Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Vash113]

In your country, that's a scare tactic used to persuade people that guns are wonderful and should be used to eat your cereal with. Apparently it's going to happen every time you go shopping. Out of interest, has it ever happened to you?

Scare tactics? Really? Scare tactics are what anti-firearm "Crusaders" use to try and label all firearms as disasters waiting to happen, on the contrary I'm completely against these gun-free zone slaughterhouses where the vast majority of all major shootings occur. It's insane to send our children into pretty much unprotected locations of considerable congregation and expect them to be safe. People keep freaking out about guns but I ask you, if guns are the problem why don't we see massive shootouts over insults at a gun show or something where there are practically more guns than people?

I live near Washington D.C. where recently we had a nut try to shoot at the White House from the nearby street, and another nut walk into the Holocaust museum and shoot a guard before being taken down. We were shockingly lucky in both instances that someone was willing to risk their life to stop the individual in question, it cost the one guard his life. But these situations do happen. It is always better to have the proper tools and not need them, than to need them and not have them, I see it as no different than owning a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit.

In my country, this would be a very rare event indeed.

The difference between your country and mine is that ny culture has evolved away from the 'gun on every hip' mentality back when it was mostly melee weapons instead. Yours is a young country and looking to attack everything going, even yourselves. I can accept that you need guns over there for self defence, but it would be a burden over here considering the relatively minor crime rates compared to those in the US.

Crime still happens, but it's rare.

And yet crime rates per capita in the UK are comparable to those in the US and violent crimes are not shockingly fewer, you just swap guns for knives... violent crimes, heck crimes in general will happen regardless of the implement used.

So, here's a hypothetical situation for you.

You live your life in peace, but because of lies and deceit you're forced to carry around a weapon capable of killing people at range. You have to keep and maintain this weapon, costing you money and time, and practice with it.

What did you ever do to deserve a ball and chain like that?

Freedom? From fear? I think not.

Or perhaps some of us just... like... guns? We could have no murders in the entire country and I'd still want to own and maintain a firearm, its one of my rights and I have every intention of making use of that right. If it protects me, great, if not that's cool too. In the grand scheme of things that is not what is important, what is important is that if someone doesn't like firearms, doesn't want to have them, they don't have to. But they don't have the right to take them away from others.

P.S. Wingates, I think some people don't study their history very well, long live the Longbow!

... heck for that matter I should get a Longbow... *commence Amazon search*

[jackfaire]

Also, ditch never said that gun was the only option, merely the option in question.

Your right that there is risk to self but to detain a person with a gun you have to get close enough that they can rush you. Crazy yeah but hey he did just stab the shit out of a person. It's a personal choice at that point.

I inferred he was saying it was the only choice because his plan includes knocking the other person to the ground because they don't have a gun and assuming that if he didn't pull his they would be, "hoping for the best" not even allowing there are other ways to resolve the conflict or that the unarmed person with him might be equally capable of defusing the situation.

The guy just got caught killing someone red handed. He isn't likely going to stand there calmly and wait for the police gun or no gun.

His two choices at that point are rush you or run. In the scenario your in a parking garage which is most likely full of cars as otherwise you would have had line of sight on the guy while he was stabbing the guy. This means diving behind a car and using cars for cover while he gets out of there is a good option for him and he can probably get away.

If he is crazier and decides to rush you he has this person lying on the ground that you just knocked down to push you over making you fall now your both on the ground helpless while he takes the gun or just knifes you and runs.

[ditchdj]

The fact that you think the only way to handle this situation is to have a gun available saddens me and makes me hope your not licensed to carry one.

Yeah well like I said: If it comes down to choose between me or some scumbag like that in that situation, I'm choosing ME. And not only do I have a CCW, but the LAW here would back me up in this situation. And, if anything, I could even duck into my own car and shoot him because the "Castle Doctrine" in Indiana applies to vehicles as well as home.

In your scenario the guy is wielding a knife. It's highly doubtful a gun would be needed hell mace or a taser would be more appropriate or simple disarming him.

