Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

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.

Maybe it's just me but the people I hear from (the one's that actually carry and have training and all that, you know, 'important' stuff) basically agree that there's a difference between capably defending yourself and remaining unharmed are not the same thing. And the key difference between presenting a weapon and just hoping they don't decide to attack you is that the person in control is you and the criminal respectively. Who is it that you want to be in control?

P.S. Yes, it's always possible to influence an outcome but that's not the same as exerting control. With a deterrent, such as a firearm, you have much more 'say' in what goes down than without.

[jackfaire]

P.S. Yes, it's always possible to influence an outcome but that's not the same as exerting control. With a deterrent, such as a firearm, you have much more 'say' in what goes down than without.

The gun doesn't say who is in control the person willing to risk more says who is in control.

I am not going to just let the person with a knife have control and or kill me because I am not carrying a gun.

The carriers I know would disarm the person using HTH which yes can be done without harming yourself and the gun would be their last resort.

[crazylegs]

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.

Really?

Using BCS and FBI stats raw I've worked out that in the US in 2008 there were 730.8 burglaries per 100,000 and in the UK in 2008 there were 460.78 burglaries per 100,000.

How does that mean that the burglary rate is double that in the UK?

Using the same impartial stats I've worked out that in the US robbery is at a rate of 145.4/100,000 and in the UK it's 115.2/100,000.

Hardly comprable are they?

[Rebel]

I'm always curious as to why gun-loving Americans feel the need to attack other countries, particularly those in Europe, when they try to justify their right to guns.
The most annoying thing is when they falsify the facts like the OP did.

I'm from Australia, a country that has very strict gun laws. Why do we have them? Well, because of Port Arthur. Following that tragedy, Australia reexamined the need for guns and found any argument for guns to be lacking. As a result, tougher restrictions were introduced, including the banning of automatic and semi-automatic guns, and severe restriction of handguns.

This isn't to say that we don't have guns. I think it's about 5% of the population owns guns. In fact, my personal trainer at the gym I used to go to used to recount to me every session about his goal of being able to own a gun. In the end, it may have taken over a year, but this is how he went;
-Applied for gun license.
-Had police check performed. Passed.
-Had psychiatric check performed. Passed.
-Gave reason for wanting to own a gun.
-Went to shooting range and practised at least 2 times a week.
-Was certified and issued gun license.
-Purchased police approved gun and stored it at shooting range.
-Purchased police approved safe and installed it in his house.
-Had police inspect safe and approve the transfer of gun to his house.
-Had gun in his house, in the safe, with bullets stored seperately from gun.
-The end.

Pretty standard. I shudder to think of someone being allowed to purchase a gun and taking it home without any place safe to store it and with no psychiatric check. And in Australia, you must be a member of a sporting club of other such institution in order to be allowed a gun. That way it ensures all gun owners are kept properly trained in operating, cleaning, and storing their guns.

The main point of gun control in Australia is that there is no such option as 'Self Defense' when trying to buy a gun. Just doesn't happen. Why? Because there is a very fine line between self-defense and being the aggressor. If you want a gun, it has to be because of feral animal control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting.

And just to clarify, this isn't me attacking people in America who own guns and are trained in the proper use and care of them. If you want a gun and are prepared to treat them with the respect the deadly weapon they are deserves, then all the more power to you. My beef is with those who feel it's their god given right to have a gun, carry it around with them 'just in case', and feel the need to verbally attack people who don't see a gun as nessesary. Oh! And those who take Fox News at face value. Coz that's just funny.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let me put it this way, again. It's not impossible to disarm someone given enough proficiency, it is however extremely risky because you're actively engaging your opponent within the range of their weapon. A skilled HTH practitioner does not equal a 100% success rate most certainly not against a skilled knife fighter. Using a firearm eliminates the threat to a far greater extent than HTH training because you have the advantage of range. By eliminating/dealing with the threat at range you've thus taken care of it before it has a chance to inflict harm while an HTH engagement opens you up significantly.

I'm not saying it isn't viable, I'm saying it's not comparatively viable. Firearms are a last resort meaning only that you should only use them when warranted. Any lethal threat warrants a lethal response under the correct circumstances so the only reason not to use a firearm is to avoid harming the criminal by putting yourself at risk. I don't go for that. Once someone's trying to kill you there's every reason to kill them first. Anything less is a courtesy, not a necessity.

What do you picture as a last resort in that sense? You nobly engage the attacker in close quarters in an attempt to take their weapon, fail, and then what? if you've failed they're already probably opening you up like a side of beef. If it's a deadlock, then your chances of reaching your weapon, drawing it and using it before they can attack again are slim at best. HTH training is what you use when faced with a non-lethal threat or for whatever reason can't respond with a weapon of your own. In every respect except being nice to killers it's inferior. Useful, but inferior and in life and death situations the last thing you should be doing is dicking around.

