Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

True, but 5 is a hell of a lot less than 15 and 'gun' has nothing to do with 'hero'. Doing something, anything, to help other people, especially at risk to self, is heroic and wanting to do so to say nothing of doing so should be celebrated, not insulted. If someone wants to save kittens from a fire, people say that's good. If someone wants to make protecting the public and arresting criminals their job we say that's good. If someone wants to save people who are drowning, we say that's good. But the second someone proposes that they want to protect themselves and others from violent attackers, we're suddenly nuts. Worrying about anything that's unlikely is silly, but there's a lot to be said for being prepared, especially when there's lives at stake.

The requirements for CC range wider than police standards but both inevitably end up lower sometimes and higher other times. I'm in favor of a requirement for correct outfitting and basic training as are most CC advocates. That said, requirement =/= execution. In practice CCers are usually recreational shooters in far higher percentages than police officers and pull ahead in marksmanship, while police end up in the line of fire more often and therefore pull ahead with experience. However, it's important to remember that cops spend months learning to be cops, only a small portion deals with violent conflicts and that small portion is quite comparable to that which is widely available to say nothing of greatly encouraged and sometimes required for CC licenses. Gun owners do not equal CC holders, most don't. Those who go out of their way (and it really is a chore to say nothing of somewhat costly) to get the permit tend to be more realistically devoted to practicality than billy bob (who doesn't need a gubmint paper to strap a revolver to his hip). We're not talking about people who on a whim buy a gun, we're talking about people who're jumping through hoops which does keep the irresponsible out to a degree. This means that Gun hero is likely, if not quite likely, to have these things officially and as is the case with many people, intrinsically (many people just naturally have 'the tactical mindset')

Point being that CCers by and large are helps and not hindrances and the same can be said of police. The possibility exists that things break bad, I never denied that. It's just that the worst case secenarios haven't happened very often. The best cases have in healthy numbers, and the in-between is acceptable as well. We accept the risk of arming police because the good outweighs the bad, and as someone who's doing their best to plug into this world, from what I see, the good of CC outweighs the bad too. We should always strive to improve, and I think we can agree that this has and will be done.

There are plenty of studies, although my general lack of free time and willingness to google stuff prevents me from looking now, I shall on the morrow (is it a bad sign that I'm inexplicably talking fancy? meh, need caffeine >_<) Still, the conventional knowledge of people fall more knowledgeable on this subject than either of us shows that a typical (baseline, everything has a baseline that's just a reality) gunfight lasts for only seconds and something around 3 shots is the average, in terms of stray shot danger, that's nothing. The strawman I referred to is the 'fanciful white knight gun owner' you keep on referring back to as if that represents all of us (in the first post at least, though you've since clarified)

I've never denied that the US is more violent. What I've pointed out, as it were, is that gun ownership rates have very little to do with it. Poverty, drugs, and law enforcement presence do and CC functions a lot like law enforcement presence because it increases the chance of failure on the part of the criminal and increases the chances that they'll get injured, captured or killed in a similar manner. This has also been demonstrated academically, although, again, I'll have to dig it up later.

CC hasn't had an effect of very wide areas because it doesn't exert itself over wide areas, or at least not so far. In those areas where it does, we see a decrease in crime. We also see an increase of crime in places where it's strictly forbidden (because it kinda like marking out an area and saying "all cops must stay outside here. If something happens they can come in, but they have to stay outside normally) whenever you prevent an anti-crime method in an area it's gonna be chosen over others. Criminals aren't all morons, they're capable of recognizing soft (comparatively) targets. Otherwise we'd see stories about national guard bases playing host to muggings.

And stupidity can never be stopped. But pointing a gun at it is the first step on the way to removing it's presence and therefore, it's ability to harm you. If they aren't stupid, they'll run or surrender, which I also call a win.

I never said I was the statistical average. I said that the typical example is competent enough to do it right. With even the bare-bones marksmanship and training requirements of most police forces they're still capable of putting most shots into target at applicable ranges. If range is too close you use something else until you can create range, if range is too extreme, you either disengage thanks to it or close the distance. It's simple concepts that, once understood, aren't rocket science to put into practice.