How do you know??? You ever encounter someone hopped up on something like PCP??? You can anything you want to them and they'll still come at you because they don't feel any pain. You'd be surprised what some people are capable of under the influence of some drugs.

What did you ever do to deserve a ball and chain like that?

Freedom? From fear? I think not.

I perfer to return to my home pretty much the same way I left. I carry not because I am afraid. I carry so that I do not become a victim.

[jackfaire]

How do you know??? You ever encounter someone hopped up on something like PCP??? You can anything you want to them and they'll still come at you because they don't feel any pain. You'd be surprised what some people are capable of under the influence of some drugs.
\

The mace would then be ineffective but the taser makes all of the muscles contract at once no matter what the person does that makes movement difficult.

Also I didn't say the gun was useless more that other options should be considered first if the person is dusted then a gun would be more useful however knocking the person your with down would still be a bad idea because you hinder their mobility and give you one more thing to worry about. From the cops I have spoken to it's pretty easy to tell someone is dusted.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Your right that there is risk to self but to detain a person with a gun you have to get close enough that they can rush you. Crazy yeah but hey he did just stab the shit out of a person. It's a personal choice at that point.

I inferred he was saying it was the only choice because his plan includes knocking the other person to the ground because they don't have a gun and assuming that if he didn't pull his they would be, "hoping for the best" not even allowing there are other ways to resolve the conflict or that the unarmed person with him might be equally capable of defusing the situation.

The guy just got caught killing someone red handed. He isn't likely going to stand there calmly and wait for the police gun or no gun.

His two choices at that point are rush you or run. In the scenario your in a parking garage which is most likely full of cars as otherwise you would have had line of sight on the guy while he was stabbing the guy. This means diving behind a car and using cars for cover while he gets out of there is a good option for him and he can probably get away.

If he is crazier and decides to rush you he has this person lying on the ground that you just knocked down to push you over making you fall now your both on the ground helpless while he takes the gun or just knifes you and runs.

I'll just address each paragraph with a paragraph in order, starting with the first: No, actually, not if you do it correctly. Once they've obeyed the command to stop, drop their weapon and raise their hands, you order them to turn around get down on their knees and then lie down. You begin maneuvering as soon as they're back is turned (so they don't know where you are) and either cuff them once they're immobilized or simply hold them at gunpoint. This way, they're only really capable of rushing you at or before this all begins at which point detaining them is, IMO, out the window. If they try to rush you after on the ground and without specific knowledge of your position, you shoot them, game over.

I think that was more of a spur-of-the moment addition intended to articulate a clearing of potential firing lines. It might be something you need to do, it might not, but the last thing you want when you've committed by drawing is someone mucking it up by getting in the way.

Who knows what any one maniac will choose to do. IMO him getting shot and/or dying, him fleeing, and him surrendering and getting caught are all perfectly acceptable outcomes.

If he decides to use the cars for cover as he flees, that's OK for me, he's fleeing. If he rushes me, assuming I have pushed someone over, I'm fairly confident that A) I could shoot him at the very least once before he reaches me and B) I wouldn't be stupid enough to be standing in front of the trip-hazard as well as C) moronic enough to drop my weapon just because I fell over or even D) not have a back-up of some sort (I've heard wonderful things about push knives).

At the very most your scenario demonstrates a (rather far-fetched IMO, but whatever) example of how using a gun might not work. Thing being that no course of action is guaranteed to work, it's not about some magical 'perfect choice' it's about making what you believe to be the best choice. Criterion for 'best' changes from person to person but for me, at least, superior armament ranks in higher than being fair.

[jackfaire]

I'll just address each paragraph with a paragraph in order, starting with the first: No, actually, not if you do it correctly. Once they've obeyed the command to stop, drop their weapon and raise their hands, you order them to turn around get down on their knees and then lie down. You begin maneuvering as soon as they're back is turned (so they don't know where you are) and either cuff them once they're immobilized or simply hold them at gunpoint.