Oh, and crazylegs, my sources are impartial too. if you'd followed and checked out the links you'd know that. They use the UN's findings. Since we both have impartial sources that come to the opposite conclusions, we have to ask ourselves 'why?' and the best answer I've found (which has it's own evidence) is that police-based numbers are representative more of the populace's willingness to report crimes and the agency's in question's classification methodology than actual numbers of crimes.

EDIT: I see reason to criticize anti-gun establishments for a variety of reasons. Massacres like the one at port Arthur are terrible things and there's nothing anyone can or should say to try and change that. But they are uncommon and by and large isolated incidents. You can very successfully prepare for them but there's really no way to prevent them. Disturbed people will always find a way to break our hearts and giving up rights isn't going to change that. What's even more absurd is that they banned weapons that weren't even used in the shootings they were responding to, if that isn't bullshit I don't know what is.

It is a god given right, in my opinion to defend yourself, your family and your property. Part of that is equipping yourself accordingly. People like myself and most every actual self-defense aficionado or practitioner rarely attack the beliefs of people who don't see guns as necessary. We criticize their policies, actions, ignorance and hypocrisy where applicable, as well we should. We aren't spitting at you or calling you pea-brained little hippie dipshits as much as were tempted to given all the 'John Wayne complex' and small-penis allusions. I think we represent the kind of gun owners and self-defence advocates that deserve listening to. It's perfectly fine that we have different opinions, and differing ways of living our lives. The problem isn't that we disagree, it's that one side is making the other side illegal, based on bullshit.

[Rapscallion]

The most annoying thing is when they falsify the facts like the OP did.

Oh, DitchDJ didn't falsify figures. He just linked to articles that did just that.

I still find it amusing.

Rapscallion

[Rebel]

I see reason to criticize anti-gun establishments for a variety of reasons. Massacres like the one at port Arthur are terrible things and there's nothing anyone can or should say to try and change that. But they are uncommon and by and large isolated incidents. You can very successfully prepare for them but there's really no way to prevent them. Disturbed people will always find a way to break our hearts and giving up rights isn't going to change that. What's even more absurd is that they banned weapons that weren't even used in the shootings they were responding to, if that isn't bullshit I don't know what is.

It is a god given right, in my opinion to defend yourself, your family and your property. Part of that is equipping yourself accordingly. People like myself and most every actual self-defense aficionado or practitioner rarely attack the beliefs of people who don't see guns as necessary. We criticize their policies, actions, ignorance and hypocrisy where applicable, as well we should. We aren't spitting at you or calling you pea-brained little hippie dipshits as much as were tempted to given all the 'John Wayne complex' and small-penis allusions. I think we represent the kind of gun owners and self-defence advocates that deserve listening to. It's perfectly fine that we have different opinions, and differing ways of living our lives. The problem isn't that we disagree, it's that one side is making the other side illegal, based on bullshit.

You say that massacres are an uncommon event. I agree with you there.
But saying that, so are rapes, murders, muggings, assaults, home invasions, kidnappings, etc.
They are horrible events for peoples lives, but they don't happen to everyone, and they don't happen everyday in the same area.
Like most anomalies like these, they can be avoided without the use of deadly force or the use of guns.

The weapons Australia banned, had no other purpose but to kill (automatic and semi-automatic guns), and handguns purpose is to be able to carry them around with you easily. Handguns are also a lot easier than shotguns to conceal.
Shotguns and the like have a purpose in hunting and feral animal control, and they also have a professional sport associated with them. That's why shotguns are not banned.

And while you criticize people who are against guns with your own valid reasons, so too do those who argue against guns.
And what 'Bullshit' do you speak of? The deaths of dozens of people and a public pleading for tougher restrictions? I've already pointed out that you can still get guns in Australia, you just have to have a very good reason for getting them, and you have to be properly trained. I see that as common sense. The fact is, nearly all Australian's see no need for guns in our society, just like a lot of people from the UK, Europe, and even America.

Another thing I want to ask is how many people have actually had to use their gun in self defense. I'm not talking about a friend of a friend, or someone in a news report from a close town because going by that, even I know someone who has had to use a gun like that. No, I'm talking 1 degree of separation. Have you, or someone close to you (friend, family member, neighbour) had to use a gun to protect themselves? And I'm not asking that to be snarky, I'm actually curious to see how many people have had to do so. And if they have, what sort of neighbourhood of city do they live in? Information like that is far more valid than anything you see on television.