It's not silly for those to whom the threat is more pronounced and carrying a weapon is really not comparable to a helmet or even a bullet resistant vest or life jacket. They all solve problems that are better dealt with in other manners, and in the bullet resistant vest's case, just unsuitable. Suddenly suffering head trauma is easily dealt with by a medical response, and learning to swim is far better than the life jacket because you don't have to carry it and swimming is fun. Violent conflicts, however, are best dealt with as they're unfolding, not after the fact, and firearms represent the most effective single tool for violent conflict survival. Like I've said, it pays to be prepared for the unlikely because it's the unlikely that makes or breaks your life. While it may constitute effort not gained from in the end, there's value in that for many of us. Since we've already got the guns, the interest and enjoy the practice , it's not that big of a leap at all.

And, for the sake of clarification, I was referring to gun control advocates in general there. So many gun controlers sit there and say 'it's unreasonable because I say so. No one could possibly act under pressure. you're all crazy'. The point isn't that they're presence is unique to one side or the other, it's that it's only to be expected from any group and I'm tired of having that hung around my neck as if they're words represent my view more than my own. Just a little minni-rant steam expelling.

As you said, having a well-prepared person is great, and we should encourage their presence especially. Those who are still useful, do good, and avoid making themselves worse in just the average sense are good too, just not as much. That bad apples, are inevitable. They exist in every practice, in every place, and in every form. The average middle zone is good, the plus side is very good and the down side is bad. That's a reason to moderate the downside not shoot the whole thing down and paint us with the same brush as you did in your first post, to an extent.

Finally, how is not entirely inapplicable to bring in the media whore types? no shit the media always shows the worst example left and right, that's what they do anymore! but there's a whole world of perfectly reasonable and many outstanding CC practitioners and advocates out there, and we need to listen to them more than the radicals in the same way as any group. We shouldn't throw out the baby with it's dirty diaper, however, and if that's what you want and what I want, let's advocate that, shall we?

Any law that actually takes guns out of criminal's hands, that reduces crime at the root, or prevents the system from being abused, I'm all for it. But none of that should even for a second stand in the way of those who're doing it right. It's those dumb laws I don't like. and it's the fact that a country with a reduced problem claims that it has no problem by stating that being ready for it is entirely unnecessary. If CC is only warranted a little bit in a country than that means access to it should be available at least a little bit.

[Gravekeeper]

But the second someone proposes that they want to protect themselves and others from violent attackers, we're suddenly nuts. Worrying about anything that's unlikely is silly, but there's a lot to be said for being prepared, especially when there's lives at stake.

Again, *you* are not the person I'd be worried about with a firearm. Its the lower half of the average divide. Still, the probability of you, or anyone outside of a uniform, being in a situation to save another life with a firearm is unlikely. It doesn't justify the "Everyone should have guns, viola, less crime" argument ( Not that you specifically were putting that forward ).

I'm in favor of a requirement for correct outfitting and basic training as are most CC advocates.

As am I. But it is not standardized. This is a problem. =/

The problem is we *are* talking about Cletus. Someone with a CC permit isn't the only one out there with a gun. Any place with an open carry law is questionable. As I said, it doesn't matter what you, the responsible, well trained gun owner does. It matters what Cletus does. He's the one that's going to reflect badly back on you, and do something stupid that gets someone(s) killed.

If someone has a CC in a state where they actually have a good, solid criteria, great. Then you know how to use that thing and when. But it also kind of puts you above the original topic at hand. Which, apparently, is we needz da guns to keep da guberment and teh bad guyz away. No, you don't, frankly.

If you want to put in the time, effort and training to carry a firearm in a responsible manner. Go for it ( In your country that is ). As I said, I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about people with firearms that can escalate a situation via bad judgment. Resulting in people getting killed. The world is full of god damn idiots, I don't want them to have guns. Simple as that. >.>

I would base my opinion of someone with a CC permit on what the criteria of said permit is. Which I did look up after reading this thread. I was not overly assured. While some states do have good criteria. Others are basically "Lawl, jus stick it in yer jeans, Bubba." when it comes to carrying a firearm.

