Guns, guns, guns

[SuAside]

euhm, just how do you qualify 'very poor'?
in Belgium there are 20 firearms per 100 inhabitants.
in Germany there are 35 firearms per 100 inhabitants.
in Switzerland there are 40 firearms per 100 inhabitants.

And Europe has how many countries again? I know you're convinced that only your Germanic ubermensch brethren count, but puh-leaze.

the aim was more to point out that there are significant differences between countries and that the "European" in this context simply does not exist. when it comes to guns, there's not a certain standard that every european country adheres to.

anyhow, the countries above represent 100 million european citizens, nonetheless.

What these stats do show, however, is that gun control is not only effective at keeping guns out of the hands of normal people with mental problems - it is also effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, ultimately the main point. The fact that 4 out of 5 handguns in New York are out of state is by itself a testimony to the effectiveness of gun control, but also a testimony to the problem of different legal policies in neighboring states and countries.

euhm. sorry, but no.

4/5th of the guns used in european crime come from the eastern block countries. this also in countries like Switzerland where the laws are pretty relaxed.
your extrapolation makes no sense. it just shows they get their guns from another (usually illegal AND cheaper source). whowouldvethunkit? criminals going for illegal and cheap guns? wtf?

criminals aren't really likely to follow gunlaws.

It also shows that by far the most gun deaths are suicides, which opens up the question of whether we should care about that, and that accidents are an incredibly minor part of gun deaths - yet many debates rage around that aspect with the smallest impact.

note that suicides are routinely included in the murder statistics in most countries.

When I say "the europeans" I mean an average of the population. I clearly not stating 100% of the population has such conviction, it would be foolish. But I can reasonably suppose less than 50% of the european want a gun, and I think it's a rather plausible assumption.

less than 50% of europeans want motorcycles.

what's your point?

how does this even come into this discussion?

hasnt the UK violent crime per capita risen above the US in all areas but gun violence?

i heard that somewhere.

doesnt the UK have strong anti-gun laws?

well, crime was already on the rise when they banned most firearms entirely.

but it has been noted that since the ban, the rising curve of crime rates have greatly steepened. this also includes firearms crime, which is logical. ban guns and people will get rid of them (includes selling to the highest bidder, dumping guns out of spite,...).
most popular remains knives however.

I have read somewhere which might be true or not that more people comit suicide with guns at home then without them potentially cause the gun supports a short decision which leaves not much time to get a sane mind again.

succesful suicide rates are far higher with guns than by any other means. why? you can't stomachepump a 12 gauge slug out of someone's brain, for instance.
why do gun owners commit suicide with guns? well because they're most likely to die from it quickly, of course. why the fuck would you hang yourself if you got a double barreled shotgun?

It might be in situations with crime similar where guns lower for the one or other criminal the constraint of doing a crime.

guns do give a feeling of empowerment, but again: in general guns used in crimes are not legally owned guns, not even where the gun laws are very lax... criminals do not follow laws...

 

[Sander]

But to answer the question- the role of guns- in short is to make violence more lethal. Sure a criminal can rob you at gun point or murder you with a knife, but guns make such events more lethal events. Its hard to do a drive by with a crossbow although its theoretically possible. Likewise, its much easier for a domestic disturbance to reach lethal violence when a gun is present. Domestic incidents could become violent without guns- but guns make it easier.

This is true, but it's also a question of how big of an influence that really is.

Welsh, your position on gun control is obvious, but what are your views on gun control on state run groups? One could argue that having police officers armed while it's citizens are restricted from owning firearms shifts the balance of power in the states favor, and undermines alot of the purposes of the guns laws in United States in the first place. Would you be for or opposed to a system like that in the UK where street patrolmen are unarmed and only use non-lethal methods to detain criminals, while they still have weapons for special tactics teams when the need to be armed is required?


Personally, looking at the track record of excessive force within the law enforcement agencies in United States, having this system could automatically require more responsibility on the part of the police officers. Also, I think tasers should be withdrawn from the police force since the ability to use them has given police officers an option of being less responsible when using force to apprehend a suspect and caused another means of excessive force while bureaucratically getting away with it.

So you're saying that guns are too powerful for police officers, yet less lethal alternatives maes them too irresponsible in the use of force, leaving the police officers with nothing?

euhm. sorry, but no.