ONe the only person that points a gun at me that I will obey especially if I just killed someone is a cop. A civilian I would risk it and leave the scene. Most people don't treat a civilian stepping into a situation the way they would a cop.

Also I never said you would drop your gun but if you fall over the person you pushed down then your gun is no longer on the other person.


Also your assuming that when you see him he does not see you. It will take you a moment to draw your gun and aim since more than likely he saw you at the same moment you saw him he is rushing you or fleeing while your pushing the person your with down and drawing a weapon.

I think a gun can be effective but your boiling it down to, "I have a gun it is all powerful no one will question a gun"

I will tell someone pointing a gun at me to fuck off and I haven't killed anyone I doubt he is going to listen or play fair because you whip out a gun.

That being said your also assuming I am saying the gun wouldn't work I am not I am just saying that the gun would be the last step not the first.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Point to the part where I said that the gun was all-powerful. I know you can't because I didn't. My case is that your examples are more than a little contrived. How do you know how any given person will react? In this hypothetical the guy could react in any of several ways all of which I addressed.

Also, falling =/= flailing hands wildly. Chances are I'd just shoot the fucker as many times as possible when he initially started running until he stopped moving. You're assuming that I or whoever wouldn't be able to react accordingly in that situation.

Reaction time and who sees who first plays into it with all weapons including preparing yourself for HTH, at least with a firearm I have the ability to put the threat down from any range as opposed to arm-distance only. The criminal is also subject to reaction time, same as the defender. Both parties have to recognize the threat, decide on a course of action, and execute it which takes a moment. In this case, the attacker as to decide to make a rush, pick up speed, close the distance and then attack while all I really have to do is decide to draw, draw and take of the safety at which point I'm ready to shoot him (see: 'point shooting')

If you decide to attack someone drawing down on you or running away that's all good and well, as I've already said (did you read my whole post?)

You're the one bombarding me with all these 'what if' scenarios all of which end in the gun being useless.

If you're facing a lethal threat, why go to half-measures? if you wait to draw a firearm until after using HTH type tools then chances are you've already either won or lost and either way you've lost the primary advantage that the gun gives you (range). It's your opinion that you should only use as much force as is proven necessary with an emphasis on using as little as possible. It's my opinion that you should only use as much force as is provoked by the aggressor with an emphasis on personal safety. Drawing a gun =/= shooting someone, but, once they are trying to kill you, what the fuck does it matter what you use to stop them?

[jackfaire]

I think in the original scenario actually that a gun could and would be very useful. However I did take issue with the original hypothetical scenario positing that if the gun was not pulled out then you would be 100% helpless to do anything.

You and me both agree that while yes the gun would be the most effective way to kill the guy cuz let's face it you either let him get away which hell the guy just fucking killed someone so no that isn't cool or he is going to rush to kill the witnesses.

However I believe that you and me also agree that in the same scenario without a gun your not suddenly rendered helpless from the lack of a gun.

However yes it seems to me that if people insist that the only form of self defense is a gun and anything less than that is useless that they are thinking of the gun as all powerful. I don't necessarily think you feel that way but there are people that would discount any self defense training as useless unless it involved using a gun.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think in the original scenario actually that a gun could and would be very useful. However I did take issue with the original hypothetical scenario positing that if the gun was not pulled out then you would be 100% helpless to do anything.

You and me both agree that while yes the gun would be the most effective way to kill the guy cuz let's face it you either let him get away which hell the guy just fucking killed someone so no that isn't cool or he is going to rush to kill the witnesses.

However I believe that you and me also agree that in the same scenario without a gun your not suddenly rendered helpless from the lack of a gun.

However yes it seems to me that if people insist that the only form of self defense is a gun and anything less than that is useless that they are thinking of the gun as all powerful. I don't necessarily think you feel that way but there are people that would discount any self defense training as useless unless it involved using a gun.

Exactly. If there's one thing I've learned about the world it's that there's always people that say they're on you're side but are also morons. While being unarmed is only a step above unarmed and paraplegic, it's not nothing.

