Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

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

Nothing, the problem with pacifism isn't when there's no foe, it's when there is. Carrying a weapon for the sake of preparedness =/= looking for a fight. It does equal being ready for a fight in the event that a fight occurs. No one's saying that people who don't want to carry should start carrying. What we want is for the people who do want to to be allowed to. You can do things your way, we can do things our way, everyone wins (except, the criminals).

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.

The US is by and large a young nation. Civilization's taken a big leap forward in the last few hundred years, but it's existed for far longer. With that leap the UK, at least, found that it no longer needed all of it's constituents to be trained soldiers and eventually not to have any weapons at all. The beef isn't that the majority of Europeans don't want to arm themselves it's that they don't want whatever portion that's left that does to do so. They may not need to, but there are most probably still those that want to. If they're doing so doesn't put the public at risk (which it's almost impossible to find truly neutral stats on, although if you take the middle ground the answer's still: not really) what right does anyone have to prevent them from doing so?

I don't understand your logic here.

The logic is: 'Modern technology has increased the combat capability of individuals, which suits the fact that fewer individuals preclude themselves to combat.'

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.

They're only one-sided if the people debating them formed them specifically to support their side. The point is to allow discussion of a specific part of the argument (in this case: could a gun help you when presented with a clear and present lethal threat). Like physics hypothetical, fight/combat hypothetical are used to understand individual portions of the problem so as to understand them. It's borderline impossible to understand all the different things in play at once, but if you consider, discuss, and learn about individual parts and put them together once you understand most of all of them, the result is far superior to blind, random observation. Another hypothetical we could begin discussing may involve an armed person encountering a minor situation like, a fistfight. It would be inappropriate for them to use the threat of or lethal force to end a non-lethal situation, therefore it should be common practice (and it is) for CC classes to spend a healthy amount of time laying down specifically what situations and factors can/should provoke you to draw and/or shoot. etc.

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

Only because it is something that could happen. It's not very likely for most people, but it's still out there and as such deserves some discussion. We discuss what happens if you apartment catches fire and what you should have or do to prevent or deal with that also but not quite as unlikely an eventuality, it's the same thing. A big part of life is doing things to prevent unlikely events from harming you if they do occur. The only way to really get your head around them is to discuss them within the context of them happening to the speaker or listener. Obviously people have opinions, everyone does, that's a basic part of debate. Otherwise all debate concerning scary things is a scare tactic. Bullshit, a scare tactic is when you blow something out of proportion or depict it as scary when it isn't. Since that's not what's going on here, it's NOT a scare tactic.

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.

That article, overblown and irresponsible as it was, does not make up the entirety of the arguments this side of the debate has to offer. It may share the views, but I'd like to ask the we be judged by what we do specifically and not by what people who happen to agree with us say.

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

That's cool. To each their own. But, while you're doing that, I would like to simultaneously hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It's got that practical kind of quality to it. My beef isn't with you wanting to do what you choose to do, it's that you seem to think it's your right to tell people like me we can't do things the way we choose to. Forcing people to be unarmed is just as much bullshit as forcing them to be armed.

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.

Both my brother's and my own desks are thoroughly damaged from head-decking over the comedic meanderings people like the hindrances in question spew on a regular basis.

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.

Good to know, the thing being that we're trying to compare blue cheese and some other cheese trying to figure out if one having a little more of the other would be a good or bad thing. That said, chalkcheese, like appleorangejuice, tastes like shit.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
That's the wiki and the man's page it links to. I'm having some trouble digging up links to his articles, but I'll keep working on that.

[Rapscallion]

Carrying a weapon for the sake of preparedness =/= looking for a fight.

When my experience is that there are no fights that need me to fight them, I need no weapon.

The US is by and large a young nation.

To continue the nation as a human analogy, I'd say it's going through puberty. I digress, but amusingly. Every nation has growing pains - they always seem to need civil wars to establish themselves, as well as external wars.

The beef isn't that the majority of Europeans don't want to arm themselves it's that they don't want whatever portion that's left that does to do so.

I don't understand the relevance? The OP was about Yurp in general not being armed and therefore at more risk of being mugged or having Barney the Dinosaur stickers forcibly put into our coat pockets (whatever you fear most). It wasn't about what most Yurpeans want or otherwise - it's us being told what we should do.

what right does anyone have to prevent them from doing so?

You may have heard of this concept, but I'll have to point out that the right is that of an alternative form of democracy to that in the US. The US form of democracy has the constitution at its heart and a representative democracy after that, as I understand it, but the constitutions (where they exist) in Yurpean countries ... don't all say that civilians should be allowed arms.

Astonishing, yes?

They're only one-sided if the people debating them formed them specifically to support their side.