4/5th of the guns used in european crime come from the eastern block countries. this also in countries like Switzerland where the laws are pretty relaxed.
your extrapolation makes no sense. it just shows they get their guns from another (usually illegal AND cheaper source). whowouldvethunkit? criminals going for illegal and cheap guns? wtf?

criminals aren't really likely to follow gunlaws.

It shows that you haven't read welsh's post, nor actually read more than just that one sentence in my post as I noted that in the rest of that bolded sentence.
The fact that criminals don't follow gun laws doesn't mean that they don't have an impact on them. The fact that almost all guns are out of state shows that gun laws don't just impact the legal market, but make it harder for criminals to get illegal guns as well. They have to resort to external sources for their guns, presumably increasing the cost of their guns as the risk for the sellers becomes greater. So it then becomes a problem of making those external sources less convenient and accessible. The fact that all guns come from out of state (or out of country) represents a burden on the criminals.

 

[Crni Vuk]

guns do give a feeling of empowerment, but again: in general guns used in crimes are not legally owned guns, not even where the gun laws are very lax... criminals do not follow laws...

Depends on the situation as I dont think about "the" sterotypical criminal.

It might change from situation to situation. Crimes involved with drugs might have lower tolerance regarding violance and thus guns for example compared to other means of criminal actions (thats just some example to make a point not any accurate oppinion it could be as well the other way around).

The reason as why I think gun control can work is that I have not seen many crimes in Germany that involve guns. It does happen but its very rare.

But this counts for Germany and what works here has not to work in other parts of the world of course. In places where some part of the population owns a big range of different firearms from assault rifles to bolt action and small arms you can not change such a system from one day to another.

Gun saftey though on the other hand is a different issue and I think here a lot of states in the US should do much more. And I dont see a reason why people that want to buy weapons should not be forced to visit some training about gun savety first for example (for the case thats not alraedy in place) or have laws that force people to secure their weapons with locks like a special safe for weapons which exists already. A lot of people have weapons which they store in the back of their house or garage without any kind of real savety which I think is just irresponsible.

*Edit
I agree with Sander. Only cause even with gun control criminals have access to guns doesnt mean its ineffective as that might as well just mean that we should remove all kind of restrictions and laws regarding drugs since many criminals still have access to those. You can not eliminate a form of crime completely. Thats impossible. But what you have to do is to make it as difficult as possible for them.

 

[SuAside]

It shows that you haven't read welsh's post, nor actually read more than just that one sentence in my post as I noted that in the rest of that bolded sentence.
The fact that criminals don't follow gun laws doesn't mean that they don't have an impact on them. The fact that almost all guns are out of state shows that gun laws don't just impact the legal market, but make it harder for criminals to get illegal guns as well. They have to resort to external sources for their guns, presumably increasing the cost of their guns as the risk for the sellers becomes greater. So it then becomes a problem of making those external sources less convenient and accessible. The fact that all guns come from out of state (or out of country) represents a burden on the criminals.

no, the point is that legal guns are always a fuckton more expensive than illegal ones, regardless of the gunlaws (strict or lax). and that illegal guns are nearly always imported.

the burden? the cost of import? very fucking small and negligible compared to the cost of legal weapons, Sander.

why are (or were, rather, in the 1990's) so many armored money transfer trucks held up with illegally imported full auto ex-commblock AKs in the Benelux region? why not with legal FN FALs or L1A1 (very popular ex-military rifle in the Benelux, and very present in the recreational shooting community)? AKs cost a fuckton less, cannot be traced (never registered, so no loose ends) and do the job just fine...

i can agree that some gun laws are required and that these obviously affect the market (both for legal owners and criminals), but once you go past moderate gunlaws, it really doesn't change anything for the criminals. it's only the law abiding citizen that is affected because he ends up paying more / waiting longer etc for something that doesn't doesn't even remotely affect the average criminal.

both ends of the spectrum are very bad:
- extremely lax gunlaws: nothing is registered, anyone can buy anything. then yes, a lot of weapons will find their way into crime.
- extremely tight gun laws: nothing is allowed. only criminals and police have guns.

but once you go into moderate territory, not a whole lot changes if you pile on stricter gunlaws. criminals will continue to use illegally acquired guns (and that's for the vast majority imported gear), and the law abiding citizens will continue to jump through hoops and pay the higher price.

The reason as why I think gun control can work is that I have not seen many crimes in Germany that involve guns. It does happen but its very rare.