But by a lot of pro-gun supporters ideas, we should all have a gun to protect ourselves no matter the situation we live in.

Hey, I happen to live next to a park where magpies swoop you during nesting season in spring. I actually know of a few people who I went to school with who have gotten gouges in the top of their heads, and 1 boy who lives on my street who had his eye gouged out by them. Should I shoot them all instead of avoiding the park during the season as I currently do? After all, that would count as proactive self defense.

Oh, DitchDJ didn't falsify figures. He just linked to articles that did just that.

I still find it amusing.

Heh, yeah sorry, I meant to say about the articles he had linked.
Either way, tis funny.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The combination of violent crime and crime in general is still uncommon for any individual, but worlds ahead of mass-shootings. It's very much plausible to be a victim of crime et al, basically impossible when most any is considered individually and that's why 'mass murder' is ridiculously unlikely. Most people (as in basically everyone) can avoid situations like that because you don't have to. The purpose of the gun is to deal with a situation in which avoidance is not possible or fails, not a replacement. Contrary to misconception, CCer's are not 'looking for a fight'.

Incorrect. Semi-automatic weapons include most handguns which are also used for sport. 'Sporting rifles' aka semi-automatic rifles are as well, quite often, in fact. Only automatic weapons aren't, although I suspect that has more to do with the almost unilateral impossibility of ownership and the borderline insane costs involved. Even so, if something's not causing a problem, why ban it? remember, PO is not an accurate barometer of whether something's a problem or not.

I never said that the other side doesn't have valid arguments, I just don't think they're valid enough to warrant a removal of my rights. The bullshit of banning weapons that have never been used in a crime. Of removing rights you don't have to. Passing restrictive laws that don't make anyone any safer. And yes, the bullshit twisting of facts that both sides are guilty of in droves. It's bullshit to pass a law because of an isolated, anecdotal incident instead of the raw facts. Why is it that not seeing guns as necessary automatically means that they should be banned? If you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one.

You tell me that you don't want anecdotal evidence in the form of articles or hearsay, and then ask for exactly that sort of evidence from me. If that's not bullshit, well, you get the idea. The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter. Most CCers and gun owners in general don't end up using them for that purpose, but it still happens in large numbers nationwide. Preventative measures like gun ownership aren't by their nature always used. Most people go without needing a fire extinguisher, but we still have them. If you're willing to put in the money and effort the fact that it may go untapped isn't important. You may not think it's worth it, I do, it's an individual decision.

There's a huge fucking difference between advocating something being allowed and advocated for, and insisting that everyone needs or should be forced to have it.

Don't be silly, it can be enjoyable, but some of us are trying at least to have a serious debate. In that spirit of seriousness, however:

In this instance, you probably can't shoot the birds because it would take a marksmen to do so and it's overkill to say nothing of ineffective (no matter how many you kill there's gonna be more). However, it would be advisable to wear a sturdy and secure hat (such as a boonie) and maybe even wrap-around sunglasses if such protection is both comfortable and valuable to you. You're talking about pre-emptive self-defence, which is called vigilantism when it comes to human beings. Proactive would be killing the birds when and only when they attack you, thing being I know of no device suitable for such a task. Unless you happen to be a falconer.

[Nyoibo]

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'.

To use an old quote "Polish a turd, it's still a turd" you can call something "defensive" all you want it's still a weapon of offense , defense poretty much precludes an act of overt violence, the use of a gun is that.

Shotguns and the like have a purpose in hunting and feral animal control, and they also have a professional sport associated with them. That's why shotguns are not banned.

Quick correction, single and double barrel shotguns are not banned, pump action and semi-automatic shotguns are.

Another thing I want to ask is how many people have actually had to use their gun in self defense.

I already asked that, no one's answered it.

[KnitShoni]

To answer that question: My husband has had to use his to defend not only himself and our family, but a neighbor whose husband was trying to kill her and was trying to get into our house, where she and their kids had come to escape him, to do so. I've had to brandish it to deter a burglar when my husband was out of town.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I call bullshit on you're charming turd analogy as it's a gross oversimplification. What makes a tool or action offensive or defensive is it's application and usage. The act of disarming someone is violent, but clearly defensive because it's purpose is focused on the protection of the disarming party at the cost of (often) the harm of the disarmed. Anything done explicitly to defend ones-self is defensive. Which is not to say that a defensive effort cannot become offensive if the person goes beyond defense in order to harm their opponent. Besides which, what you think constitutes offense doesn't apply either seeing as how there are very specific legal definitions in play. Aggressive just means forceful, and that's exactly what you need to come out on top of a conflict once it's gotten violent.

