounds like a dream place to me. Wonder why Ocalhoun is not living there, as I get a sense of Ocalhoun knowing the best place for less regulations and as little as possible gun control. Very Happy


We should ask him! Smile

Well, actually... I AM moving to Montana (probably) early next year.
I have no problems with the laws here in South Dakota though, which are quite nearly as liberal (little l) as Montana's... Moving there because Montana Tech seems to be a very good school for engineering.

deanhills wrote:
Ocalhoooooooooooun ........ Do you think he heard me ..... Laughing

Of course I heard...
(Little secret: if you post in a thread that I've already posted in, I'll probably notice, because I always look for replies to what I said.)
Quote:
Seriously though, I wonder whether there is anyone in the United States that knows more about gun legislation for the various states than Ocalhoun does.

I'm pretty sure some people know more about it than me... 90% of the NRA, for starters.
One of the problems with gun control in this country is that the rules are so complicated and varied among the states that you could make a career of studying them, and still be unsure about some of the details.
The complications ensue when you have multiple layers of legislation (federal, state, municipal) all trying to regulate the same thing, but in different ways, to different extents, and for different reasons... Then it gets more complicated when you start considering the possibilities of transporting/selling/buying/using from one jurisdiction to/through another...


There are lots of loopholes that make reasonably illegal things legal... and lots of pitfalls where things that would reasonably be legal are actually illegal.
Quote:
Or if he does not know it for any given State, he would probably be able to find it out on the double as he probably has all the sources neatly sorted in a database.

No need to make my own database:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29
Quote:
He is also very regulation averse and probably has already nixed a few States of a list from that point of view. Twisted Evil

True, though only two states have (statewide) gun laws bad enough keep me away from an otherwise good place to live: California and New Jersey.
(Not that I'd want to live in Jersey anyway, of course... California's got a few nice places though.)
jmlworld
deanhills wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
To answer your question, Deanhills, I'm from Somalia. Smile
Wow! As far as I have heard through the media (can we really trust them for the right information from Somalia?) guns are not a luxury, but a necessity in Somalia, and not only on the mainland.


Sometimes the media exaggerate things, and honestly, journalism is a difficult job, you cannot tell a story accurately unless you were in the scene yourself, but they've a point to say guns are necessity in Somalia.

deanhills wrote:
Ships that get close to the Somalia shoreline also have to make sure they are armed and protected.


I think I heard some people already suggested that ships should be equipped with few fire arms, but as far I understand it, maritime laws prohibit commercial vessels to sail with guns on board. The majority of seaports do not allow ships with weapons on board and as far as these silly laws remain on the books, the pirates will raid ships in the high seas without any problem.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, actually... I AM moving to Montana (probably) early next year.
I have no problems with the laws here in South Dakota though, which are quite nearly as liberal (little l) as Montana's... Moving there because Montana Tech seems to be a very good school for engineering.
Aha ..... Another good reason to move to Montana. Good schools. Just hope not too many people come to the same conclusion and everyone gets to move to Montana ... Shocked
ocalhoun wrote:
One of the problems with gun control in this country is that the rules are so complicated and varied among the states that you could make a career of studying them, and still be unsure about some of the details.
Good point, however this is probably not limited to Montana, and the US. Now that you put it in the right perspective, this seems to be a world wide phenomenon.
ocalhoun wrote:
The complications ensue when you have multiple layers of legislation (federal, state, municipal) all trying to regulate the same thing, but in different ways, to different extents, and for different reasons... Then it gets more complicated when you start considering the possibilities of transporting/selling/buying/using from one jurisdiction to/through another...
Well said.

ocalhoun wrote:
True, though only two states have (statewide) gun laws bad enough keep me away from an otherwise good place to live: California and New Jersey.
(Not that I'd want to live in Jersey anyway, of course... California's got a few nice places though.)
Good to know. Are there stats available to prove that California and New Jersey's crime rates are lower than crime rates in other states with more relaxed gun regulations, i.e. that more gun laws have a direct effect on the number of people being killed by guns?
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
Are there stats available to prove that California and New Jersey's crime rates are lower than crime rates in other states with more relaxed gun regulations...?


I'd kinda like to do the math because I want to know that info as well, so I volunteer to attempt to make this kind of translation for lower population areas vs larger population areas like California.

I foresee a problem in that the increase in crime is exponential based on population. More people = more people committing crimes, but it's more than that I fear. You have factors such as violent crime begets violent crime. One shooting in LA can ripple out causing more shootings in the community both as a direct result of the "unrest" caused, and retaliation crimes.

Think about this in L.A. terms where we've got shooter 1, shooter 2, and shooter 3 -- and the reciprocal victim 1, victim 2, and victim 3. Now imagine we have a similar group in Montana.