But this counts for Germany and what works here has not to work in other parts of the world of course. In places where some part of the population owns a big range of different firearms from assault rifles to bolt action and small arms you can not change such a system from one day to another.

yet Germany has one of the highest firearms per capita in Europe and an active sportshooting community...

the laws there are a huge pain in the ass for most sportshooters though, but still manageable. i doubt you'd see any difference in crime if you lightened the laws a bit.

Gun saftey though on the other hand is a different issue and I think here a lot of states in the US should do much more. And I dont see a reason why people that want to buy weapons should not be forced to visit some training about gun savety first for example (for the case thats not alraedy in place) or have laws that force people to secure their weapons with locks like a special safe for weapons which exists already. A lot of people have weapons which they store in the back of their house or garage without any kind of real savety which I think is just irresponsible.

yes, but the better you lock it up, the harder it is to get to in the event that you need it.

here, i need a triggerlock, a gunsafe, seperate the weapon from the ammo and so on. if someone breaks in, i likely wont have the time to get everything out. ironically, i'll just grab my old WW2 rifle (because i don't need to lock thatone up, only the ammo for it), grab ammo and let the nice 'click clack' sound ring through the house. this instead of my Sig X-Five pistol... it's retarded. this while Belgium has a version of the castle doctrine. pure law says that if someone climbs your fence at night, you can shoot the fucker.

now, i wouldn't implement it that way, obviously, but too much safety means you impede a person's right to self-defense. maybe you can defend yourself with your baseball bat, but granny only got the .38Spl to work with.

(not that i feel much need to defend myself, but it -could- happen, although the chances are EXTREMELY slim)

I agree with Sander. Only cause even with gun control criminals have access to guns doesnt mean its ineffective as that might as well just mean that we should remove all kind of restrictions and laws regarding drugs since many criminals still have access to those. You can not eliminate a form of crime completely. Thats impossible. But what you have to do is to make it as difficult as possible for them.

i've never advocated removing all gunlaws. that'd be plain silly.

the problem is, where does the price of impeding criminals who'll get theirs anyway, become too much for the law abiding citizen and starts impeding the freedom of the law abiding citizen.

quite frankly, we could just outlaw all alcohol because alcohol kills a whole lot of people in traffic every year, causes organ failure, is used to getting people drunk & abused and it instigates a fuckton of barfights each year...

so away with alcohol i say! wait, you don't want that? why not? it's evil? oh, people would riot and demand their freedom to consume alcohol if they want to? a lot of users are perfectly fine & it's only extremes that are the issue? well, ok, let's keep alcohol and require proper 16+ y.o. ID and do D.U.I. check on the public roads to make sure no one drinks & drives.

you can draw the parallel yourself.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yet Germany has one of the highest firearms per capita in Europe and an active sportshooting community...

the laws there are a huge pain in the ass for most sportshooters though, but still manageable. i doubt you'd see any difference in crime if you lightened the laws a bit.

I dont see a real issue with that. Particularly when most people are as you say "sportshooters" which spend much time to learn usualy the safety around their weapons and when to use them. Most of them if not all of them do not own the guns for self defence but for the sport which is a significant difference in my eyes. By the way It would be intersting to know how they count those numbers as I heard that most sportshooters have more then 3 fire arms usualy for every of the different discplines from hand guns to rifles and such. So that might increase the number of weapons per citizen. I dont know.

yes, but the better you lock it up, the harder it is to get to in the event that you need it.

here, i need a triggerlock, a gunsafe, seperate the weapon from the ammo and so on. if someone breaks in, i likely wont have the time to get everything out. ironically, i'll just grab my old WW2 rifle (because i don't need to lock thatone up, only the ammo for it), grab ammo and let the nice 'click clack' sound ring through the house. this instead of my Sig X-Five pistol... it's retarded. this while Belgium has a version of the castle doctrine. pure law says that if someone climbs your fence at night, you can shoot the fucker.

That might be some issue I agree. But on the other side ... its neither a option to have the guns somewhere around without any kind of safety when you have small kidz runing around in your home I guess. Even if you teach them. Even if you tell them. They are still children and children dont do always what you tell them.