[Nyoibo]

How do you know??? You ever encounter someone hopped up on something like PCP??? You can anything you want to them and they'll still come at you because they don't feel any pain. You'd be surprised what some people are capable of under the influence of some drugs.

And unless you get an instant kill headshot, a gun isn't going to help you any more in that situation, hell I remember a reported case of a ma who'd had his chest cavity basically emptied from a couple of shotgun blasts running over 100 yards before he died.

Just out of interest, it seems there are a few people here with a CCW, has eneyone ever had to draw their weapon because of a situation like this that apparently every one needs a weapon for to be safe?

[Rapscallion]

EDIT: @ Raps, that hypothetical makes, literally, no sense whatsoever. Where did 'forced' even get into it at all?

Peer pressure is still pressure. It's forcing by culture.

Also, all Brits were required to be immaculately well trained/proficient with the deadliest weapon in the world, no so long ago.

A few hundred years, I think you'll find. Not exactly recent.

The fact that basically all Brits were skilled longbowmen served the country and the people very well when they needed it. If we can agree as to a similar if more modern need stateside, wouldn't a similar preparedness serve both the individuals involved and the people at large a similar good?

As times and weaponry have advanced, it's not required. A far smaller percentage of the population is required to defend the nation, thus allowing for far greater economic success.

Scare tactics? Really?

Yes.

"Hey, here's a hypothetical situation where having a gun will protect you. A guy coming at you with red hands, a corpse behind him, and wielding a knife."

Yup. Scare tactic.

And yet crime rates per capita in the UK are comparable to those in the US and violent crimes are not shockingly fewer, you just swap guns for knives... violent crimes, heck crimes in general will happen regardless of the implement used.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

Slightly higher in the UK according to the second link I found on Google. Not sure who has the most laws to infringe (very likely us) and it doesn't break it down to violent or non-violent crime, but I'm sure someone would be willing to include the victims of the Holocaust in that...

Or perhaps some of us just... like... guns?

I think you may be onto something here.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Just wondering on the crime figures, how many of those crimes in the US and UK result in death?

I need to do some googling for stats when I get back, but the homicide rate difference between the US and UK is fairly significant.

Anyway, I'm about to pack up and go home from a chum's.

Probably more later.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

@ Nyoibo: While violent crimes in most areas aren't likely enough in the US in general to statistically happen to most people in their lifetimes, (about 1 in 200+) not only do many live in significantly more dangerous areas, but many others choose to carry anyway because the whole idea of a preventative measure isn't that something will happen, rather that you will be prepared if something happens.

@ Raps: By that standard Europe is forcing people to be pacifist, Germany is forcing people to speak German and Canadians are forcing people to like hockey. Every culture effects the outcome of it's people's growth and trying to slap one or the other as being 'evil' is just a tad bit hypocritical for me.

A few hundred years is pretty recent as far as human history goes.

Which is why it's perfectly suitable that only a small portion of the population wants to CC anyway.

So, you're saying that any and all attempts to present a hypothetical scenario (excellent debate tool that it is) is automatically a 'scare tactic'? It's not. It's a way of grounding a debate and it's all the more viable because, while uncommon, things like that do happen. We've never once said that they happen to everyone or that everyone should therefore be armed to the teeth, we've said that, given the possibility for something bad to happen, we would like to be allowed to prepare ourselves for that eventuality. We're willing to put forward the effort (because we don't mind) and train and maintain the equipment (because it also happens to be fun) so unless that poses some kind of significant risk, why not?

I'm also sure some people would be willing to leave out crimes in the reporting process and stuff like that. Both sides have plenty of members guilty of twisting the numbers, so, assuming a middle ground we're still conservatively estimating about the same overall crime rate with 1/3 or 1/2 as many being violent as reported in the UK than in the US. That said, in the entirety of the US, Gary Kleck has observed/proven that firearm use is far more likely to be in self-defense than in a crime as well as numerous other things.