(is it a bad sign that I'm inexplicably talking fancy? meh, need caffeine >_<)

No, fancy talk is good. Better then most talk on the Internet. ;p

And I was just being tongue in cheek in the first post ( Recall, if you will, I am a sarcastic bastard. ). Hence a reference to a movie in which Sean Connery runs around in a thong for 90 minutes. The original scenario ( and bravado behind it ) prompted the label.

I can accept the CC having an effect in an area where the CC criteria are stringent, thus ensuring the person with said CC is a well trained individual. Thus creating a sort of, as you said, supplemental force. But CC is sadly a narrow band of gun owners me thinks.

It's not silly for those to whom the threat is more pronounced and carrying a weapon is really not comparable to a helmet or even a bullet resistant vest or life jacket.

If I was in an area where there was such a prevalent threat, rather then is still a freak scenario like Gun Hero Parkade. I would consider a weapon. The problem with Gun Hero Parkade is its, as Raps put it, a scare tactic. You need only adjust the parameters to the point someone admits they would want a gun, regardless of how improbable those parameters are.

So many gun controlers sit there and say 'it's unreasonable because I say so. No one could possibly act under pressure. you're all crazy'.

I don't view responsible gun ownership as unreasonable. And even if I had a gun in Gun Hero Parkade, firing it would be my absolute last choice in the matter. My problem is the converse of yours, many pro gun advocates are very Rambo about it and seem to have themselves at the centre of these fantasy scenarios were they save the day by virtue of the all mighty gun.

I have been held up at gun point before, good ol' handgun to the head. I got out of it by remaining calm and diplomatic. No sudden moves, giving them what they wanted ( Information and $5 worth of the convenience store snacks I was carrying ). End of scenario. Everyone's alive, I lost a bag of Doritos and some Jawbreakers. Woo.

If I had whipped out a gun too, someone(s) would be dead. Even though it was not the intention of either party ( They, specifically, were trying to find a classmate of mine, as he apparently got into some gang related crap. I didn't know where he was anyhow. So they took my Doritos to save face. -.- ).

Trying to save a life is one thing, but many seem to include "property" as well and have this almost video game mentality about it. There's the bad guy! Get him!

Killing someone ( or getting killed because you escalated it ) over your stereo or wallet is ridiculous.

That's a reason to moderate the downside not shoot the whole thing down and paint us with the same brush as you did in your first post, to an extent.

My apologies, my first point was aimed squarely at the first page of the thread and the silliness therein.

And the media whoring was more of a random toss out. As it illustrates the underlying problem with the original thesis ( UK should have more gunz to stop teh bad guys ). Arming everyone would be silly. Anyone crazy enough to show up at rallies with an assault rifle should not be permitted to own said assault rifle. Though I question allowing anyone to have an assault rifle to begin with. I'll give you your side arm, but no one needs an AK-47 by their bed. Are you expecting a full platoon of armed burglars in body armour? -.-

Any law that actually takes guns out of criminal's hands, that reduces crime at the root, or prevents the system from being abused, I'm all for it.

Agreed.

But none of that should even for a second stand in the way of those who're doing it right.

If correct criteria are applied, sure.

Though I worry about those who think they're doing right. Not in the case of CC per say. But, as a recent example, that old guy that chased a bunch of guys trying to steal his trailer off of his property and then shot one in the face. At that point you're the aggressor, you're not protecting anything.

It's those dumb laws I don't like. and it's the fact that a country with a reduced problem claims that it has no problem by stating that being ready for it is entirely unnecessary.

Which dumb laws? I feel no need to be ready for a highly unlikely scenario. I can't really begrudge anyone that wants to be. Provided they aren't increasing the danger rather then decreasing it.

But back to the original post of the thread, hell, the *title* of the thread, was just a big nose thumb at Europe. What works(?) in the US is not going to work in the UK. The two are miles apart culturally. Conversely, if you tried to impose the UK or even Canada's gun control on the US, you're probably start an uprising.