By the way there are from what I have read better ways to protect your home from criminals then "guns". For example the right doors and locks. Most criminals give up to break inside after the first 30 or 40 sec. if I remember correctly (for Germany) now the issue is that most people haev only very generic locks in their doors which can be opened by a usual criminal in less then 10 sec. Well the chance of self defence might be there then with guns. But I would trhust other systems first before using a gun like some alarm which is less expensive then most guns and can also be conected with the police or to the company where you purchased the alarm system and usualy the arrive in less then 5 min.


Its interesting to see here though the difference in oppinions which is really a good thing in my eyes.

 

[SuAside]

I dont see a real issue with that. Particularly when most people are as you say "sportshooters" which spend much time to learn usualy the safety around their weapons and when to use them. Most of them if not all of them do not own the guns for self defence but for the sport which is a significant difference in my eyes. By the way It would be intersting to know how they count those numbers as I heard that most sportshooters have more then 3 fire arms usualy for every of the different discplines from hand guns to rifles and such. So that might increase the number of weapons per citizen. I dont know.

of course. most gunowners own multiple guns, but there are no figures available about the amount of gunowners, only the amount of permits and so on.

in Germany, i'd estimate that a little less than 1 in 10 owns a gun, yet there are 35 firearms per 100 inhabitants in the country.

same goes for me, i have multiple. it's hard to be a sportshooter or recreational shooter and restrict your collection to a single firearm. damn near impossible i'd say. even for hunters.

That might be some issue I agree. But on the other side ... its neither a option to have the guns somewhere around without any kind of safety when you have small kidz runing around in your home I guess. Even if you teach them. Even if you tell them. They are still children and children dont do always what you tell them.

i find it unreasonable that i cannot have a weaponssafe with both my firearms and my ammunition inside. i can also not store or transport any loaded magazines.

so now, i need a seperate room with a doorlock, with in it a gunsafe for my firearms and a seperate lockbox for my ammo.
wouldn't it be reasonable to allow people to store at least one magazine with a weapon in the gunsafe? just in case?

chances of you ever needing it are slim to none, but still, it's kinda robbing people of their rights to self-defense in my eyes.

By the way there are from what I have read better ways to protect your home from criminals then "guns". For example the right doors and locks. Most criminals give up to break inside after the first 30 or 40 sec. if I remember correctly (for Germany) now the issue is that most people haev only very generic locks in their doors which can be opened by a usual criminal in less then 10 sec. Well the chance of self defence might be there then with guns. But I would trhust other systems first before using a gun like some alarm which is less expensive then most guns and can also be conected with the police or to the company where you purchased the alarm system and usualy the arrive in less then 5 min.

euhm, no.

sorry, i do not know any country where you can guarantee that cops will be on the scene in 5 minutes. besides, in 5 minutes you can be just as dead.

besides, there are many tests of those supposedly 'quality locks' and they break just as easily. if you want safety, you need half a vault door, reinforced windows that you never open and so on and so forth.

besides, no alarm system and quality doorlock can protect you from everything. half a dozen or so of dobbermans might come close though.

 

[TheWesDude]

for a good locked door you need a metal door, dead bolt, and steel reinforced door frame.

if you dont get the steel reinforced door frame...

its only as strong as its weakest point, dont matter how good your door is if they can kick it in easily because the wooden frame will break.

 

[Crni Vuk]

now the question is how many criminals "kick" the door in. You know the mentalitly of most housebreaker usualy is not to kick your door and enter your house all guns blazing like rambo. Cause well if they have the chance not to deal with the house owner directly most would I guess go for that. And peoople would be surprised how well rather "thin" small wooden door can protect your home from someone who wants to "kick" in it. I worked long enough with the firebrigade in my town and all the times we had to enter some home for what ever reason never ever tried someome seriously to "kick" the door in as that usualy has no success.

As said I have read somewhere a study/documentation which told that in Germany at least after 30-40 sec. almost all housebreakers give up to get in the house and just move on to the next objective.

YOu dont need a steel door made from RH steel armor. All you need is a good lock and somewhat good door. As said thats what someone from a lock and key service said. What he sugested was to get a "cover" like a steel plate infront for your lock for example that you can open only with the back of your key which meant that the housebreaker would not be able to use his most usual tools that every one can buy in some do-it-yourself store.

And maybe one has as well to get used to the thought that you never ever can get perfect savety. not even with a gun and that it might all just be something to keep up the illusion you could control a situation. particularly when you have a situation in which someome breaks in your home and you have the luck to notice it go for you gun and try to face the criminal the chance is as well there that he might shoot you and not you him cause you never can know what will happen.