[Rapscallion]

@ Raps: By that standard Europe is forcing people to be pacifist, Germany is forcing people to speak German and Canadians are forcing people to like hockey. Every culture effects the outcome of it's people's growth and trying to slap one or the other as being 'evil' is just a tad bit hypocritical for me.

Hmm, what's wrong with pacifism when not faced with a foe? Should everyone be going out looking for a fight instead?

A few hundred years is pretty recent as far as human history goes.

Um, no.

Four hundred years is pretty much the entire timeline for the history of the current dominating group in the US.

In the 1600s in Yurp (four hundred years back), we had Shakespeare producing works that are still taught and read today, the Dutch really set the scene for international trading, the unification of England and Scotland took place (by a Scottish king, for which the Scots have unaccountably never forgiven us...) ...

Actually, there's a metric crapload of things that happened during that century back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century for some of them. Try the other centuries - we've had plenty over here.

Which is why it's perfectly suitable that only a small portion of the population wants to CC anyway.

I don't understand your logic here.

So, you're saying that any and all attempts to present a hypothetical scenario (excellent debate tool that it is)

Excellent? Heh - one-sided more like, even including the ones I put out there. See, it's like physics. Any physics hypothesis works under specific circumstances, often involving a vacuum. If you only have a physics hypothesis to be tested on flat ground, then the results are going to be not what are expected when a hill is found. Hypothetical situations, and for this reason I'm going to try and avoid them now I've thought about them, are very, very one-sided and I can't remember any that only took into account the preferences of the person postulating them.

is automatically a 'scare tactic'? It's not. It's a way of grounding a debate and it's all the more viable because, while uncommon, things like that do happen.

Always couched as something that could happen to you, and therefore something you should do something about, preferably what the postulator wants.

We've never once said that they happen to everyone or that everyone should therefore be armed to the teeth,

The OP here posted a link to an article that inferred that Yurpeans were at greater risk because we don't eat, play, and sleep with guns. Actually, I don't see any actual argument to go along with that, so I'm assuming DitchDj had the exact same thoughts in mind as the article. As far as I'm concerned, it was a claim that we'd be safer over here if we were armed.

we've said that, given the possibility for something bad to happen, we would like to be allowed to prepare ourselves for that eventuality.

I'd like to prepare for the eventuality that I can live a peaceful life in peaceful times.

We're willing to put forward the effort (because we don't mind) and train and maintain the equipment (because it also happens to be fun) so unless that poses some kind of significant risk, why not?

This isn't about you.

The article inferred that we Yurpeans should arm up and then we'd be safer. The second article linked claimed extra evidence from death camps in WW2 to back up the number of people dead due to anti-gun legislation.

Sorry - I really can't stop bringing that up. It's such poor reasoning on behalf of the article's writer that it's hilarious.

I'm also sure some people would be willing to leave out crimes in the reporting process and stuff like that.

Oh, they do. I used to own a book called, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I do try to look for the most unbiased data, as well as the reasons behind the figures. As I said above, in the link I provided (not anyone arguing against me on this), apparently the UK has a higher crime rate per capita, but once again as I pointed out the figures are one thing but the reasons are another. I'd like to know which crimes are included in the figures (speeding for example, or other car-based crimes). I'd like to know how many laws are not corresponding in the different states. Many statistical analyses compare chalk and cheese.

Both sides have plenty of members guilty of twisting the numbers, so, assuming a middle ground we're still conservatively estimating about the same overall crime rate with 1/3 or 1/2 as many being violent as reported in the UK than in the US. That said, in the entirety of the US, Gary Kleck has observed/proven that firearm use is far more likely to be in self-defense than in a crime as well as numerous other things.

Got link? You have my interest. Logically, if a criminal breaking into a house assumes that the house owner is armed, they're more likely to be armed as well. I seem to remember that when the police began to arm up small groups over here for extreme situations, the criminals increased their arms as well, though I may have misremembered the causality there.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

By the way, I'd like to know who claimed Yurp as being a paradise for any reason, let alone because it's got fewer guns.

Rapscallion