Although, that whole "in case da guberment gets uppity" thing always kind of amused me. That may have worked when everyone had muskets. But the government has Apaches now. >.>

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If only I could get my hands on a stockpile of Stingers :P and while the likelihood of a thus disarmed revolt would be basically nil, I can understand and deep down agree with the idea of 'not going silent into that good night'.

Point of order, most CCers may not be required to know what they're doing by law, but this does not equate to whether or not they actually are. Most people looking to get a CC are inundated by most every advocate group of any reputability to get training, and practice their asses off. The courses in question are widely available and heavily availed of. This is no guarantee that everyone got everything they could from them, but it does go a long way.

Maybe it's my status as a 'youn'un but, I didn't get that reference at all :P anywhoo CCers represent a whopping 1% of the population, and that's just people who have the license, not necessarily 'using' it. That said, every little bit helps, and since we have established that it generally helps, then let it be the aspirin it is.

If violent crime got tot he point where it's a freak occurrence, than I'd concede the 'not gonna happen' standpoint to choose not to. As it is, there's plenty of places where it is, compared to other unlikely things, pretty likely. and in rural areas, it's fair to say that one stands to be truly screwed if they rely solely on calling for help. When any kind of response is a long way away, it really pays to be able to provide for yourself at least somewhat in many ways. Arming yourself being just one among many steps to take in the interest of self-sufficiency.

Many, many many many many CC advocates talk about preventing burglaries and such especially when the criminal is armed and threatening to use it is due to the not unfounded conclusion that, if someone is threatening your life whether it's pending you're cooperation or not, they're willing to harm or kill you. If that's so, than you have every right to retaliate in whatever way is most likely to protect you. Even robberies in which people gave them what they want can result in the death of the victim for really no reason at all.

In the end, all things are situational. Once someone's threatened your life and you have reason to believe they're capable of making good on that, lethal force is allowed. Other factors may preclude you to use or not use lethal force or to use a lesser level instead or at first. Remember: revealing a weapon or even drawing a weapon in self-defense is NOT lethal force. If some kid pulls a knife and demands money, I have every right to draw my gun and tell him to drop it or fuck off. If he decides to attack me instead, that was his decision. There's certainly a moral argument for de-escalation at all costs, but the way I personally see it, once some punk has threatened my life, I'm going to threaten his. He'll say "You're money or your life" I'll say "Fuck off or you die" he gave me an option, I said no, because I have no reason to trust him and every reason not to, so instead, I gave him an option. Anyone dumb enough to attack me at that point deserves to get shot.

When someone puts a gun to your head it's no longer just about property. You're life has been placed in the balance and it's your right take it back.

Well, when it comes to owning weapons at all, it's a matter of angle, really. In this country you're allowed to do or have whatever you want provided this doesn't threaten anyone else. It isn't a matter of whether or not I should be allowed to so much as whether or not the government has reason enough to disallow. Besides, defensive weapons come in many different forms. Pistols are the epitome of speed of access and compact storage, but stopping power is also a big factor and may be selected in the form of a shotgun while range and accuracy also plays a big role and may be selected in the form of a rifle. What with all the options and configurations and variables at play there's no one classification that's entirely unsuitable for self defense across the board. Many people defend themselves with rifles and shotguns in their homes and in some cases vehicles. Pistols are exclusively used for CC only because of the first C. When it comes down to it, I want a shotgun in my home, a rifle in my truck, and a pistol on my hip. And it's entirely down to the situation as to what type and what with they're loaded. In some example particulars, short length for in home long arms, intermediate for vehicle-based. Expanding ammunition should be used to prevent ricochets and over-penetration and the list goes on.

And I mean dumb laws like the federal assault weapons ban. The very shining beacon of political crockery that took rights away and did nothing for us in return. Many of the things listed are invented terms, and didn't do a damn thing to protect anyone. Good riddance. And some jurisdictions disallow hollow points (expanding ammunition)! Those are what youre supposed to use! they're better for the purposes of stopping the bad gun and preventing collateral ARGH!

I'm not saying it should be the same, I'm saying it should be proportional. I think that a total ban in the UK, comparatively low as it is, is not proportional.