 

[fallout_fan]

UK citizens had thier guns taken away and the crime rate in the UK actually went up. Not down. Boo, Booo I say to the idea.

You cant punish all because a few cause problems. What a very militaristic way to punish people. My dad was in the Army and served in Vietnam, 2 tours. He said when one guy f*cked up they all ended up paying for it some times. Im talking about basic training. Thats not good to force that mentality on all of society. I hated it when I was in school.

No one will ever take away my avenger mini gun or my plasma rifle. Or my Gauss Rifle.

 

[Crni Vuk]

UK citizens had thier guns taken away and the crime rate in the UK actually went up. Not down. Boo, Booo I say to the idea.
...

You have some source for that kind of claim or just made that up from ?

 

[Tagaziel]

UK citizens had thier guns taken away and the crime rate in the UK actually went up. Not down. Boo, Booo I say to the idea.

Whereas in other places gun ownership also coincided with soaring crime rates and vice versa. Gun ownership is not really that much connected to crime rates, social policies and welfare is.

The more disgruntled your populace is, the more likely it is for criminals to emerge. And on the contrary, the more content it is, the less people are inclined to crime, just look at Poland.

From almost a hellhole in the transition years (early-to-mid 1990s) when gang warfare was on the rise and the police helpless we're slowly shaping up to be a pretty decent place to live in, safety-wise. Crime rates have been steadily falling for the past four years, yet gun ownership is strictly limited.

Also, fallout_fan, don't double post.

 

[SuAside]

UK citizens had thier guns taken away and the crime rate in the UK actually went up. Not down. Boo, Booo I say to the idea.
...

You have some source for that kind of claim or just made that up from ?

www.gunfacts.info lists nearly all sources for info like that.

the figures are mostly correct, but take the rest with a grain of salt.

 

[fallout_fan]

UK citizens had thier guns taken away and the crime rate in the UK actually went up. Not down. Boo, Booo I say to the idea.
...

You have some source for that kind of claim or just made that up from ?

I saw it on youtube video. I could track it down maybe. Or if you want you can serach for it. It should still be up. It had interviews from citizens and the police.

 

[welsh]

Hey Dopemine, sorry it took a while to respond-

My opinion on gun laws has changed a bit and become a bit more sympathetic to gun owners. Truth is, most of the guns out there won't be used to hurt someone, most won't be used for crime. I have plenty of gun owning friends.

I see gun violence in two general categories- that which involves criminals (1) which is mostly a minority, urban problem, and (2) the murder rates that affect rural and suburban whites. To me, crime is more often a problem driven by social and economic factors. Switzerland and other countries that have high guns per capita and low violence frequently have very good social safety nets to reduce crime. In the US, those don't exist. If we were to improve those conditions, perhaps gun violence would go down overall. But that's too expensive for taxpayers in the US so it won't happen. WHy do you have more crime in London and UK- in part because you had an increase in drug related crime. Drug related crime is often a cash based industry- requiring that participants protect themselves and fight for control of commerce.

DId loss of guns increase crime in the UK. Or did the ease of gun laws in Georgia increase gun violence in Atlanta. Or perhaps the main reasons are fundamentally social and economic.

Add a gun to an argument or altercation and things tend to get more dangerous more quickly. It is the added element of lethality that makes guns dangerous. Does that added lethality also empower a person to commit crimes and lead to more crime? Maybe. You can hold up a store with a knife, but its more effective with a gun.

I think the debate has often been blown into "all or nothing" a false dichotomy in which either you can own a gun or you can't. I don't think that debate makes much sense. THe problem isn't guns per se, but trying to reduce the number of deaths in public caused by guns. Hunting, target shooting, even collecting- I am fine with- provided that care is taken to control the risk of violence to other human beings.

We live in a very different time than when the 2nd Amendment was passed. Lewis and Clarke had not gotten to Oregon, the Blue Ridge was the frontier. I am also not a strict constructivist to the Constitution, but see it as a living document that should be interpreted somewhat conservatively- because law calls for stability. We needed a militia during much of that time, now its called the National Guard.

What about the private militia's? Honestly, I am not keen on private militaries, not isn a democratic state. Private militaries exist for reasons. Back in the 80s it was survivalists getting ready for nuclear Armageddon. Nutty, but nothing illegal about it. Tie that up to groups that break the law (The KKK and the Jewish Defense Organization both had military training camps), and you got protential problems. Even if put private armed groups on the border to protect against illegal immigration, you run a risk of uncontrolled of violence on the border, which is dangerous.