In a debate forum, including the ones I bring to the table, I'm pretty sure they're formulated with proving a point in mind. It's why I'm going to try and avoid them in future. I can't even trust myself to bring one that isn't stupid in one way or another.

For every hypothetical situation, there are thousands of alternatives that could also happen. They're generally useless.

The point is to allow discussion of a specific part of the argument (in this case: could a gun help you when presented with a clear and present lethal threat).

In a specified circumstance, right. I'm not convinced that there could be a hypothetical situation presented on a debate forum that would be truly unbiased or useful.

I'd have to think about that for a little before returning to it.

Like physics hypothetical, fight/combat hypothetical are used to understand individual portions of the problem so as to understand them. It's borderline impossible to understand all the different things in play at once, but if you consider, discuss, and learn about individual parts and put them together once you understand most of all of them, the result is far superior to blind, random observation. Another hypothetical we could begin discussing may involve an armed person encountering a minor situation like, a fistfight.

Hypothetically, a shard of a meteor could strike them down before they threatened me.

Sorry, it's late and I feel silly right now. Coming down from a caffeine high. It's just one of those hypothetical situations.

A big part of life is doing things to prevent unlikely events from harming you if they do occur.

The instance you talk about here is less likely to my mind than it is in the US. We're not perfect. We're not the paradise claimed (though I still don't know who claimed that), but astoundingly crime still makes the headlines as an exception rather than being a rule.

Bullshit, a scare tactic is when you blow something out of proportion or depict it as scary when it isn't.

Like adding in the figures from the death camps and claiming it was down to gun restrictions?

Sorry, I really can't stop thinking about that. I'm going to be giggling about it for weeks.

That article, overblown and irresponsible as it was, does not make up the entirety of the arguments this side of the debate has to offer.

It's what was presented as argument to suggest that Yurpeans would be safer if we had armed civilians. It's what I'm responding to.

That's cool. To each their own. But, while you're doing that, I would like to simultaneously hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It's got that practical kind of quality to it. My beef isn't with you wanting to do what you choose to do, it's that you seem to think it's your right to tell people like me we can't do things the way we choose to.

Please read my previous comments in other gun threads on here.

Chronologically, from this forum I've changed my mind. I no longer think that gun control in the US is going to be a good thing until your nation achieves some sort of national maturity. Right now, you need them to try and get to that state. It may take years, but the ultimate aim of violence should be, in my mind, to be able to live in peace without the need for violence.

In short, we don't really need them over here, but you do. I accept that. I'm glad I'm far enough away not to be caught in the crossfire.

Now I'm on the receiving end of not one, but two articles making ridiculous claims, yet I'm not telling you what you should be doing.

Forcing people to be unarmed is just as much bullshit as forcing them to be armed.

Forcing? I don't know of anyone here who has the desire to be an armed civilian. Granted, I don't know everyone, but it's never come up in conversation. Well, unless you count conversations when I was eight or so, but we grew out of that.

Both my brother's and my own desks are thoroughly damaged from head-decking over the comedic meanderings people like the hindrances in question spew on a regular basis.

Fair comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
That's the wiki and the man's page it links to. I'm having some trouble digging up links to his articles, but I'll keep working on that.

Can you remind me to look at those on the morrow? Just realised that the caffeine crash is taking too much hold and since it's approaching 1am I need to head bedwards.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

You seem to think of tragedy and death when it comes to guns. This is what I tend to think of......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM

[Nyoibo]

I think of death when it comes to guns for 2 reasons

1. It's what they're made to dothe purpose of their existance it to kill.

2. I can't go more than a few days without seeing something like this http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/7534...pton-shooting/ and it being a story from Australia, not overseas.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think of death when it comes to guns for 2 reasons

1. It's what they're made to dothe purpose of their existance it to kill.

2. I can't go more than a few days without seeing something like this http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/7534...pton-shooting/ and it being a story from Australia, not overseas.

Problem with that being that successfully using a weapon =/= someone dying. The existence of all weapons, lethal or otherwise are to aid their users in the event of a conflict. Firearms and edged weapons both serve their purposes in lethal conflicts which, by their nature, involve death. The purpose of the weapon is to win, it's just that killing the threat is the most effective way to win.

Furthermore, one can also not go for very long without reading or hearing about positive use of firearms. Every time cops arrest a suspect at gunpoint, every time a good Samaritan stops a crime substantial good is done at the business end of a firearm. Extreme cases involve the death of one party or the other, the problem being that the media reports and obsesses over each and every negative occurrence and only touches on if not ignores most positive events. By now we know that the media in general is not a source of fact in and of itself and it's up to us to seek out information on the world around us.

It's confirmation bias at it's worst to think weapons are evil simply because evil things are done with them here and there. They're just tools, objects that people use to do what they want to do. It's what the person chooses to do that is moral or immoral, not the tool.