[Boozy]

A few thoughts:

People who spend a few hours a week at a shooting range improving their marksmanship will often claim they are doing so to save their lives. They claim that becoming competent with a gun will prevent them from falling victim to violent crime.

If they believe what they're saying, then these folks are abysmally poor at risk assessment. There is a very, very, small chance that carrying a weapon will save your life.

There is, however, a one-in-three chance that you'll die of heart disease.

Those few hours a week are better spent on a treadmill than at a shooting range.

But most people who spend time at a shooting range aren't really that bad at risk assesment. They just like guns. And there's nothing wrong with that.

My only concern is when the same arguments are given to support right-to-carry laws and the sort. "I like guns" isn't good enough for me.

[lordlundar]

Then there's people like the wannabe gangsta who went to a gun range with a Desert Eagle .50 Cal (which wasn't even allowed at the range) and decided to hold it sideways while firing...

[Gravekeeper]

Then there's people like the wannabe gangsta who went to a gun range with a Desert Eagle .50 Cal (which wasn't even allowed at the range) and decided to hold it sideways while firing...

Broken nose~

Holding guns gangsta style has probably saved more lives then anything else. You aren't hitting anything gangsta style. =p

[Wingates_Hellsing]

A few thoughts:

People who spend a few hours a week at a shooting range improving their marksmanship will often claim they are doing so to save their lives. They claim that becoming competent with a gun will prevent them from falling victim to violent crime.

If they believe what they're saying, then these folks are abysmally poor at risk assessment. There is a very, very, small chance that carrying a weapon will save your life.

There is, however, a one-in-three chance that you'll die of heart disease.

Those few hours a week are better spent on a treadmill than at a shooting range.

But most people who spend time at a shooting range aren't really that bad at risk assesment. They just like guns. And there's nothing wrong with that.

My only concern is when the same arguments are given to support right-to-carry laws and the sort. "I like guns" isn't good enough for me.

Unless they're saying that they're more likely to be the victim of a crime than to have a heart attack, they're still telling the truth. Your assumption is that they are ignoring the other risks in their lives because they pay attention to this one. Moreover, the treadmill is a prevention measure, not a resolution. You can avoid heart disease through basic lifestyle choices and you can avoid crime through basic lifestyle choices. If you do have a heart attack anyway, take an aspirin and call 911, if you do end up being attacked draw you gun, and call 911. There's more to risk assessment than choosing only the most likely threats and ignoring all else, it's also about what threats you fear or worry about most, which ones are the easiest to prepare for and which you're prepared to merely accept. We've got emergency responses a call away for most things and a knowledgeable person can equip and prepare themselves to respond for themselves if necessary to most basic threats as well. It's just that everything else is dealt with through measures now comfortably mundane (the contents of your medicine cabinet and that ubiquitous fire extinguisher) while carrying a weapon of any sort is some kind of taboo.

I'll also take this opportunity to liken CC and heart attack response preparedness vs prevention like this: In both cases I might want to go out of my way to avoid by exercising day in and day out or avoiding any slightly dangerous area. But I don't want to change the way I live my life just for the sake of avoidance, so, instead I'll prepare myself to deal with the situation should it arise. Some people do both.

And even if they do like guns, because it is a prerequisite of sorts to the condition of being willing to carry one, why does that preclude them from wanting to protect themselves? What kind of bizarre world do you live in where, if you enjoy doing something you can't also appreciate or like the practicality of it as well?

I enjoy a good hike, it's fun. But it's also great exercise and helps me stay healthy(ish). Both of those reasons apply equally, do they not? I do it because it's fun and productive.

Liking guns is what makes it an option. Saving your life is why you carry it. IF saving your life isn't a good enough reason to do anything, I don't know what is.

[lordlundar]

Broken nose~

Holding guns gangsta style has probably saved more lives then anything else. You aren't hitting anything gangsta style. =p

Remember, a Desert Eagle .50 cal.