Private militaries are organizations based on the idea of doing violence. All organizations mobilize bias- the question is what is that bias for or against (and ideally not againt you).

In a democratic society, use of violence to achieve political or social change is despotism.

I also support constraints on the police for much of the same reason. It is possible that the police could use violence for illegal reasons. But normally the police must account for their use of guns. What are the controls, I am not sure. They used to be fairly strict. As for tazars, I think a lot of folks have been killed by those, so I think we need to find better non-lethal weapons. The goal should be the preservation of human life.

Which kind of leads me to respond to Suaside-

Suaside- you argue that the inability for you to reach your gun, because you have to go through locks and reload, etc., is not enough time for you to arm yourself in the event of a break in.

Fair enough. But I would be curious as to why those gun laws are passed. Was it to prevent children from shooting themselves because they could get their hands on guns? Was it to reduce the possibility of guns being stolen? Was it, as was suggested above, a chance to force someone who is suicidal to have added pause before they take a fatal step. Or perhaps the idea was that while someone is going through the locks and loading their gun, their spouse has a chance to get out the door before she's shot.

As I said, I believe that gun crime takes place in two ways. First, its through some form of organized (if at socially informal way) violence. Drug gangs, street violence involving poor neighborhoods, often takes this form. These are conditions where the state has failed to provide alternative means to resolve social problems- leading to increased crime.

Most crime, at least in the US, takes place among like groups. Poor blacks normally kill poor blacks. Middle class whites often kill middle class whites.

If you're going to be killed (and you're middle class and white), its probably not the black kid dealing drugs that will kill you unless you're poor and black. If you are middle class and white and you're going to be shot, its going to be someone you know who is pissed off with you. It will be your husband, your boyfriend, your child, your friend- for reasons that are very personal.

Can you control that? I don't know. I hope so.

But, I think you can limit the number of guns that get to criminals or criminal organizations and leave the ability of normal law abiders to get guns fairly safe. I think that's where the debate needs to go.

Why doesn't it- partially because there are extreme voices on both sides. But I also think its largely the result of the industry- which has a very strong interest in keeping guns available to the public. They have to stay in business.

We have to think realistically about gun violence. We talk about school shootings, but most child killings take place outside of school- in the neighborhoods kids need to cross to get to school- sometimes by other children who, at 14, are entering the drug trade. Or its a kid who shoots kid by accident, or shoots himself. Those kinds of deaths we can control for.

I am not sure what is the risk of having a break in by criminal in Belgium or elsewhere in Europe. But I do believe the findings that having guns in the home increases the risk of gun violence inside that house rather than decreases it, at least in the US. I don't think guns make you safer, but actually increase the risk of danger to those who live in the house.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Thanks for the response Welsh.

-Sander- My question and theory has more to do with police procedure than limiting their abilities. I've seen many situations where a police officer could detain a subject easily with use of unarmed techniques taught at academies while they train, but are to lazy to use them. Being a martial arts and unarmed combat enthusiast, I know that alot of situations could be solved easily with apporpriate use of leverage that is nonleathal and nonmaiming toward the suspect. These skills and routines are taught at most if not all law enforcement institutions, but the officer seems more comfortable with the idea of punching/kicking/stomping/macing/tasering/ the suspect when he is perfectly able to subdue a suspect using unarmed techniques. The idea of limiting these options that cause potentially life threatening and debilitating injuries will force the officer to be responsible and use diplomacy and standard disarming and restraining maneuvers that he is suppose to employ. using unarmed techniques.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4[/youtube]

The number of officers at the scene and training they have do not justify the use of force they used. They badgered the suspect during interview, and when laying in a face down position, which if you know anything about unarmed combat, means that he is in know way a threat unless armed, proceeded to taser him.

This is just one example of many in the United States. If this type of mentality is the status quo of law enforcement in the United States, then they are children that are not responsible enough to have pepperspray or tasers. Having a firearm, as Welsh stated, and using it would not be an option because it would be reviewed by committee and ect. Tasering, and these "Less Leathal Methods" avoid bureaucracy, and can be employedby the officer with no consequences.