I would also like to point out that, in my neighborhood no less, a bolt action rifle was used in a three week long shooting spree resulting in ten deaths, one of which took place at a Home Depot that my parents had left under and hour before. While the chances of a concealed carry holder discovering the shooters' position after the shot(s) would have been slim, it's probable that, had someone in fact made such a discovery, they most certainly could have done something about it.

Moreover, as Knitshoni and many other gun owners and relatives thereof can attest: firearms have and will continue to help save lives. However, this evidence is just as anecdotal as news reports and articles and is therefore irrelevant. Statistics however, still stand and on that note, prominent criminologist Gary Kleck published a study that concluded that, at least in it's year of survey and probably most years, guns are used to stop over 8 million crimes in the United States. The majority involved only a statement or visual reveal of the firearms presence and would-be attackers backed off. Fewer involved a drawn weapon and fewer still involved shots fired. He also published a study that concluded that your chance of survival and injury avoidance is higher when resisting as well as proportionate to the method used (nothing being the worst ranging up through non-lethal weapons, edged weapons, and firearms.)

I believe I've answered this question three times already in this thread alone, you may not be happy with it, but that doesn't discount the fact that it is an answer.

[Rebel]

I believe I've answered this question three times already in this thread alone, you may not be happy with it, but that doesn't discount the fact that it is an answer.

You've only stated why you believe Americans should have the right to own a gun.

The OP is about gun restrictions in Europe and about how certain American groups are trying to prove it's not working. How have you answered that?

And how could you answer it properly unless you lived in Europe?

America =/= everywhere else in the world.

You may not like our answers but it doesn't make them any less correct.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The crime rates in Europe were already low and are in fact rising.

I'm first in line when it comes to Us =/= UK or any other European nation because differing situations are... as that adverb implies, different.

However, I see no reason why the correct application of a firearm would be any less effective against a European thug than an American one. Our cultures and laws may differ greatly but a gun's still scary and a .45 slug's still deadly. I've every reason to believe that warding off an attacker with a gun will play our basically the same regardless of where you do it. I've said that several times as well.

Of course the cultural and legal differences play a huge impact in the regulatory parameters and cultural acceptability. In that sense that which works here is doomed to fail over there. But I'm confident someone of sufficient will and knowledge could get it done, so to speak. For instance, since the UK and numerous other European really seem to go for the nanny state ideal of heavy regulation and lot's of those proverbial 'jumping hoops' it's probable that a similar system would satisfy both the gov and culture of said nations and their culture. Anti-gunnies get the assurance that their benevolent caretakers are filtering the applicants for baddies and thus ensuring acceptable safety and whoever feels passionately about the issue and has time and effort enough to jump through said hoops can at least get what they want somehow.

Now, I can't truly speak to how this would go over but, assuming open minds, there's a decent if not good chance that such a system would work for y'all as well as ours does for us (although there really should be a set of federal 'hard'n'fasts' so that I can at least know that an semi-auto under this amount loaded with this is safe everywhere saving some people a lot of time and money including the courts. but I digress.)

I mean, the Isreali method wouldn't go down even here. I mean, fuckin hell, they got armed civilian volunteers guarding schools and a higher CC rate than Texas. Civvies with pistols over there have stopped everything from suicide bombers to group massacres with automatic weapons. If there isn't a strong case for armed civilians in general there, I'm living in opposite land and it's time for me to buy that hello kitty AR15 to secure my masculinity.

[Rapscallion]

I mean, the Isreali method wouldn't go down even here. I mean, fuckin hell, they got armed civilian volunteers guarding schools and a higher CC rate than Texas. Civvies with pistols over there have stopped everything from suicide bombers to group massacres with automatic weapons. If there isn't a strong case for armed civilians in general there, I'm living in opposite land and it's time for me to buy that hello kitty AR15 to secure my masculinity.

Horses for courses. They're pretty much about to be invaded by most of their neighbours most years. Truth to tell, were I in a situation where my country was in that position, I'd be armed up as well.

Terrorist attacks over here on the UK mainland are pretty damned rare. They happen, but it's very unusual. Over there, it's pretty much a fact of life.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

The crime rates in Europe were already low and are in fact rising.

Really? Care to back that up with independant statistics?

Because I can issue a substantial rebuttal.

BCS measures crime in the UK - both recorded crime by the police and independant measurement.

All crimes have fallen by 45% between 1995 - 2008/09 (the BCS now follows financial years).

Domestic burglary is down 58% in the same period

All BCS violence is down 49%, again during the same time span.

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdf...sb1109vol1.pdf

The BCS has a nice pretty graph that shows that although crime peaked in the early 90s it has been falling steadily since then.

Where are your stats?