"Broken" is being polite. "Turned to mush" is more appropriate.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

A few inches higher and you'd have to go back to pre-school

the .357 is much more manageable, but magnums were always overkill so, trying to fight it's like ordering the tide not to come in :P

[ditchdj]

As for your insane knife wielding parking lot scenario. Um....pull your your cell phone, run away and call the cops? The people actually trained for this? If he's far enough away for you to pull a firearm, he's far enough away for you to disengage entirely. Or is he also the Terminator and about to chase you down the street at full sprint?

Yeah but run and cower and call 911 and pray that the nanny state comes and rescues you before they do any harm to you.

Because if you put up ANY defense, the ONLY one that will be going to jail will be you.

I'm glad that here in Indiana we have the "Castle Doctrine" that applies to both car AND home. And sadly, that would even apply to you if you were in this situation in the state of Indiana, even if you were not a citizen.

[ditchdj]

I'm quite content in Canada without the need to worry that every jackass around me might be packing a firearm. And they are jackasses. Most Americans I hear on the forefront of the Zardos Gun Is Good bandwagon are people I would never trust with a firearm. To be bluntly honest, the last thing I would want as a bystander in one of these magical Gun Hero scenarios is crossfire.

Sooooooooooooooooo...........let's drop you off in the middle of the Canadian tundra. A couple of polar bears are eyeballing you, ready to make YOU the main course of the day's dinner. In your ideal world, firearms are banned. Whatcha gonna do???? Try to talk the polar bears out of filleing you alive while you fumble with dialing 911 on your cellphone???

Over the border in Alaska you could legally carry without a permit and shoot them dead and be able to walk away with your hide intact.

In your anti-gun nanny state you'd be facing prison time for carrying a firearm.

So how about it??? Put up or shut up! If gun owners are just a bunch of jackasses.

Get out there in the wild tundra unarmed with the polar bears. Be a man.

[the_std]

And sadly, that would even apply to you if you were in this situation in the state of Indiana, even if you were not a citizen.

So... It's a sad thing if you don't support a certain law, yet that law still applies to you?

Sooooooooooooooooo...........let's drop you off in the middle of the Canadian tundra. A couple of polar bears are eyeballing you, ready to make YOU the main course of the day's dinner. In your ideal world, firearms are banned. Whatcha gonna do???? Try to talk the polar bears out of filleing you alive while you fumble with dialing 911 on your cellphone???
[/snip]
Get out there in the wild tundra unarmed with the polar bears. Be a man.

This is pretty offensive to Canadians. The great, VAST majority of us live our entire lives without encountering a polar bear in the wild. The great, VAST majority of us live urban lives like most Americans, and do not need firearms to defend ourselves from arctic wildlife. As has already been pointed out to you in a previous gun-control thread, as I recall.

[ditchdj]

So... It's a sad thing if you don't support a certain law, yet that law still applies to you?

Did I say that????

This is pretty offensive to Canadians. The great, VAST majority of us live our entire lives without encountering a polar bear in the wild. The great, VAST majority of us live urban lives like most Americans, and do not need firearms to defend ourselves from arctic wildlife. As has already been pointed out to you in a previous gun-control thread, as I recall.

It's not meant to be offensive. You have just as much of a polar bear encounter in Alaska as well. In fact, I grew up with someone whose family was from Alaska. His mother told me that she had to walk outside with a gun for protection from them. But in Canada you can't do that.

[the_std]

Did I say that????

Uhm, then what is this supposed to mean?...

And sadly, that would even apply to you if you were in this situation in the state of Indiana, even if you were not a citizen.

Also...

You have just as much of a polar bear encounter in Alaska as well. In fact, I grew up with someone whose family was from Alaska. His mother told me that she had to walk outside with a gun for protection from them. But in Canada you can't do that.

You missed the point entirely. In 95% of Canada we do not need to carry guns to protect ourselves from polar bears. Polar bears only exist in a very small piece of the country, and the great majority of the people who live in Canada will go their entire lives without seeing one in the wild. Your analogy is offensive because it's assuming that we all live in the arctic and need to carry firearms to protect ourselves from the polar bears, and that is way beyond ignorant.

[ditchdj]

Did I say that either????

If you don't want me to be "offensive" you might start by not putting words into my mouth.

Because putting words in people's mouths to put a spin on something to try to boost your personal ego is pretty ignorant too.