Real life weapons

[Marek Gutkowski]

In all my life not once have I heard a gunshot fired in anger at another human being.
Lucky me I guess.
On the other side I have knife wound on my person, my mother has one my uncle was opened up from waist to the rib cage. I've be in a knife fight on a couple of occasions.

If in any of them some one pulled a gun, well morgue will been more likely that hospitalization.   

@Tanthalas.
Well they don't but they do help.
My personal stance on fire arms for self protection:
For personal and my love one's protection on a street, I bet on my own two hands and there extension(Melee weapons).
In my residence a thick door will do.
Were I live guns are rare, If they became more plentiful I guess I will have to buy one myself.

I don't like the idea of a range weapon in the hand of someone that wish too harm me, the only way for me to defend myself is to have one of my own.
That will end ugly.

Edit:
Plus I some one want me dead they will succeed one way or another.
Now I'll save my money for a new washing machine rather that buy a gun. 

[ledeper]

Giggle;In my country,if you walk around with knife above 7 cm ,you get at least 3 months in jail,not to mention any kind of firearms:1 year in prison!!!
Off course unless you are licensed as a hunter.In that case ,your riffle has to be dis-assembled and the parts is to be locked away in at least two different lock places.

[Valles]

Glad to hear that those incidents turned out well, Carth, and sad that they happened at all, but might I ask where they took place? Small town, big city, good neighborhood or bad, and so on? Dealing with Joe Loser or Mister Con? I, sloppily I admit, was referring primarily to the latter - a prepared citizen is likely to be better equipped for a confrontation than the former, who is, by definition, an idiot.

But once again, that's going to hold regardless of how 'armed' the society in general is.

If you have scientific evidence disproving this thesis, I'll welcome it...

And be utterly shocked.

[Carthaginian]

Glad to hear that those incidents turned out well, Carth, and sad that they happened at all, but might I ask where they took place? Small town, big city, good neighborhood or bad, and so on? Dealing with Joe Loser or Mister Con? I, sloppily I admit, was referring primarily to the latter - a prepared citizen is likely to be better equipped for a confrontation than the former, who is, by definition, an idiot.

But once again, that's going to hold regardless of how 'armed' the society in general is.

If you have scientific evidence disproving this thesis, I'll welcome it...

And be utterly shocked.

Well, the dude in T-loosa was a major local gang-banger, so while not exactly a member of the Gotti family, he was a rather 'well educated' hood. Had he faced our little double-date pairing, though, he could have been a Gotti family shooter... with three armed people to his one, he'd have never stood a chance. Heck, had I been the only one, he'd have been a dead man. I have my confirmed kill; I don't have to wonder what I am able to do if it's a 'him or me' situation.

The rapists- well, two were amateurs (one didn't get to gain any more experience) and the other one was literally minutes out of the pen on parole, he tried to hit one of my friends in a gas station restroom. I'll imagine that her .380 looked big enough to drive a log truck through the barrel when he faced it.

There is A LOT to say for being prepared. To be prepared, though, you must know how to be prepared, and that entails being educated in the use of your chosen tool.

Frankly, Valles... no gun control measures work except for 1.) NO GUN CONTROL or 2.) NO GUNS.
The former is impractical, as anyone can have anything... and most of the people with the heavy artillery will steal it, whereas the honest folks who need it for self-defense can't afford it legally.
The second is impossible, as every nation who has foolishly pursued it can tall you, simply because someone will find a way to either smuggle in a few thousand guns for his criminal enterprise or he will manufacture his own.

I like the system of illegal full-auto and licensed carry that is the norm in the United States. It's the best compromise IMO- anyone can own a solid firearm useful for defense, while criminals face stiff penalties if the laws are applied to their proper extent- which, alas, doesn't happen often or early enough. But that is a failing of the system rather than the laws... though instead of simply applying the existing laws more harshly, our moronic government seems to favor slapping on more poorly-enforced and ill-conceived laws.

I have to laugh at the definition of 'assault rifle' that morons in our idiotic government have randomly assigned to make everything from an SKS to an Olympic Target Pistol illegal in some States, though ;) (this being 'anything capable of semi-automatic fire and having a detachable box magazine forward of the trigger guard). Our Olympic athletes from California had to move in order to practice for a time (an exemption was later created for them)!


Anyway, in my rambling, I think my overall point is:
1.) as a concept, strict gun control looks good on paper, but doesn't really work off it.
2.) disarming everyone will only work if the whole world decides to make s'mores and sing kumbaya- if anyone is still making guns, someone who ain't supposed to have one will use it on someone who is denied the chance to own one for defense.
3.) I do find it HUGELY ironic that the countries in Europe and States in the US that have the highest number of LEGAL gun owners have the lowest crime rates. Heck, Switzerland and Israel have lower crime rates than a lot of US cities, while having more gun owners (and in Israel's case, a LOT more need for them, as they include terrorist victims in their murder rate and the US does not).

[Valles]

I suspect we're coming at the same point from opposite directions, then. ^_^

[Marek Gutkowski]

I suspect we're coming at the same point from opposite directions, then. ^_^

With is?
I seriously lost track.

[maddox]

Gun control only matters inasmuch as it changes the stakes of the criminal-and-innocent game; lawbreakers have more familiarity and interest in the tools and skills of violence than the average citizen - it's simply more relevant to their lives. Criminals will always outgun - in the figurative sense of the word - J Random Citizen, because before their 'Fateful Meeting', Mr Hood will care and Mr Citizen won't... And the cops damn well should outgun the thugs. All that being the case, having guns available in the equation simply makes it easier for people to die.