Maybe it's just me, but when I think of a gun, I think of a gun. Without some kind of context the firing bullet is just lights and noise.

[Nyoibo]

I don't think guns are evil, any more than any of the weapons I own, it's the user who is good or evil.

As to the first point, yes the purpose is to win, the weapon is the tool used to win, tools have a specific purpose, weapons purposes are to kill, they may be used in other ways but they are designed to kill.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't think guns are evil, any more than any of the weapons I own, it's the user who is good or evil.

As to the first point, yes the purpose is to win, the weapon is the tool used to win, tools have a specific purpose, weapons purposes are to kill, they may be used in other ways but they are designed to kill.

My point was that their lethality isn't the central part of their purpose merely the method. If a method existed that was both non-lethal and highly effective at ending threats most fighters would use those instead. It's the motivation that counts, really. The motivation behind a firearm's use is generally the life of the user not the death of the opponent. In that sense a firearms designed function is to save lives, by threatening opponents, destroying objects and, if necessary, taking lives.

[Nyoibo]

No, a shield or body armous function is to save lives, a guns function is to provide a platfor from which to launch a piece of metal at supersonic velocities into something else.

[crazylegs]

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...

Really?

Care to back that up with some evidence? I know that the FBI releases national crime figures for the states and the BCS (British Crime Survey) releases the figures in the UK. They're both impartial sources...

All right, you have a personal problem with my sources. OK.....then answer this......

You and I are walking into a parking garage on the upper floors. We are approached by a person with a knife. There is blood on his hands. Five cars away a person lies covered in blood and is moaning. It is very clear that our lives are in jeopardy. I have a handgun and I am trained and licensed to carry it. Would you perfer that I not use it, hope for the best? Or would you perfer I knock you to the ground, draw down, hold him at gunpoint until help arrives and if need be place as many rounds in him to stop the threat thereby saving you and possibily the person already attacked?

Of course there is - you create space.

You create space by moving away from your attacker, you step to the side. People in stessful situations very often develop tunnel vision; so by stepping to the side you essentially dissapear from view.

The assailant will be wanting to escape - if you're not in their way they (normally) won't be coming after you.

Then once they've gone go to the aid of the victim.

Have I missed anything here?

[Rapscallion]

You seem to think of tragedy and death when it comes to guns.

Is that because people add in the figures from death camps when trying to justify gun ownership?

I think of death when it comes to guns for 2 reasons

1. It's what they're made to dothe purpose of their existance it to kill.

Remember, folks. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It's easier for them to do it with guns, and they can do it from further away.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Is that because people add in the figures from death camps when trying to justify gun ownership?

Death camps where firearms weren't the primary execution method...

[Wingates_Hellsing]

No, a shield or body armous function is to save lives, a guns function is to provide a platfor from which to launch a piece of metal at supersonic velocities into something else.

Right, because no one ever designs firearms with self-defense as their primary purpose, oh wait, all handguns are 'defensive weapons' and there's an entire class of carbines and rifles dubbed 'Personal Defense Weapons'.

And, crazylegs, you forgot the part where you're putting you life almost entirely in the hands of someone who's just stabbed someone for no evident reason.

EDIT: Still working on numbers, but this article http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/0...wisted-outcome has some points.
and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita has the UK at double the number of burglaries compared to the US and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita a comparable robbery rate.

[jackfaire]

*sighs* Guns aren't the only way to defend oneself and if a person is incapable of doing so without a gun then they are screwed when they run out of ammo.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

*sighs* Guns aren't the only way to defend oneself and if a person is incapable of doing so without a gun then they are screwed when they run out of ammo.

Even a skilled HTH fighter doesn't stand much of a chance of getting through an armed fight much less a knife fight without injury, which can easily be fatal. An inch in the right place or a blow to the head will kill you just as dead as a bullet.

Not to say that it isn't important to fight back, or to know how best to do that. It still stands however that handgun gives you the capability to end a situation before a knife or similarly armed threat can engage at all whilst remaining effective at close range.

Also, that's what spare mags are for, in any given firefight much less confrontation at all you're probably going to expend only a few shots. Since even the 1911's comparatively pathetic capacity of 7 is still most likely not going to run out, a modern handgun's 15-20 is basically guaranteed not to. If you use more than one mag much less your spares, something gone terrible wrong and you'd best get your ass to a long arm.

EDIT: I feel like I'm stuck falling off a waterfall into the land of the lost...

[jackfaire]

My point is everytime I hear people praise guns they do so in the, "All other forms of defense mean your already dead" which frankly is the stupidest thing I have ever heard and makes it hard to take people that feel that way seriously since they obviously don't know much about defense.