Shooter 1 in L.A. shoots victim 1, and Shooter 1 shoots victim 1 in Montana. Shooter 2 in LA is feed up with all the shooting and restless nights, so the following night, after experiencing more unrest and agitation, shoots victim 2, and is retaliated against by shooter 3 who's upset and wants revenge, so shooter 2 actually becomes victim 3 in this case.

Shooter 1 in Montana shoots victim 1, and shooter 2 never even hears about it even though they live in the same town. Shooter 2 hasn't been agitated, or experiencing unrest, so the actions of shooter 1 do nothing to accelerate him into shooting victim 2 any time soon, so it almost stops there, and the resulting crime of shooter 3 in revenge never happens.

In my example LA three shootings happened relatively close together, they are all closely related, and act more like dominoes in that environment simply because the population is larger, and closer together.

In my example Montana you don't have the same domino effect. Population is small and spread out, so there is little if no true "unrest" caused by close proximity to other people who are committing crimes. I wonder what this does to comparisons, and how you could make it mathematically equal, or close enough in order to compare the ratios.

I'll wager California has more gun laws, more gun crime, and it won't be a fair comparison. Hey, we could ignore this domino effect and just say "more gun laws" = "more gun crime" and go on a "less gun laws" campaign based on our incorrect math, and bad assumptions. Hey, more scandalous politicians have been elected that way then you'd care to shake a stick at. Why can't we use partial truth to convince people of our ideas too? lol ... I'm too honest. I'd be amazingly rich if I could just stand to take advantage of weak minds.

Ugh, being nice doesn't pay.
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
I'd kinda like to do the math because I want to know that info as well, so I volunteer to attempt to make this kind of translation for lower population areas vs larger population areas like California.
OK, I like this, as it is much more fun than go look for info on the Web (a dime a dozen anyways). And Ocalhoun is sure to come up with some good original calculations too. So math away ...... Very Happy

IceCreamTruck wrote:
I foresee a problem in that the increase in crime is exponential based on population. More people = more people committing crimes, but it's more than that I fear. You have factors such as violent crime begets violent crime. One shooting in LA can ripple out causing more shootings in the community both as a direct result of the "unrest" caused, and retaliation crimes.
I completely agree with more people, adding to the math of crime, but I would qualify it with "more people per square inch of territory". Like in the cities where all people are congregating to compete for whatever money is going around, some do it legally, and others illegally, the latter of course adding to the crime stats .....

I do agree with you that crime begets time. Especially when you come from Belfast in Ireland, hell has not fury like a Irish who has been done in. They go to great lengths to avenge the killing of their dear ones.

IceCreamTruck wrote:
Think about this in L.A. terms where we've got shooter 1, shooter 2, and shooter 3 -- and the reciprocal victim 1, victim 2, and victim 3. Now imagine we have a similar group in Montana.

Shooter 1 in L.A. shoots victim 1, and Shooter 1 shoots victim 1 in Montana. Shooter 2 in LA is feed up with all the shooting and restless nights, so the following night, after experiencing more unrest and agitation, shoots victim 2, and is retaliated against by shooter 3 who's upset and wants revenge, so shooter 2 actually becomes victim 3 in this case.

Shooter 1 in Montana shoots victim 1, and shooter 2 never even hears about it even though they live in the same town. Shooter 2 hasn't been agitated, or experiencing unrest, so the actions of shooter 1 do nothing to accelerate him into shooting victim 2 any time soon, so it almost stops there, and the resulting crime of shooter 3 in revenge never happens.

In my example LA three shootings happened relatively close together, they are all closely related, and act more like dominoes in that environment simply because the population is larger, and closer together.

In my example Montana you don't have the same domino effect. Population is small and spread out, so there is little if no true "unrest" caused by close proximity to other people who are committing crimes. I wonder what this does to comparisons, and how you could make it mathematically equal, or close enough in order to compare the ratios.
Excellent analogy. The media is also not as focused and concentrated in Montana as they are in LA.

IceCreamTruck wrote:
I'll wager California has more gun laws, more gun crime, ....
Maybe the math could be as simple as that one usually first have to prove the gun crime, before there is justification for more gun laws, so if you get more crime, you get more gun laws. Question

IceCreamTruck wrote:
Ugh, being nice doesn't pay.
That is definitely true. Except when you are a kid. There is at least one stage in our lives where "nice" has some potential of being rewarding. Very Happy
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
There is at least one stage in our lives where "nice" has some potential of being rewarding. Very Happy


Good point, and now that you've opened my mind on the subject I'd have to say that "nice" old people probably see some reward for it too much the same way children do. There are many similarities between children and old people... almost a noted return to youth before we check out. George Carlin said some amazingly funny things about getting old right before he died.
deanhills
IceCreamTruck wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There is at least one stage in our lives where "nice" has some potential of being rewarding. Very Happy