Actualy, owning a firearm without licence is already lawbreaking in most of the Eu countries, and in Belgium that includes having the rusted trough munitionless Lebel that great-grantfather stored at the attick after WW I.
There are cases know where people, who had been "caught" owning an "assault rifle" of that kind having punishment heavier than a copkiller.

It was only barely avoided that the guy who killed the young female police officer "Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen" with a sparkling new Albanian AK derivate went free, because his lawyer pointed out that the assholes arrest was unlawfull because some paperwork wasn't in order.
Currently, the killer and his 2 compatriots are still awaiting the preliminary courts decision about what court will judge them. The "normal" criminal court, or assisen (meaning a jury composed of randomly chozen Belgian Citizens).

We also had 2 "important" cases of idiots killing children at random. Hans Van Temsche bought a hunting rifle -then no licence for that was needed- and went on a very short shooting spree in the streets of Antwerp.

The other one was an even worse nutcase. Kim De Gelder, after killing an elderly woman in her own house, he went into a nursery, stabbing and killing several of the toddlers and a caretaker.

Now, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?

[Valles]

Now, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?

No, and no.

But postal cases are an inevitability, and they're inevitably going to be messy. The difference, such as it is, is going to tell in the idiot kid robbing the corner convenience store.

[ledeper]

Let me put it this way:
I would rather live in a country where I don't have to have a gun to protect myself ,than living in a country that has to have a gun/weapon to feel secure.I know this is a
possibility only if you live in a small country as Belgium or Denmark.
But for me the greatest freedom is the notion of NOT HAVING to posses a gun to feel safe.

[maddox]

I don't need a gun to protect myself, nor would it make me feel safer atm. 
On the other hand, the House of Chaos is 1 big arsenal with stabbing ,crushing and otherwise painfull or even deadly instruments of violence.

But, with all the gun control laws in Belgium, only inept policemen (the occasional adept policeman are just exceptions) and criminals have acces to firearms.

Only the UK has more strickt gunlaws in Europe, and lets compare statistics there...
The more armed the civilians ,the lower the violence. 

I agree, guns make it easier, but in the end, it's people that kill, not tools.

[Carthaginian]

Now, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?

No, and no.

But postal cases are an inevitability, and they're inevitably going to be messy. The difference, such as it is, is going to tell in the idiot kid robbing the corner convenience store.

Uhm, Val... you are aware that most such instances are conducted with 1.) threats or 2.) edged weapons... right? Firearms in crime are NOT as prevalent as people are lead to believe.


Ledeper,
I don't need a firearm to feel safe, I can feel safe in 99.9% of the places I choose to go without one. I keep the firearm close, though, because no matter how 'safe' one feels, something unforeseen can always happen. It's like buying insurance for your car- you don't NEED it all the time, but the rare occasions you do need it you are happy to have it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
I still find it interesting that Switzerland- which MANDATES gun ownership for all militia age males and then gives them their automatic service rifle for free- has a lower per capita crime rate (# 56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people) than South Korea, in which gun ownership is a capital crime (# 38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people).

Clearly, forbidding firearm ownership is not as good an idea as it looks like.

[Valles]

Uhm, Val... you are aware that most such instances are conducted with 1.) threats or 2.) edged weapons... right? Firearms in crime are NOT as prevalent as people are lead to believe.

Really? I was not aware.

Interesting. Though I'll admit I don't see the relevance to my point.

Clearly, forbidding firearm ownership is not as good an idea as it looks like.

Or is, as I've been at least trying to contend from the beginning, not a significant variable. Japan, one of the leading poster children for gun bans, is at #60 on that very list, for instance.

My point of view would be that Switzerland is an immensely well-off and stable place, Japan likewise. South Korea is less secure and less organized - or perhaps the word I want is equitable? - and so appears 'lower' on the list, while the relatively slapdash United States out-kills all three.

I get more exercised about the proselytizing Holy Writ attitude both sides take up over gun control than I do either side of the argument.

[Carthaginian]

My point of view would be that Switzerland is an immensely well-off and stable place, Japan likewise. South Korea is less secure and less organized - or perhaps the word I want is equitable? - and so appears 'lower' on the list, while the relatively slapdash United States out-kills all three.

I get more exercised about the proselytizing Holy Writ attitude both sides take up over gun control than I do either side of the argument.

I semi-agree with you. Gun control in and of itself is a variable in the equation (I give it a bit more credit than you, apparently) but the major source of problems are the PEOPLE. I disagree with money as the cause, however. The most violent places in the world have a bigger problem with a sense of COMMUNITY than they do with poverty- the least violent areas in the US are generally the least urban, and thus have the benefit of people seeing each other as neighbors rather than competitors.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0296.pdf

Cities breed crime- where ever you go. It's a sad fact of life.
People loose a sense of community, and they then loose the rest of their sense. ;)

[Valles]

I don't think that affluence qua affluence is a factor so much as relative inequity and opportunity. Certainly there are stable societies today that are also poor, although given other historical factors that mostly involves relatively small states - Bhutan is about the largest I can think of.

In any event, that's a matter for deeper sociological examination than I care to get into in this thread. ^_^