 

[Radwaster]

Crni Vuk wrote:

You know the mentalitly of most housebreaker usualy is not to kick your door and enter your house all guns blazing like rambo. Cause well if they have the chance not to deal with the house owner directly most would I guess go for that. And peoople would be surprised how well rather "thin" small wooden door can protect your home from someone who wants to "kick" in it. I worked long enough with the firebrigade in my town and all the times we had to enter some home for what ever reason never ever tried someome seriously to "kick" the door in as that usualy has no success.

You must have stronger doors in Germany than we have in the UK then. I've had housebreakers kick back doors in twice. First time I came home and caught the bastard, sat on him until g/f called the cops out. Second time I was in bed and chased two bastards out with the wakizashi.
I've kicked a few doors in myself (only when I've lost my keys) and honestly if you kick in the right spot they mostly break open in 2 or 3 kicks.

I've no interest in owning a gun though.

 

[SuAside]

But I would be curious as to why those gun laws are passed. Was it to prevent children from shooting themselves because they could get their hands on guns? Was it to reduce the possibility of guns being stolen? Was it, as was suggested above, a chance to force someone who is suicidal to have added pause before they take a fatal step. Or perhaps the idea was that while someone is going through the locks and loading their gun, their spouse has a chance to get out the door before she's shot.

all of the above, regardless of that fact that we had VERY little issues before... but you know, one kid dead is too much, even if he did steal his father's key, got into the gunsafe and killed himself...

anyhow, the real reason why the laws were actually rushed through parliament was some neo-nazi dumbass bought a .22LR lever action rifle in Antwerp (which previously did not require any permits since it was regarded as suited for pest-control). he then proceeded in killing a few people, including a child.

public outrage was terrible and they passed the law in 2 days flat.

of course, the law was impossible to put into action, so a few months later they had to rewrite the whole thing.

anyhow, i agree that you need a sportshooting license or a gun permit to buy a rifle, even if it's a .22LR. and that getting those requires passing background checks, a physical exam and a theoretical and practical gun safety exam.
but hell... some stuff is getting ridiculous. not to mention that some of the services that provide the gun permits slow down the proces of getting one willingly. it's all up to the gouvernor. in one province, you can get it in 2 weeks, in my province you can get it in 6 months, if you're lucky enough. but that's another issue entirely, i guess.

too little of the gun laws are actually written by people who know guns and know what helps and what's just stupid... it's funny really. most of this kinda stuff is simply based on misinformation and stereotyping.

but of course, the standards that we regard as normal (permits, background checks, exams) are not as acceptable in many circles in the US. i'm pro-gun, but in the US some might regard me as anti-gun.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You must have stronger doors in Germany than we have in the UK then. I've had housebreakers kick back doors in twice. First time I came home and caught the bastard, sat on him until g/f called the cops out. Second time I was in bed and chased two bastards out with the wakizashi.
I've kicked a few doors in myself (only when I've lost my keys) and honestly if you kick in the right spot they mostly break open in 2 or 3 kicks.

I've no interest in owning a gun though.

Well yeah. Of course I can only talk for Germany and the usual "apartments" which we have here most of the time. Which means that you have at least 2 doors to overcome the entrance door and the door to the actual apartment (probably the same everywhere) and the entrance door is usualy pretty good. Now the usual family home has a pretty strong door which isnt really easy to kick in neither.

 

[equilerex]

try living in dorms with doors made out of paper... 2 arab fucks hit my door in with just a foot while i was at work and ran off with the laptop... sure made me paranoid from there on.

wouldn't really want guns since then the "bad guys" will be more likely to have them too (unorganised random hoodloms from the getto over the street that is).... good old baseball bat should do pretty well i bet... then again, they normally dont try to get in when you're at home... student housing sucks....

 

[DammitBoy]

Did loss of guns increase crime in the UK. Or did the ease of gun laws in Georgia increase gun violence in Atlanta. Or perhaps the main reasons are fundamentally social and economic.

What increased gun violence in Atlanta was an influx of black gang bangers and an increase in illicit drug trade.

What you should be asking is why did crime damn near come to a skreeching halt in Kennesaw, Ga. (a small town absorbed by Atlanta) when they made it mandatory for every head of household to own a handgun.

According to you, all those guns in households should have meant an increase in gun related violence - since you say guns escalate arguments and alterctions. In reality, the actual facts show that Kennesaw has shown long standing declines in all violent crime.

Why do you suppose that is?