Good point, and now that you've opened my mind on the subject I'd have to say that "nice" old people probably see some reward for it too much the same way children do. There are many similarities between children and old people... almost a noted return to youth before we check out. George Carlin said some amazingly funny things about getting old right before he died.
You're right .... I'd forgotten about that. There seems to be a bond between the young and old people as well, it's the time when the grand parents get to spoil their grand kids for example as well. Very Happy
Greatking
i think there is nothing wrong with protecting oneself against any evil that may rise. ladies for instance i know carry some liquid sprays that are used to spray on the eyes of bad guys and momentarily blind them so they cannot attack them.
BigGeek
deanhills wrote:
I AM impressed! OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy


I'm actually from Colorado!

ocalhoun wrote:

True, though only two states have (statewide) gun laws bad enough keep me away from an otherwise good place to live: California and New Jersey.
(Not that I'd want to live in Jersey anyway, of course... California's got a few nice places though.)


Not Maryland too, they have some really strict gun laws, as well as New York. Also Washington DC guns are illegal, which is in direct violation of the constitution!

Colorado has a law against firearm registration. Having been present in other states while friends purchased firearms, as well as having purchased a firearm myself in the state of Maryland. When you fill out the yellow BATF form for the background investigation, when they call the BATF, the dealer gives them the make, model and serial number of the firearm being purchased as well as your name and SSN.

In Colorado, you fill out the same form, the dealer calls the BATF and gives them your name and SSN, and the only firearm information they provide the BATF is "long gun" or "hand gun" no make, model, or SN is provided to the Federal Government.

One of the funny things about the news and even local papers, is that they never report self defense actions of the citizens, or at least very rarely. The NRA Magazine has a section "The Armed Citizen" that has numerous reports of citizens protecting themselves against armed assailants or protecting another person from an armed citizen.

The person from Somalia, I can honestly see why at 10-12 years old you have to learn how to handle and shoot firearms. That sounds like a scary place to live, and being armed and ready is the standard way of life for those that survive. Shocked

Oh, Montana is a great place.....I just live in Colorado Cool
deanhills
BigGeek wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I AM impressed! OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy


I'm actually from Colorado!
Right! But I was commenting on your story about the ladies from Montana being able to defend themselves as well as they did. Very Happy
_AVG_
I'm against citizens carrying arms simply for one reason ... they could (for no fault of the lay-citizens) be misused by criminals to their advantage.

So, in a nutshell, what was once a defensive device becomes a huge threat Shocked
BigGeek
deanhills wrote:
BigGeek wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I AM impressed! OK, think I will be moving to Montana now ..... Very Happy


I'm actually from Colorado!
Right! But I was commenting on your story about the ladies from Montana being able to defend themselves as well as they did. Very Happy


Yeah that story about the girl in Montana sure is a good one, 13 year old girl 2, criminals....NONE!

As far as criminals getting a hold of my firearms, I guess if they have a jack hammer and a fork lift they could get into my gun safe, but other than that, I doubt that they are going to get at them.

Saying that law abiding citizens should not own guns because someone could take them and use them for illegal purposes is not the best argument I've ever heard. Female friend of mine from China was dead set against guns and thought they should all be illegal, she had a pistol stuck in her face in down town Denver on her way back to her car after a Rockies game. She and her boyfriend were about to faint when a red neck pulled the his pistol out from under the seat of his truck and pointed it at the gang bangers head and told him to drop it. The kid dropped his gone and took off running. After that happened she went and took firearm course, and got her concealed carry permit.

Saying I'm against guns is all fine and dandy....until you need one Shocked

You know how the old saying goes......You may never need a gun, but when you need a gun, YOU REALLY NEED A GUN Cool

Like I said, my personal opinion is that the good people out number the criminals probably about 100 to 1, so (my opinion) is that it is the duty of every able body citizen to own, be trained and able to use firearms, so we can protect ourselves and each other from the crazy minority!! Exclamation
deanhills
BigGeek wrote:
Like I said, my personal opinion is that the good people out number the criminals probably about 100 to 1, so (my opinion) is that it is the duty of every able body citizen to own, be trained and able to use firearms, so we can protect ourselves and each other from the crazy minority!! Exclamation
You're lucky with the numbers at 100 to 1. I don't think it is like that all over the world, some places are really REALLY bad. Regardless of the numbers however, I do believe that owning a gun is sensible and practical, provided of course that the person does it responsibly and know how to use it. Senseless to buy a gun and stow it away. Twisted Evil
Related topics
Hacker attack
Do we need Religions?
[Official] Security: Anti-Spyware/Virus, & Firewall
Should we wear uniform to school?
Soft drugs - Ever tried them?
Should CAMERA PHONE be abolished from the market...???
Another Terrorist Plot Averted at JFK Airport
1 ip address = 1 soul
Jewish terrorist escapes UK police
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
Obama
Iran and the west
Did Obama Snub the UK?
India's own Air Force One takes to the skies............
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.